Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChap8_Implementation Chapter 8 defines the recommended trail system improvements as speciic projects and provide construction costs. See Figure 8-1, Proposed Trail Segments, for a graphic overview of the proposed trail segments. Note that bikeways are not tabulated because most of the roadways on which bikeway facilities are proposed already exist and virtually all of the proposed bikeways are programmed. Typical bikeway cost ranges are described in Sections 8.3.1 to 8.3.3. The availability of federal bikeway funding requires the fulfillment of very specific Caltrans facility criteria. (See Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design.) Trails do not have to comply with these criteria if federal bikeway funding is not sought. Caltrans eligibility confers a very specific set of facility requirements, while trail configurations can vary considerably. See Table 8-1, Typical Construction Costs, for general costs. For a description of each segment, see Table 8-2 and the specific segment cost analyses spreadsheets in Appendix B. The remaining sections of this chapter describe the funding sources available for trail and bikeway projects, followed by a summary, Tables 8-3A and B, Trail and Bikeway Facility Funding Summary. 8.1 Specific Projects These are locations that either do not currently function optimally for pedestrian or cyclist safety or they do not yet exist as viable facilities. The changes needed can range from restriping and signage to complete reconfiguration. However, for this master plan, their projects costs would be considered to be only the restriping and signage needed to complete the improvements. The costs of actual reconstruction for recommended reconfiguration is not included because the level of construction is not known. The necessary reconstruction is described in the following paragraphs, but not tallied. 8.1.1 I-15 Crossings According to public input, undercrossings of I-15 are probably the most desired new facilities of all in Temecula. Even experienced cyclists prefer not to cross I-15 at any of the current at-grade intersections. The number of crossings is limited, of course, and not all non-motorized trips can conveniently take advantage of the Santiago Road overcrossing, for example, which has no on or off ramps connecting to I-15. At least two other crossing should be considered, particularly in conjunction with proposed creek paths along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Temecula Creek. These crossing points would benefit commuter and recreational non-motorized trail users alike since they would provide additional convenient crossings as well as provide them along scenic routes. They were mentioned most frequently in questionnaires by both equestrians and commuter cyclists. 8.1.2 Creek Crossings Creek crossings separate from roadways were another common questionnaire request. Several creek crossing locations around the City would make a multi-use trail system safer and more convenient for all non-motorized users, especially if these crossings can be implemented to avoid motor vehicle traffic. For example, several crossings have been proposed along Murrieta Creek. (See Figure 7-4, Murrieta Creek Conditions.) The I-15 undercrossings mentioned in the previous section could reasonably be extended westward to connect to bridges over Murrieta Creek. In addition to these two crossing points, crossings of Santa Gertrudis Creek near Ynez Road, Temecula Creek near Jedediah Smith Road and at least one other location eastward would provide sufficient choices for non-motorized trail users. 8.2 Trail and Bikeway Development Priorities The factors used in prioritizing the implementation of potential trail and bikeway projects included consideration of probable demand, available funding, regional significance and transportational efficiency. With these criteria, the proposed Murrieta Creek segment was given first priority, Chapter Eight IMPLEMENTATION Implementation City of Temecula Page 8-2 Chapter 8 followed by the segment along Temecula Creek. The segment numbering in Figure 7-1, Proposed Trail System, reflects the recommended priority sequence. This prioritization scheme is not intended to preclude development of some segments in favor of others. It merely serves as a guide should undesignated funding for trails emerges. The numbering of the segments only reflects their suggested priority, and should funding for a particular segment unexpectedly become available, implementation should be actively pursued. (See Figure 8-1 and Table 8-2, Proposed Trail Segments, for more information.) 8.3 Typical Unit Construction Costs Typical Construction Costs Table 8-1 Description Unit Unit Cost Clearing and Grubbing Linear Foot (LF) $10.00-$30.00 Excavation Cubic Yard (CY) $30.00-$40.00 Asphalt Pavement (4") Square Foot (SF) $1.20-$1.50 Polymer-Stabilized Soil Square Foot (SF) $1.00-$2.50 Bike Lane Striping Linear Foot (LF) $0.60-$0.80 Pavement Markings Each ( EA) EA) $40.00-$50.00 Fencing (Chain link) Linear Foot (LF) $16.00-$20.00 Guardrail Linear Foot (LF) $20.00-$25.00 8' Steel or Concrete Bridge Linear Foot (LF) $1,200-$1,500 36" Retaining Wall (Concrete) Square Foot (SF) $32.00-$40.00 Relocate Signs/Fencing Linear Foot (LF) $1.00-$2.00 Drainage Linear Foot (LF) $1.00-$5.00 Traffic/Bike Path Signing Linear Foot (LF) $2.40-$3.00 Lighting Each ( EA) $500.00 Traffic Control Linear Foot (LF) $0.20-$0.40 Clean up Linear Foot (LF) $0.10-$0.20 To subtotal above, add 20% for contingencies, 10% for engineering and design, 5% for administration and 7% for construction management.The cost of trail and bicycle facility construction varies widely depending on the type of facility concerned. A generalized list of typical unit construction costs are shown in Table 8-1, Typical Construction Costs. These figures can be used for preliminary cost estimates, but they do not reflect special circumstances that may occur in specific situations, such as bridges, for instance. The following sections provide generalized costs per mile for trails and each class of bicycle facility, as well as what these costs cover, and just as importantly, what they do not. (See Figures 2-4 to 2-7 in Chapter 2 for section views of the following trail and bikeway facility types.) Chapter 8 Page 8-3 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Promenade Mall Old Town Temecula Valley High School CRC/Sports Park Chaparral High School City of Murrieta De Portola Road Santiago Road JedediahSmith Road RanchoVista Road Meadows Parkway Pauba Road Margarita Road Butterfield Stage Road Ynez Road SolanaWay La SerenaWay 79 15 15 79 Nicolas RoadNicolas Road Winchester RoadWinchester Road Jefferson Avenue Diaz RoadDiaz Road Rancho California RoadRancho Road Walcott LaneWalcott Lane Pala RoadPala Road Existing Trails Proposed Trails Out of Jurisdiction Trail Segments 4 1 Mile N P R O P O S E D T R A I L S E G M E N T S City of T emecula Multi-use T rails and Bik eways Master Plan Figure 8-1 *Does not include on-street bicycle facilities. 