Bikeway System Cost Estimate
summary
|
||||||
|
Jurisdiction/City |
Total # of projects |
Miles of Class I |
Miles
of Class II |
Miles
of Class III |
Total
Length |
Estimated
Cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City
of Arcata |
30 |
4.2 |
6.4 |
13.6 |
24.2 |
$2,820,228 |
|
City
of Blue Lake |
5 |
1.2 |
0.3 |
2.5 |
4.1 |
$367,918 |
|
City
of Eureka |
24 |
3.4 |
2.4 |
18.9 |
23.6 |
$1,993,698 |
|
City
of Ferndale |
6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
$4,403 |
|
City
of Fortuna |
10 |
0.0 |
8.8 |
1.7 |
11.6 |
$634,935 |
|
City
of Rio Dell |
9 |
0.3 |
1.9 |
0.8 |
5.0 |
$187,155 |
|
City
of Trinidad |
6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.2 |
4.2 |
$9,787 |
|
County
of Humboldt |
46 |
36.5 |
18.2 |
355.9 |
410.6 |
$11,044,967 |
|
Total System |
136 |
45.6 |
38.0 |
400.2 |
485.9 |
$17,063,091 |
5.3 Implementation process
The steps between
the network improvements and concepts identified in this Plan and the final
completion of the improvements will vary from project to project, but typically
include:
1.
Adoption of the
Bicycle Transportation Plan by each local agency.
2.
Preparation of
a Feasibility Study involving a conceptual design (with consideration of
possible alternatives and environmental issues) and cost estimate for
individual projects as needed.
3.
Secure, as
necessary, outside funding and any applicable environmental approvals.
4.
Approval of the
project by the Planning Commission and the City Council, including the
commitment by the latter to provide for any unfunded portions of project costs.
5.
Completion of
final plans, specifications and estimates, advertising for bids, receipt of
bids and award of contract(s).
6. Construction of Project.
Once a bikeway system has
been identified, the greatest challenge is to identify the top projects that
will offer the greatest benefit to bicyclists in the next five years. Aside from the criteria used in developing
the system as a whole, selection of the high priority projects is based on (a)
cost and construction. The proposed projects and existing and proposed
countywide programs are described in Chapter 3.
5.4 FUNDING SOURCES
There are a variety of potential funding sources from local, State, regional, and Federal funding programs that can be used to construct the proposed bicycle improvements contained within this Plan. Non-motorized transportation is gaining reputability across the nation. Accordingly, policy support and additional funding have recently been made available for bicycle transportation improvements. This has been true on the local and state level thanks to the 1994 California Bicycle Transportation Act. This has also been the case on the federal level through:
·
1990 Clean Air
Act,
·
1991
Inter-Modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and
·
1998
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21).
These laws have called for increased spending on bicycle travel and allow communities more flexibility in spending highway funding on alternative modes, such as bicycling, walking, and transit. Already, these laws have led to over a billion dollars in bicycle, trail and pedestrian projects nationwide, and thousands of miles in new bicycle lanes, sidewalks, multi-use trails and other non-motorized enhancements.
Most Federal, State, and regional programs are competitive, and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of the project need, costs, and benefits. Local funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects typically comes from Transportation Development Act (tda) funding, which is prorated to each county based on return of gasoline taxes. Funding for many of the programs would need to be funded either with tda; general fund (staff time); and regional, State, and Federal sources.
The region has historically invested approximately $150,000 annually on bicycle facilities with various improvements spread among the jurisdictions. This money has been derived from a variety of sources: TEA-21 programs, Bicycle Transportation Account (bta), impact fees, sales tax revenue, etc. The bikeway investments have been in various forms including roadway overlays or re-striping efforts, simultaneous roadway construction and improvement projects, and the installation of additional bike parking, in many cases as a result of new development.
Proposed improvements and programs to be developed over the next 10 years in Humboldt County have been analyzed to determine the annual financing requirements, and to allow the respective agency to budget its resources and target funding applications. It is important to note that the majority of funding for bicycle projects is expected to be derived from Federal sources. These funding sources are extremely competitive, and require a combination of sound applications, local support, and lobbying on the regional and state level.
