Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 48
48
traffic flow measures and for transit projects. Eligible bi- and other agencies for funding decisions. MPO recipients
cycle projects include trails, storage facilities, and market- program these planning funds through the Unified Planning
ing programs. Work Program (UPWP). Decisions on SPR funds are typi-
cally made at the state level. The preliminary estimates of
bicycle project costs and benefits developed through appli-
Other FHWA Programs cation of the guidelines can be valuable in conveying the
relative merits of a project planning study for 3C PL and
Other federal funding programs for which bicycle facili- SPR funds.
ties are eligible provide much lower funding levels than TE
and CMAQ and are more restricted in their use. Although
NHS funding levels are comparable with overall STP fund- NON-FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES
ing levels ($5.5 billion in FY 2003), use of the funds is lim-
ited to roadways that are part of the interstate or national The federal government is not the only source for bicycle
highway systems. There is no set aside for enhancements, funding. State and local governments all have the capacity to
although up to 50% of NHS funds can be transferred to the spend general revenue funds or dedicated revenue on trans-
CMAQ program. portation projects, including bicycle facilities. The processes
The Federal Lands Highways Program receives approxi- for selecting projects can vary widely across state and local
mately $700 million per year, all of which must be spent on governments. Although it is not possible to cover each project
parkways, Indian reservation roads, or public lands roads. selection process in detail, the nature of the estimates gener-
National Scenic Byways funds can only be applied to desig- ated through the guidelines is such that it should be applicable
nated All-American roads or National Scenic Byways, and to any set of criteria or evaluation methods.
funding levels are $25 million per year. The Recreational In addition to government funding for bicycle facilities,
Trails program is funded at $50 million per year. States must some private and non-profit organizations provide grants
spend at least 30% of their apportionment for this program on specifically for the development of bicycle facilities. Two
recreational trails for motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles. examples of these grants are the Bikes Belong program and
the Kodak American Greenways awards.
Department of Interior--Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Bikes Belong Coalition Grants
The LWCF program provides matching grants to states and In 1999, bicycle industry leaders founded this organization
local governments for the acquisition and development of in Boulder, Colorado, with the mission of "putting more peo-
public outdoor recreation areas and facilities, including bicy- ple on bikes more often." Bikes Belong grants are in amounts
cle facilities. In FY 2004, $160 million was provided to the up to $10,000, with funding goals including increased bicy-
states through this fund. States receive individual allocations cle ridership, leveraging additional funding, building political
of LWCF grant funds based on a national formula (with state support, and promoting cycling. These guidelines can assist
population being the most influential factor). Then states ini- an applicant in making the case that a project will increase
tiate a statewide competition for the amount available. Proj- ridership and promote cycling. Bike paths, trails, and lanes
ects are scored and ranked according to the project selection are among the facilities eligible for Bikes Belong grants, with
criteria and successful applications are then forwarded to the non-profit organizations and public agencies (not individu-
National Park Service for formal approval and obligation of als) being eligible grant recipients. The grant program has
federal grant monies. The first step for potential applicants is strived to fund important and influential projects that lever-
to contact the cooperating state office to find out about local age TEA-21 money and build momentum for bicycling. From
application deadlines, state priorities and selection criteria, 1999 to 2002, Bikes Belong funded 53 projects for a total of
and what kinds of documentation are required to justify a grant $530,000, with $460,000 in bicycle facility grants leveraging
award. $246 million in federal funding in 23 states.
Federal Planning Funds Kodak American Greenways Awards
In addition to the federal capital funding sources described Since 1992, the Kodak American Greenways program has
above, bicycle projects obtain federal planning funds. FHWA awarded nearly 500 groups across the nation with seed grants
planning funds (3C PL) and State Planning and Research (SPR) to support the development of community-based, action-
funds are two common sources for funding planning studies. oriented greenways projects. The program defines greenways
Each state receives funding from FHWA based on an alloca- as "corridors of protected, public and private land established
tion formula. The states then distribute 3C PL funds to MPOs along rivers, stream valleys, ridges, abandoned railroad cor-
OCR for page 49
49
ridors, utility rights-of-way, canals, scenic roads, or other some DOTs and MPOs take steps to create a more transpar-
linear features. They link recreational, cultural, and natural ent planning process with clearly defined criteria, the guide-
features, provide pathways for people and wildlife, protect lines become an important tool for planners to refer to as their
forests, wetlands, and grasslands, and improve the quality of proposed project undergoes MPO evaluation.
life for everyone." In 2004, grants were awarded to 39 proj-
ects. Although only one was specifically identified as a bicy-
cle facility, many of the projects are multi-use trails that would Project Development
accommodate bicycles, and bicycle trails are designated as an
eligible grant project on the grant application. Grant applica- Transportation projects typically go through several phases
tions are completed online, and provide several opportunities in planning and development. Simple projects, such as pur-
for applicants to describe project benefits in detail. chase and installation of bike racks, would bypass most devel-
opment phases and would likely be limited to minimal design,
acquisition, and installation efforts. More complex projects
Securing Federal Funding Through State such as a major regional bike path may require addressing
and MPO Processes more of the phases described in the following steps to imple-
mentation although it is expected that most facilities would
As a condition of eligibility for federal funding, trans- require minimal comprehensive planning and fewer design
portation projects must be included in a federally certified phases than major transportation projects.