1a 1b 2 3a 3b 6b 6c 6d 6a 8a 8b 8c 9b 10 11a 12 13a 14 15 16 18 19 17 20 5e 11b 13b 13c 5d 9c 9a 9e 9d 9f 5d 5c 5a3c 1c 1g 1d 1e 9g 7a 7b 1f 5b 4a 4b Implementation City of Temecula Page 8-4 Chapter 8 Proposed Trail Segments Table 8-2 Trail Type Feet Miles Description Segment Costs Segment Totals a M4 17,820 3.38 West side of Murrieta Creek from Santa Gertrudis Creek to Temecula Creek $1,140,067 b M1 25,740 4.88 East side of Murrieta Creek from Santa Gertrudis Creek to peak south of Temecula Creek $942,084 c M4 2,244 0.43 Along Santiago Road between Old Town and Santiago Road bridge over I-15 $143,564 d M4 2,640 0.50 North side Santa Gertrudis Creek to City of Murrieta $168,899 e M3 2,508 0.48 East side of Murrieta Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek to City of Murrieta $174,773 f M1 4,620 0.88 North side of Santa Gertrudis Creek from Ynez Road to west side of Murrieta Creek $169,092 g M4 3,000 0.57 West side of Murrieta Creek from existing trail segment at Santa Gerrudis Road to City limits $191,930 $2,930,409 2 M3 6,732 1.28 Temecula Creek from Temecula Canyon to Pala Road $469,129 $469,129 a M3 8,646 1.64 North side of Temecula Creek from Pala Road to Margarita Road $602,509 b M1 17,028 3.23 South side of Temecula Creek from Pala Road to eastern City limit $623,225 c M1 1,518 0.29 Along Murfield Drive between Pala Road and Temecula Creek $55,559 d M1 2,640 0.50 Along Jedediah Smith Road between Temecula Creek and Loma Linda Road $96,624 $1,377,917 a M1 9,372 1.78 Along Pechanga Creek between Temecula Creek and Wolf Valley Road $343,015 b 3,630 0.69 Out of jurisdiction: Along Pechanga Creek between Wolf Valley Road and City limits $343,015 a M4 12,672 2.40 Utility easement between Pala Road and Rancho California Road $810,714 b M3 2,640 0.50 Connection between utility easement and Pauba Road $183,972 c M4 3,960 0.75 East/west trail across Sports Park $253,348 d M4 4,620 0.88 Utility easement between Pauba Road and Rancho California Road $295,573 $1,543,607 a M1 9,768 1.85 Along Ave. de Missions, Via del Coronado and City limit between Hwy 79 and southeast City limit $357,709 b M1 4,224 0.80 Along Loma Linda Road between Pala Road and Via del Coronado $154,598 154,598 c M2 4,224 0.80 Along Via Eduardo and Wolf Valley Road between Pechanga Creek and City limit $254,160 d M4 4,752 0.90 Trail along City limit between Pechanga Creek and Redhawk Golf Club $304,128 $1,070,595 a 10,428 1.98 Out of jurisdiction: Southeast of City b 3,960 0.75 Out of jurisdiction: Southeast of City a 4,224 0.80 Out of jurisdiction: Southeast of City b 2,640 0.50 Out of jurisdiction: Southeast of City c 10,560 2.00 Out of jurisdiction: Southeast of City a M3 7,656 1.45 Along City limit between De Portola Rd. and Pauba Rd. and along Pauba Rd. to Butterfield Stage Rd. $533,519 b M1 18,876 3.58 Along Butterfield Stage Road between Temecula Creek and La Serena Way $690,862 c 11,880 2.25 Out of jurisdiction: East of City d M1 5,808 1.10 Along Pauba Road between Meadows Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road $212,573 e M4 6,864 1.30 Between existing Paloma del Sol trail system and City limit $439,137 f M4 1,716 0.33 Along Meadows Parkway between McCabe Drive and Pauba Road $109,784 $1,985,875 10 M2 5,808 1.10 Trail between Moraga Road and Murrieta Creek under I-15 $349,470 $349,470 a M1 1,980 0.38 Along north side of North General Kearney Road west of Calle Pina Colada $72,468 b M1 1,914 0.36 Along south side of North General Kearney Road between Calle Pina Colada and Margarita Road $70,052 $142,520 12 M1 9,504 1.80 Along Rancho California Road between utility easement and Moraga Road $347,846 $347,846 a M3 6,600 1.25 Along Nicolas Road between utility easement and current east end of Santa Gertrudis Creek trail $459,930 b M1 6,600 1.25 Along Enfield Lane and Amberley Circle between utility easement and Segment 13c $241,560 c M1 9,715 1.84 Along Calle Medusa and cross-country to Via Lobo and along utility easement to Nicolas Road $355,569 $1,057,059 14 M1 13,992 2.65 Along De Portola Road between Santiago Road and existing trail at Meadows Parkway $512,107 $512,107 15 M1 13,356 2.53 Vallejo Ave. ROW between Santiago Rd. and Rancho Calif. Rd. and on utility easement to Margarita Rd. $488,048 $488,048 16 16 M1 9,240 1.75 Along I-15 ROW between Santiago Road and Ynez Road and cross-country to near Mira Loma Drive $338,184 $338,184 17 M1 4,620 0.88 Cross-country from near Mira Loma Drive and to just west of Margarita Road $169,092 $169,092 18 0.00 Out of jurisdiction: North of City 19 M3 5,280 1.00 Along I-15 ROW between Winchester Road and City of Murrieta $367,944 $367,944 20 M1 2,112 0.40 Along existing dirt road between De Portola Road and Santiago Road $77,299 $77,299 Notes: Total: $13,570,116 See Appendix B for more detailed cost information for each segment. Trail Types Costs (Applicable assumptions and approximate costs per linear foot): M1 (Width will vary -6 feet used for calculation): $37.00/LF M2 (Surfaces vary -Asphalt main path and polymer-stabilized soil side path used for calculation): $60.00/LF M3 (Surfaces vary -Asphalt main path and polymer-stabilized soil side path used for calculation): $70.00/LF M4 (Surfaces vary -Asphalt main path and polymer-stabilized soil side path used for calculation): $64.00/LF Trails out of City jurisdiction are not evaluated due to unknown trail types and availability of funding. Costs will vary depending upon existing condition of proposed trail bed. For example, established dirt roads would be less costly to convert to trail use than undeveloped land. Segment spreadsheets from which these costs are derived employed average unit costs. However, not all