Several of the major potential competitive source grant funding programs are described below:
5.4.1 FEDERAL SOURCES
TEA-21
Federal funding through the TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) program has provided much of the funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. TEA-21 currently contains three major programs, stp (Surface Transportation Program), tea (Transportation Enhancement Activities), and cmaq (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement) along with other programs such as the National Recreational Trails Program, Section 402 (Safety) funds, Scenic Byways funds, and Federal Lands Highway funds.
TEA-21
funding is administered through the state (Caltrans or Resources Agency) and
regional governments (Authority). Most,
but not all, of the funding programs are transportation versus recreational
oriented, with an emphasis on (a) reducing auto trips and (b) providing an
intermodal connection. Funding criteria
often includes completion and adoption of a bicycle and/or pedestrian master
plan, quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (such as saved
vehicle trips and reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and
support, ceqa compliance, and commitment of some local resources. In most cases, TEA-21 provides matching
grants of 80 to 90 percent, but prefers to leverage other moneys at a lower
rate.
All TEA-21 funds have been programmed. TEA-21 was to expire on September 30, 2003, but was recently extended into 2004. The successor legislation, which is currently known as SAFETEA (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003), will be a future source of funds. This new legislation is expected to come with additional categories of funding and guidelines, several of which are anticipated to be dedicated to non-motorized transportation.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds are programmed by TEA-21 for projects that are likely to contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality standard, and congestion mitigation. These funds can be used for a broad variety of bicycle and pedestrian projects, particularly those that are developed primarily for transportation purposes. The funds can be used either for construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways or for non-construction projects related to safe bicycle and pedestrian use (maps, brochures, etc.). The projects must be tied to a plan adopted by the State and RTPA.
National Highway System
National Highway System funds are for improvements to the National Highway System (NHS), which consists of an interconnected system of principal arterial routes that serve major population centers, international border crossings, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities as well as other major travel destinations. These funds can be used to provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities constructed on NHS routes.
Federal Lands Highway Funds
Federal Lands Highway funds may be used to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities in conjunction with roads and parkways at the discretion of the department charged with administration of the funds on Federal Lands. The projects must be transportation-related and tied to a plan adopted by the State and RTPA.
5.4.2 state SOURCES
Bicycle Transportation Account
The state Bicycle Transportation Account (bta) is an annual statewide discretionary program that is available through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit for funding bicycle projects. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. Funding that is available on a statewide basis amounts to $7.2 million annually.
Safe
Routes to School (SB 10)
The Safe Routes to School program is a State program using federal transportation funds. This program is meant to improve school commute routes through construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects. A local match of 11.5% is required for this competitive program, which will allocate $18 million annually. Since it is a construction program, planning grants are not available through this program. Programs or activities related to education, enforcement, or encouragement may be eligible for reimbursement if they are related to the construction improvement.
Office of Traffic Safety
The
California Office of Traffic Safety has the mission to obtain and effectively
administer traffic safety grant funds to reduce deaths, injuries and economic
losses resulting from traffic related collisions in California. OTS distributes federal funding apportioned
to California under the National Highway Safety Act and the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
Grants are used to mitigate traffic safety program deficiencies, expand
ongoing activity, or develop a new program.
Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can
traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation,
or construction.
OTS grants address several traffic safety priority areas including Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. Eligible activities include programs to increase safety awareness and skills among pedestrians and bicyclists. Concepts may encompass activities such as safety programs, education, enforcement, traffic safety and bicycle rodeos, safety helmet distribution, and court diversion programs for safety helmet violators.
National Recreational Trails Fund
The Recreational Trails Program provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other non-motorized as well as motorized uses.
Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:
·
Maintenance and
restoration of existing trails;
·
Development and
rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages;
·
Purchase and
lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment;
·
Construction of
new trails (with restrictions for new trails on federal lands);
·
Acquisition of
easements or property for trails;
·
State
administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a
State's funds); and
·
Operation of
educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to
trails (limited to five percent of a State's funds).