transportation planning process. In urban areas, MPOs are Information from application of these guidelines for market
responsible for complying with federal planning requirements. demand and project benefits would likely remain unchanged
In non-urban areas state DOTs are responsible for transporta- through the development process unless the scope of the proj-
tion planning. ect were to change to provide a substantially different LOS to
In accordance with the federal planning requirements, proj- the cyclist than that of the original proposal. Regional trans-
ects proposed for federal highway capital funds like TE and portation system models are generally not designed to proj-
CMAQ and the others previously described must be pro- ect bicycle market information in sufficient detail to improve
grammed in a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). upon the estimates of facility use and benefits provided by
The federal regulations require the submittal of TIPs on a bien- application of the guidelines. As project scope becomes bet-
nial basis. Project planning is also eligible for federal funding. ter defined through the development process, more reliable
Planning efforts must be included in the federally required project specific information on construction and real estate
UPWP to be considered for funding. costs should become available. This more specific informa-
Project sponsors attempting to finance a bicycle facility with tion should be used to update or replace the cost information
CMAQ, TE, or other federal highway funds, need to first sub- in the guidelines as needed to make decisions on funding and
mit their project to the state DOT or committee responsible programming the proposed project.
for determining funding eligibility. Once project eligibility has
been confirmed, sponsors must propose their project for fund- · Regional Planning--the regional planning process is
ing through the TIP development process. In urbanized areas typically a comprehensive long-range (20-year horizon)
UPWPs and TIPs are developed by MPOs, the body responsi- review of the region's transportation needs and goals
ble for planning and programming all of the federal surface and identification of plans to meet those needs. The results
transportation funds allocated to the urban area. Participation of the process are presented in the Regional Transporta-
in the broader MPO planning and programming process is tion Plan (RTP). Regional bicycle program goals might
helpful in advancing projects into the UPWP and TIP. be considered in such a process but specific bicycle facil-
In non-urban areas of states, federal programming deci- ities would not likely be addressed other than as elements
sions are the responsibility of the state DOT. Although there of a broadly described program. Information resulting
are some states, such as Massachusetts, where regional bod- from application of the guidelines should be sufficient to
ies in non-urban areas are still given the authority to priori- evaluate proposed bicycle facility projects, such as paths,
tize eligible projects for CMAQ or TE funds, in most states in the RTP.
both eligibility and prioritization are within the purview of · Alternatives Analysis/Corridor Studies--When projects
the state DOT. are not well defined, area or corridor studies are con-
Information resulting from the application of the guide- ducted to develop, evaluate, and define specific project
lines provides preliminary estimates of project cost and iden- proposals. The product of this effort is typically identi-
tifies project benefits to assist state DOTs in understanding a fication of a preferred project with design and con-
new proposal's overall effectiveness particularly as it relates struction cost estimates developed to the conceptual/
to furthering achievement of air quality improvements. In schematic design (5 to 10%) level. This analysis is typ-
addition, it permits evaluators to better assess the proposed ically reserved for major projects as a means of avoid-
bicycle project relative to other candidates for funding. As ing costly design in later development stages on projects
OCR for page 50
50
that may not be economically feasible. Bike facilities · Final Design--Final Design consists of developing
are typically sufficiently well defined by their setting plans and specifications in sufficient detail to con-
and of modest cost relative to major roadway or transit struct the project. This project phase results in final
projects to preclude the need for this step in the devel- pre-construction cost estimates. If property acquisition
opment process. Should analysis at this level be con- is required, the real estate acquisition process, which can
ducted for a proposed bicycle path, the work could be be time consuming, should be initiated early in this phase
eligible for federal funding assistance through the UPWP. of project development with preparation of appraisals
At this level of analysis, guideline information on con- followed by acquisition. Both construction and real estate
struction costs would be updated based on schematic estimates can again be updated in this phase.
design and real estate costs would be updated based on · Construction, Operation, and Maintenance are the final
estimates from local assessors or realtors. project phases.
· Preliminary Engineering Design/Environmental Impact
Analysis--Major transportation projects and projects The prescribed tool provides a reliable starting point for
with potentially significant environmental impacts are urban planners, policy officials, and decision-makers to
usually advanced through design in two phases: Prelim- understand the merits and costs of bicycle facilities. These
inary Engineering (PE) design/Environmental Impact officials are often presented with information about how
Statement (EIS), and Final Design. At the completion of much these facilities cost. Opponents of bicycle projects con-
a PE, the project scope and real estate requirements sistently use such information to demonstrate how trimming
should be specifically identified and National and State particular projects would preserve funds that could be used
Environmental Analyses should be completed. Federal for other aims. The described tool and guidelines--and in
funding assistance for this and all subsequent project many respects the underlying research--provide planners,
development phases would usually come from capital decision-makers, and policy officials with a reliable, consis-
funding sources, requiring the project be included in the tent method to compare bicycle facilities and measure often
TIP. Construction costs developed from the guidelines stated benefits. Such analysis could allow for better use of lim-
should again be updated at completion of this develop- ited transportation funds. Having a constant measure of the
ment phase. If property acquisition is required detailed costs and benefits of the bicycle facilities will help decision-
property plans should be completed at the end of this makers to pursue broader public policy goals of increased
development stage. cycling and a healthier population.