components used in each spreadsheet are likely to be installed in all segments. The following examples illustrate where costs can usually be reduced: Fencing is included in all spreadsheets, but in most cases is not likely to be needed. Much of the proposed trails system would be on existing road or trail beds, so significant clearing and drainage would not usually be necessary. Where polymer-stabilized soil is to be used, concentrations vary depending on the existing substrate and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Trail widths may vary, depending on anticipated use. For example, Trail Type M1 can be narrower than six feet. Striping may not be necessary, depending on anticipated use. Proposed bikeways are not listed because most are existing or programmed. Typical costs are described in this chapter, but the following are reasonable summaries: Class 1 paths typically cost $150,000 to $350,000 per mile. (Approximately $28 to $66/LF) Class 2 lanes typically cost $15,000 to $30,000 per mile. (Approximately $2.75 to $6.00/LF) Class 3 routes typically cost $1,500 t0 $3,000 per mile. (Approximately $0.30 to $0.70/LF) 9 11 13 8 Segment Numbers 567341 Chapter 8 Page 8-5 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Costs shown in the spreadsheets in Appendix B reflect those directly related to construction of trails only. Virtually all proposed Class 2 bikeway facilities have already been programmed by the City of Temecula, and are therefore not included in these spreadsheets since they would already have been accounted for within the programmed CIP for the roadway. For all trails, the spreadsheet format does include construction costs, but does not include land acquisition costs or other unknown factors such as the extent of grading or the length and height of necessary bridges. 8.3.1 Class 1 Bikeways Bikeway Type B1 Because they are constructed independently of existing or programmed motor vehicle facilities, Class 1 paths are by far the most expensive of all bicycle facilities. Typical costs are $150,000 to $350,000 per mile, exclusive of right-of-way acquisition, bridges and other potential major expenses such as extensive grading. The range of costs is primarily due to topography and facility width. For example, a Class 1 facility being converted from an abandoned rail roadbed will require far less grubbing, grading and structural enhancements than a facility being constructed through undeveloped hilly terrain. 8.3.2 Class 2 Bikeways Bikeway Type B2 Class 2 facility costs are approximately $15,000 to $35,000 per mile. This cost includes all necessary lane striping and signage, but does not include widening of roadways. The cost variation is due to the amount of striping and signage installed. The cost will be higher where substantial restriping is needed, such as where multiple motor vehicle lanes require restriping. 8.3.3 Class 3 Bikeways Bikeway Type B3 Class 3 routes costs are the lowest of all facility types because the only physical improvement to be installed is route signage. The cost range of $1,500 to $5,000 per mile is due to the distance between signs, which can vary considerably depending upon factors such as horizontal and ver tical cur vature, the number the intersections and curb cuts, and how often the route changes direction onto a different roadway. Three new Class 3 routes are proposed under this master plan. 8.3.4 Trails For the purposes of cost estimating for this project, items such as clearing, grading and fencing were all included for the full length of all segments. (See Appendix B, Segment Cost Spread-This unpaved, multi-use trail in a recently developed subdivision in northeastern Temecula is made of compacted decomposed granite. This unpaved trail along Rancho California Road was originally designed for equestrian use, but can safely accommodate other users as well. Implementation City of Temecula Page 8-6 Chapter 8 sheets.) However, detailed analysis prior to trail segment design will probably reveal that not all these items will be required. For example, wherever possible, trails were proposed on existing dirt roads or “unofficial” existing trails. It is likely these existing road and trail beds will need minimal improvement for unpaved facilities. Also, where paved facilities are proposed, an established dirt road would be less costly to build on than undeveloped land. Therefore, the costs shown in the spreadsheets in Appendix B can usually be appropriately reduced. Trail Type M1 Unpaved trail costs are generally lower than typical Class 1 bikeway costs for several reasons. They do not have to meet Caltrans requirements and, because they are unpaved, they are unlikely to need to support full-size motor vehicles and are therefore generally narrower and do not require a heavy duty subbase. However, these variations can make it difficult to develop trail construction costs since the width can vary so dramatically. Depending on individual situations, trails can range from barely wide enough for a single person to walk to broad pathways where equestrians can walk abreast. The needed amount of grading and bed preparation varies widely, as well, even within the confines of the City. Some areas are primarily decomposed granite, for example, which can be used to build excellent trails, while other areas are highly erodible fine silty clay soil. To take into account the variables inherent in unpaved trail segments, a generalized width of six feet was used for cost analysis. However, it is very likely that narrower unpaved segments will be desirable and will be determined on a case-by-case basis. For the purposes of this project cost analysis, Trail Type M1 costs are $195,000 per mile when including all the items listed in the cost analysis spreadsheets in Appendix B. Trail Types M2, M3, M4 These trail types are dual trail alignments, with parallel paved and unpaved segments. The The trail types differ in the amount of paved versus unpaved width available and the selection of which type to construct will depend primarily on anticipated user numbers and types. The paved sections would be essentially the same as Class 1 bikeways for which costs are given above. The reasoning is that if paving is to occur, it would make sense to take advantage of federal funding by constructing the paved portions to Caltrans specifications. Though Caltrans’ requirements are fairly rigid, such as minimum widths, the unpaved parallel trail segments configuration can vary as needed. Also, where polymer soil stabilization is to be used, the amount of polymer will vary depending on local soil conditions and topography. For the purposes of this project cost analysis, Trail Type M2 costs are approximately $317,000 per mile when including all the items listed in the cost analysis spreadsheets. Using similar criteria, Trail Type M3 costs are approximately $397,000 per mile and Trail Type M4 costs are $338,000 per mile. (See Appendix B, Segment Cost Spreadsheets, for more detailed cost information.) 