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program
Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation Program Funds are allocated to projects that offset
environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities
including streets, mass transit guideways, park-n-ride facilities, transit
stations, tree planting to equalize the effects of vehicular emissions, and the
acquisition or development of roadside recreational facilities, such as trails.
State gasoline tax monies fund the EEMP.
This program represents an outstanding opportunity to fund improvements
in the Eureka-Arcata corridor as mitigation to the ongoing work on US 101.
State Coastal Conservancy
The SCC manages several programs that provide grant funds for coastal trails, access, and habitat restoration projects. The funding cycle for these programs is open. Funds are available to local units of government as well as non-profits.
The Conservancy has provided significant funds for study and implementation of coastal public access development and resource conservation in the Humboldt Bay region. The SCC may be a funding source for bicycle facilities that improve access to and around the Bay as well as other coastal areas in County.
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
These funds are a portion of the State Transportation Improvement Program. Humboldt County Association of Governments, acting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency in the area, is responsible for allocating Humboldt County’s share of the funding. Funds from this source can be attributed to bicycle transportation projects.
5.4.3 Regional SOURCES
TDA Article III (SB 821)
Transportation Development Act (tda) Article III funds are awarded annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. These funds originate from the state gasoline tax and are distributed according to population by Humboldt County Association of Governments on a yearly basis to local jurisdictions.
Air Quality Management District (AB 2766)
The North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (NCUAQMD) has two vehicular pollution prevention programs that could be applied to development of bicycle facilities or programs. The Air Quality Partnership (AQP) program is intended to protect public health in Humboldt, Del Norte and Trinity Counties. The program seeks to improve air quality in partnership with local public, private and non-profit entities by supporting small scale projects aimed at reducing emissions from motor vehicles. With two funding cycles per year, project funding is limited to $3,000 and each proposing entity is limited to one funded project per six-month period.
Larger grants from the NCUAQMD are available annually through the AB 2766 program. About $90,000 was been allocated in the 2002-2003 fiscal year for technical studies, monitoring, planning, and implementation of the District’s ‘Particulate Matter Attainment Plan’. Funding preference is given to projects that result in reduction of particulate matter from heavy duty diesel motor vehicles, rideshare and/or transit programs implemented by or under direct contract to local government entities, and the installation of physical devices or facilities that directly or indirectly reduce motor vehicle emissions.
5.4.4 Local SOURCES
Direct Local Jurisdiction Funding
Local jurisdictions can fund bicycle and pedestrian projects using a variety of sources. A city’s general funds are often earmarked for non-motorized transportation projects, especially sidewalk and ada improvements.
Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing bike lanes and sidewalks. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide these facilities where needed, appropriate, and feasible, it is important that an effective review process is in place so that new roads meet the standards and guidelines presented in this Plan.
Impact fees
Another potential local source of funding is developer impact fees, typically tied to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site pedestrian and bikeway improvements, which will encourage residents to walk and bicycle rather than drive. In-lieu parking fees may be used to help construct new or improved bicycle parking. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project’s impacts is critical in avoiding a potential lawsuit.
Special Taxing Districts
Special taxing districts, such as redevelopment districts, can be good instruments to finance new infrastructure – including shared use trails and sidewalks - within specified areas. New facilities are funded by assessments placed on those that are directly benefited by the improvements rather than the general public. In a “tax increment financing (tif) district, taxes are collected on property value increases above the base year assessed property value. This money can then be utilized for capital improvements within the district. tif’s are especially beneficial in downtown redevelopment districts.
These districts are established by a petition from landowners to a local government. The districts can operate independently from the local government and some are established for single purposes, such as roadway construction.
Other
Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Parking meter revenues may be used according to local ordinance. Volunteer programs may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways. Use of groups such as the California Conservation Corp (who offer low-cost assistance) will be effective at reducing project costs. Local schools or community groups may use the bikeway or pedestrian project as a project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties may be formed to help clear the right of way where needed. A local construction company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, where corporations “adopt” a bikeway and help construct and maintain the facility.
Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time, which may be used to implement the system.
Table 5.1 summarizes a number of funding sources - in addition to those listed above -available for both bicycle and pedestrian projects.