8.3.5 Trail and Bikeway Bridge Improvements (Bridge Trail Types B/T 1, B/T 2 and B/T 3) Wherever possible, the types of bridge accommodations for trails shown on Figure 2-7, Bridge Trail Types, should be implemented along with roadway bridge improvements. Costs for these types of improvements should be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, where trail-specific bridges must be installed, the following information concerns bridges designed to serve trail and bicycle facilities in locations other than roadway bridges. Typical roadway bridges are constructed of reinforced con Chapter 8 Page 8-7 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan crete to withstand the enormous stresses of motor vehicle traffic and seismic activity. Bridges intended for non-motorized uses do not need to be as robust or as costly as bridges designed for regular motor vehicle use. Bridge costs depend on design load and foundation, and to a lesser extent, length, width and materials. Bridges must be designed to carry the same loads as the trail or bicycle facility they serve. Class 1 bicycle facilities, for example, where patrol, emergency or maintenance vehicles are expected to use the bridge, must be able to support at least the gross weight of the heaviest anticipated vehicle. Bridges intended to support motor vehicles will require much sturdier construction and increased width, both of which will increase costs. Unstable soil conditions will require any bridge to be built with more expensive foundations in the form of larger footings or piers. Wooden bridges tend to be less expensive than metal bridges, though their useful life may be shorter. Bridge costs increase almost exponentially as their height increases due to increased structural complexity. Finally, prefabricated bridges are generally cheaper and less environmentally damaging to install than constructed-in-place bridges. For preliminary cost estimates, $1,200 to $1,500 per linear foot is adequate. 8.4 Creek Trail Construction The planning, design and construction of the creek trail segments will need to acknowledge some specific cost issues not commonly encountered in most bikeway projects. The following sections illustrate the specific concerns behind some of these issues. 8.4.1 Class 1 Bikeway Though planned to be multi-use facilities, the paved portions of the creek trails are being designed to meet Caltrans Class 1 bikeway standards. Therefore, Class 1 bikeway costs can be used for the estimates from Section 8.3.1, Typical Unit Construction Costs, for Class 1 Bikeways. As described in that section, specific significant additional expenses related to topography, bridges, etc. need to be added to normal costs. However, the creek trails will be installed on an existing Flood Control District roadbed. Since land acquisition costs are not likely to be a factor, costs for this Class 1 facility may be somewhat lower than typical installations. On the other hand, bridges needed to cross the creeks will add substantially to the overall costs. A factor that will play a role in facility costs specific to the City of Temecula is the width of available right-of-way for the trailbed. Where the rightof-way width is large, construction costs should be at the low end relative to typical Class 1 bikeways. However, where right-of-way widths are restricted, additional costs are likely to be incurred in the form of supplementary earth moving, grading, compaction and retaining wall construction to provide the necessary level linear space for Class 1 bikeway development. 8.4.3 Directional and Interpretive Signage The City of Temecula should develop a signage design for identifying and orienting the trail system. This identifying signage should incorporate an icon identifying the City of Temecula and be placed in an uniform method such as at all creek crossings and access points, rest stops and transit stations. The selected size and method of installation should follow a standard. The standard sign is likely to be a small, baked enamel-coated metal or fiberglass-embedded plate securely bolted to a sturdy wooden post. 8.4.4 Rest Stops Rest stops are proposed for several locations along the City of Temecula’s creek trails alignments. Their locations should be selected to provide conveniently dispersed stopping points, to take advantage of available viewpoints at scenic areas and at points of natural interpretive opportunities along the creek trails alignments within the City of Temecula. A substantial array of amenities Implementation City of Temecula Page 8-8 Chapter 8 is possible at these rest stops. Different locations may require different configurations, but at a minimum, shade in the form of shelters or trees, water and restrooms should be provided. Additional amenities could include bike racks, seating, signage (interpretive and directional), lighting, trash receptacles and emergency telephones. The restrooms could be permanent or portable restrooms and the trail system could take advantage of facilities at City parks. Water fountains could also be equipped with bottle spouts and animal watering basins. Incorporation of all of these components into the rest stops would require some expense, but should be seen as an opportunity to create a favorable impression of the City of Temecula for trail users. The provision of these amenities at scenic vista points within Temecula would leave a lasting favorable impression on users. To help ensure this, the signage should clearly identify the rest stops and trail system as being provided by the City of Temecula. 8.4.5 Public Art Public art should be considered for any large-scale community project, including a trail and bikeway master plan. Art installations are most appropriate where the largest number of users can experience and appreciate them. For this master plan, those locations would be along the creek trails, primarily at the rest stops. The art work could be incorporated in a number of ways into the rest stops, such as a component of any paving, signage, shade structures, water features, seating, etc. 8.5 Non-Motorized Multi-Use Trails and Bikeway Funding Sources Federal, State and local government agencies invest billions of dollars every year in the nation’s transportation system. Only a fraction of that funding is used in development projects, policy development and planning to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Even though appropriate funds are limited, they are available, but desirable projects sometimes go unfunded because communities may be unaware of a fund’s existence, or may apply for the wrong type of grants. Also, the competition between municipalities for the available trail and bikeway funding is often fierce. Whenever Federal funds are used for trail or bikeway projects, a certain level of State and/or local matching funds are generally required. State funds are often available to local governments on the same terms. Almost every implemented trail and bicycle program and facility in the United States has had more than one funding source and it often takes a good deal of coordination and opportunism to pull the various sources together. According to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) publication, An Analysis of Current Funding Mechanisms for Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs at the Federal, State and Local Levels, where successful local trail and bike facility programs exist, there is usually a full-time pedestrian/bicycle coordinator with extensive understanding of funding sources. Cities such as Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon and San Diego are prime examples. Pedestrian/bicycle coordinators are often in a position to develop a competitive project and detailed proposal that can be used to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists within their jurisdictions. Much of the following information on Federal and State funding sources was derived from the previously mentioned FHWA publication. Note that the majority of available programs tend to benefit bicycle rather than pedestrian facilities. Some are intended to provide for either or both. 8.5.1 TEA21 (Transportation Efficiency Act) Enhancement Funds In 1991 Congress re-authorized the collection and distribution of the Federal gasoline tax and related transportation spending programs. The legislation, called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), was seen as particularly significant because the focus of 30 years of Federal transportation investment, the Interstate Highway System, was nearing completion. The new legislation provided the opportunity to rethink transportation priorities and philosophies. This Chapter 8 Page 8-9 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan landmark legislation was recently re-authorized by Congress as a replacement for the original and its name changed to the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). Most of the ISTEA programs were continued in TEA21, and states have been given more control over how funds are spent. TEA21 enhancement funding is managed through the State and regional agencies. Most of the funding programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with the emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing intermodal connections. Funding criteria include completion and adoption of a bicycle master plan, quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (including saved vehicle trips, reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and support, CEQA compliance and the commitment of local resources. In most cases, TEA21 provides matching grants of 80 to 90 percent. The amount of money available through TEA21 is substantial (over $155 billion from 1992-97 under ISTEA), but there is always strong competition to obtain those funds. Federal funding through the TEA21 program provides the bulk of outside funding. TEA21 is comprised of two major programs, Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), along with other programs such as the National Recreational Trails Fund, Section 402 (Safety) funds, Scenic Byways funds and Federal Lands Highways funds, though municipalities are unlikely to be eligible for funding from all of these sources. 8.5.2 Surface Transportation Program (STP) Section 1007 (a)(I)(b)(3) of the STP allows states to spend their allocation of Surface Transportation Program funds on a range of activities similar to those of the National Highway System. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are specifically listed as eligible items. STP Funds can also be used for “nonconstruction bicycle projects related to safe bicycle use.” Section 1007 (b)(2)(C)(c) created a new category of transportation enhancement activities (TEA) on which States were required to spend at least 10 percent of their Surface Transportation Program funds. TEAs are very broadly defined as: “...with respect to any project or the area to be served by the project, provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs, landscaping and other scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities including historic railroad facilities and canals, preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails), control and removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and research and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff.” Surface Transportation Program funds are allocated to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which makes the decisions as to how the funds are actually spent. The Federal government does not allocate funds to specific projects. Therefore, for a pedestrian or bicycle project to be funded, it must appear on the list of potential projects under consideration at the State, regional, or City level, whichever is appropriate. • Local Planning Section 1024 (a) requires each metropolitan area (with a population greater than 200,000) to develop an annual or biannual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that “shall provide for the development of transportation facilities (including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) which will function as an intermodal transportation system.” These TIPs must be based on available funding for projects in the program and they must be coordinated with transportation control measures to be implemented in accordance with Clean Air Act provi Implementation City of Temecula Page 8-10 Chapter 8 sions. Final project selection rests with the California Transportation Commission (CTC), with technical input from Caltrans. • State Planning Two sections of the Act explicitly require the State to develop a TIP to “consider strategies for incorporating bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways in projects, throughout the State,” (Section 1025 (c)(3)), and to “develop a long-range plan for bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways for appropriate areas of the State, which shall be incorporated into the long-range transportation plan,” (Section 1025 (e)). These provisions are important on a municipal level because they are crucial for getting incidental pedestrian and bicycle projects funded. The intent behind these sections is to ensure that if pedestrian or bicycle facilities are identified in a TIP or long-range plan as being necessary in a corridor and construction or reconstruction work in those corridors is planned, then the relevant pedestrian or bicycle improvements called for in the planning must be included and implemented. Opportunities for incorporating pedestrian or bicycle projects are not limited to large transportation projects and not even to actual construction projects. Independent bicycle and pedestrian projects, such as trails away from highway corridors and nonconstruction projects, such as mapping, also need to be incorporated into State and City planning documents if they are to be funded. Section 1033 states that the Federal share under TEA21 for bicycle transportation facilities is to be 80 percent. The remaining 20 percent of the funds must be matched by the State or local government agency implementing the project. The section also states that, to be funded, a bicycle transportation facility must be principally for transportation rather than recreation purposes. This has been defined by the FHWA to mean: “Where Federal-aid highway funds are used, these projects should serve a transportation function. function. A circular recreation path, for example, would not be eligible. However, any type of facility which does serve a valid transportation need while also fulfilling recreation purposes would be eligible.” The section goes on to describe a “bicycle transportation facility” as: “new or improved lanes, paths or shoulders for the use of cyclists, traffic control devices, shelters and parking facilities for cyclists.” 8.5.3 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Section 1008 is referred to as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ). This part of the legislation is intended to fund programs and projects likely to contribute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. To be funded under this program, projects and programs must come from a transportation plan (or State (STIP) or Regional (RTIP) Transportation Improvement Program) and must be consistent with the conformity provisions of Section 176 of the Clean Air Act. Five areas of eligibility have been defined: 1.Transportation Control Measures listed in Section 108 (b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, which include: 2. “(ix) programs to limit portions of roadway surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place; 3. “(x) programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of cyclists in both public and private areas; and Chapter 8 Page 8-11 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan 4. “(xv) programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks, or areas solely for the use by pedestrians or other non-motorized means of transportation, when economically feasible and in the public interest.” 5. “Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, nonconstruction projects related to safe bicycle use and State bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions as established in the ISTEA, for promoting and facilitating the increased use of nonmotorized modes of transportation. This includes public education, promotional and safety programs for using such facilities.” 8.5.4 Section 402 (Safety) Funds Section 402 funds address State and community highway safety grant programs. The priority status of safety programs for cyclists expedites the approval process for these safety efforts. 8.5.5 Symms National Recreational Trails Act The Symms National Recreational Trails Act created a trust fund for the construction and maintenance of trails. At least 30 percent of the funds must be spent on trails for non-motorized users and at least 30 percent for trails for motorized users. The remainder is to be allocated to projects as determined by the State Recreational Trails Advisory Board of the California Department of Parks and Recreation which the State must have to be eligible for the funds. 8.5.7 Federal Transit Act Section 25 of the 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act states that: “For the purposes of this Act a project to provide access for bicycles to mass transportation facilities, to provide shelters and parking facilities for bicycles in and around mass transportation facilities, or to install racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles shall be deemed to be a construction project eligible for assistance under sections 3, 9 and 18 of this Act.” The Federal share for such projects is 90 percent and the remaining 10 percent must come from sources other than Federal funds or fare-box revenues. revenues. Typical funded projects have included bike lockers at transit stations and bike parking near major bus stops. To date, no projects to provide bikeways for quicker, safer or easier access to transit stations have been requested or funded. 8.5.8 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) This funding source is administered by the U.S. Recreation and Heritage Conservation Service and the State Department of Park and Recreation. Any project for which LWCF funds are desired must meet two specific criteria. The first is that projects acquired or developed under the program must be primarily for recreational use and not transportation purposes and the second is that the lead agency must guarantee to maintain the facility in perpetuity for public recreation. The application will be considered using criteria such as priority status within the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). State Department of Park and Recreation will select which projects to submit to the National Park Service (NPS) for approval. Final approval is based on the amount of funds available that year, which is determined by a population-based formula. Trails are the most commonly approved project type. A recent example is the restoration and expansion of trails within Florida Canyon in San Diego’s Balboa Park. 8.5.8 National Recreational Trail Fund This funding source is intended to pay for a variety of recreational trails programs to benefit cyclists, pedestrians and other non-motorized users. Projects must be consistent with the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan required by the Land and Water Conservation Act. Implementation City of Temecula Page 8-12 Chapter 8 8.5.10 Streets and Highways Code Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) Section 2106 (b) of the Streets and Highways Code transfers funds annually to a Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) from the revenue derived from the excise tax on motor vehicle fuel. The BLA is administered by the Caltrans Office of Bicycle Facilities which allocates funds to cities and counties. It is generally administered locally through regional government councils to counties and cities. For a project to be funded from the BLA, the project shall: i) Be approximately parallel to a State, county, or city roadway, where the separation of bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic will increase the traffic capacity of the roadway; and ii) Serve the functional needs of commuting cyclists; and iii) Include but not be limited to: • New bikeways serving major transportation corridors; • New bikeways removing travel barriers to potential bicycle commuters; • Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots and transit terminals; • Bicycle-carrying facilities on public transit vehicles; • Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety and efficiency of bicycle travel; • Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways serving a utility purpose; • Planning; and • Safety and education. Maintenance is specifically excluded from funding and allocation takes into consideration the relative cost effectiveness of the proposed project. 8.5.11 State Highway Account Section 157.4 of the Streets and Highways Code requires Caltrans to set aside $360,000 for the construction of non-motorized facilities that will be used in conjunction with the State highway system. The State Highway Account fund is also administered by the Office of Bicycle Facilities. Funding is divided into different project categories. Minor B projects (less than $42,000) are funded by a lump-sum allocation by the CTC and are used at the discretion of each Caltrans District office. Minor A projects (estimated to cost between $42,000 and $300,000) must be approved by the CTC. Major projects (more than $300,000) must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program and approved by the CTC. 8.5.12 Transportation Development Act Article III (Senate Bill 821) Transportation Development Act Article III funds are State block grants awarded annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. The funds originate from the State retail sales tax and are distributed through the Congestion Management Agency to local jurisdictions based generally on population. Examples of expenditures have included construction of bicycle facilities and printing of bicycle safety posters on the back of city buses. 8.5.13 Other Sources of Funding for Bicycle Projects Governor’s Energy Office (Oil Overcharge Funds) The Federal government forced oil companies to repay the excess profits many of them made when they violated price regulations enacted in response Chapter 8 Page 8-13 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan to the energy crisis of the early 1970’s. Few states have taken advantage of this fund, but some have received grants for bike coordinators and bicycle facilities. The types of projects eligible for funding vary by state, as does the level of allocation available. 8.5.14 Assembly Bill 2766 /434 This bill funds air pollution reduction projects related to alternate modes of transportation. This fund is administered by the Air Pollution Control Board (APCB). Approximately $3 million is available annually. 8.5.15 Commuter Computer This program is funded by Caltrans and covers a variety of transportation management activities including projects such as bicycle lockers and security devices. These will be provided, installed and maintained for public agencies at no cost to the requesting agency. Commuter Computer also offers a bicycle locker loan program to private sector entities. 8.5.16 Developer Impact Fees As a condition for development approval, it it is possible to require the developer to provide certain infrastructure improvements, which can include trail and bikeway projects. These projects have commonly provided Class 2 bicycle facilities for portions of on-street, previously planned routes. They can also be used to provide bicycle parking or shower and locker facilities. The type of facility that should be required to be built by developers should reflect the greatest need for the particular project and its local area. Legal challenges to these types of fees have resulted in the requirement to illustrate a clear nexus between the particular project and the mandated improvement and cost. 8.5.17 New Construction Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing on-street bicycle facilities. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that the review process includes input pertaining to consistency with the proposed system. Future development in the City of Temecula will contribute only if the projects are conditioned. 8.5.18 Cable Route Reimbursement and Joint Use Cable TV and telephone companies are increasingly needing new cable routes within public rightsof-way. Recently, this has most commonly occurred during expansion of fiber optic networks. Since these projects require a significant amount of advance planning and disruption of curb lanes, it may be appropriate to require reimbursement for affected trail and bicycle facilities to mitigate construction impacts. In cases where cable routes cross undeveloped areas, it may be possible to provide for new bikeway and pedestrian facilities following completion of the cable trenching, such as sharing the use of maintenance roads. 8.5.19 Other Sources Local sales taxes, fees and permits may be implemented as new funding sources for trail and bikeway projects. However, any of these potential sources would require a local election. Volunteer programs may be developed to substantially reduce the cost of implementing some routes, particularly multi-use paths. For example, a local college design class may use such a multiuse route as a student project, working with a local landscape architectural or engineering firm. Work parties could be formed to help clear the right-of-way for the route. A local construction company may donate or discount services beyond what the volunteers can do. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, in which the businesses can “adopt” a route and help to construct and maintain it. Implementation City of Temecula Page 8-14 Chapter 8 8.5.20 Most Likely Sources The most likely local sources of trail and bikeway funding are the following: • TEA 21 • TDA/CIP (Transportation Development Act, Capital Improvement Projects) • TIF (Traffic Impact Fee Fund) • City of Temecula General Fund • Developer Impact Fees • BLA (Bicycle Lane Account) • APCB (Air Pollution Control Board) Chapter 8 Page 8-15 Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan TRAIL AND BIKEWAY FACILITY FUNDING SUMMARY TABLE 8-3A Grant Source Due Date Agency Annual Total Match Required Eligible Applicants Eligible Trail/Bikeway Project Types Remarks Com Rec Safety State Sources State Highway Account (SHA) Dec. 1, odd years Caltrans $360,000/yr. state-wide Apply through Caltrans District 11 X X Transportation Development Act (TDA) Section 99234 April 2, annually none required Local agencies X X X 2% of TDA total AB 2766 Vehicle Registration Funds County X X Competitive program for projects that benefit air quality Vehicle Registration Surcharge Fee (AB 434) RCF July APCB none required Local agencies, transit operations, others X X X Competitive program for projects that benefit air quality Vehicle Registration Surcharge Fee (AB 434) PMF April APCB 40% from grant source none required Local jurisdictions X X X Funds distributed to county communities based on population Developer Fees or Exactions Ongoing Cities, County Project specific none required X X X Mitigation required during land use approval process State Gas Tax (local share) Monthly allocation Allocated by State Auditor-Controller none required Local jurisdictions X X Major Projects, >$300,000 Flexible Congestion Relief Program (FCR) Dec. STIP cycle County $300 million/yr. state-wide Cities, counties, transit operations, Caltrans X X Must be included in an adopted RTP, STIP, CMP or RTIP State and Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLPP) June 30 Caltrans est. $200 million/yr. state-wide none required Cities, counties or assess. districts authorized to impose taxes/fees and construct public trans. facilities X X Road projects with bike lanes are eligible Caltrans Minor Capital Program Ongoing after July 1 Caltrans discretionary (est. $4 million/yr. for District 11) none required State and local agencies for projects >$300,000 X Projects must be on state highways; such as upgraded bike facilities Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEM) Nov. 1 annually State Resources Agency $10 million/yr. state-wide none required, but favored Local, state, federal government and non-profit agencies X X Projects that enhance or mitigate existing or future transportation projects Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) Dec. 1 Caltrans, County $360,000/yr. state-wide 10% local match required Jurisdictions with a Bikeway Plan approved by MTC X X Available for planning grants Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) March 1 Budget Act for Caltrans, or special legislation for allocation to local agencies Varies none required State and local jurisdictions X X Projects must save energy, provide restitution to the public and be approved by CA Energy Commision and US DOE Implementation City of Temecula Page 8-16 Chapter 8 TRAIL AND BIKEWAY FACILITY FUNDING SUMMARY TABLE 8-3B Grant Source Due Date Agency Annual Total Match Required Eligible Applicants Eligible Trail/Bikeway Project Types Remarks Com Rec Safety Federal Sources Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 Dec. State Parks and Recreation Department 50% X Funding subject to North/South split. Funds for outdoor recreation projects TEA21 -Surface Transportation Program (STP) June 1 County, Caltrans, FHWA 20% nonfederal match Federally certified jurisdictions STP funds may be exchanged for local funds for nonfederally certified local agencies. No match required if project improves safety TEA21 -Congestion Management and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) June 1 County 20% nonfederal match Federally certified jurisdictions If county redesignated to attainment status for ozone, may lose this source TEA21 -Tranportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) STIP cycle FHWA, County 20% nonfederal match Federally certified jurisdictions X X Contact county ISTEA -Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (BRR) Jan/list of projects Caltrans $85 million/yr. state-wide 20% Cities, counties, parks/recreation districts and air districts X X Contact Caltrans Division of Structures, Office of Local Programs, Program Manager TEA21 -National Highway System Caltrans X X Bike projects must provide a high degree of safety TEA21 -Scenic Byways Program Caltrans $30 million/yr. state-wide Local government agencies X Should apply first for TEA funds until TEA runs out TEA21 -Public Lands Highway Program 1. Forest Highway Program Oct. 30 Caltrans $15 million/yr. state-wide Caltrans, local jurisdictions and federally funded programs (USFS, BLM) X X For roads and bikeways leading to and serving National Forests 2. Discretionary Program June 7 Caltrans Varies -averages $7 million/yr. state-wide Caltrans, local jurisdictions and federally funded programs (USFS, BLM) X X For roads and bikeways leading to and serving National Forests