National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (2006)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs

« Previous: Summary
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Estimating Bicycle Facility Costs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 20

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

7CHAPTER 1 ESTIMATING BICYCLE FACILITY COSTS IDENTIFYING COSTS Purpose The purpose of the cost analysis is to provide transporta- tion planners with a tool to estimate costs of different types of bicycle facilities. The facilities described herein are generic and independent of specific locations. The description there- fore provides preliminary cost estimates. As more specific information is gathered about a proposed facility, the planner or engineer can develop more refined estimates to reflect these specifics or replace them with more detailed project- specific estimates. The preliminary cost estimates can be used as part of initial planning efforts to identify project funding and develop project support. Cost Elements Costs for infrastructure projects are commonly broken into two major categories: capital costs and operating costs. Cap- ital costs are expenditures for constructing facilities and pro- curing equipment. These are viewed as one-time costs that have both a physical and economic life of multiple years. Cap- ital facilities and equipment have a multi-year life, and there- fore are assets whose value can be amortized over time and financed over time with instruments such as municipal bonds. For bicycle facilities, capital costs include all costs needed to construct a facility or install equipment. Major elements of capital costs include facility design, equipment procurement, real estate acquisition, and construction. Other elements in- clude planning, administration, and construction inspection. Operating costs generally result in no tangible asset. Such recurring expenses are commonly funded through annual budgets. Operating costs for public facilities include mainte- nance such as cleaning, landscaping, equipment repair, secu- rity and safety, and supplies needed to conduct these activi- ties. Some or all of these operating costs may be subsumed into public agency operating budgets and be difficult to iden- tify as discrete project-specific costs. In this report, bicycle facilities are divided into three cate- gories: on-street, off-street, and equipment. A bicycle facility project may include one category or more. There are differ- ent facility types within these categories. The facility types are grouped in the cost model as described in the following subsections. On-Street Facilities On-street bicycle facilities include bike lanes, wide shoul- ders, wide curb lanes, shared streets, and signed routes. For cost estimation, this application describes the following con- struction activities: Full Depth Pavement. Full depth construction includes either a new road or complete reconstruction of an existing road. Full depth construction may extend the width or length of an existing road. The cost of including a bike lane or addi- tional width for bicycles is considered as part of the larger full depth construction roadway project. Overlay. Overlay pavement applies a new layer of bitumi- nous concrete pavement to an existing paved surface. The overlay pavement also may add paved shoulders over an exist- ing gravel shoulder. Striping. Striping includes removing, changing, or adding street striping to provide a designated roadway space for bi- cycles. The space may be used exclusively for cyclists (e.g., a separate bicycle lane) or shared (e.g., a wide curb lane). Road- way paving is typically not required. Travel lanes may be removed, moved or narrowed to provide space for a bicycle lane or wide curb lane. Roadway striping is usually an element of paving projects. As a freestanding project, roadway striping can be imple- mented in a relatively short time period and at a relatively low cost compared with roadway construction projects. Lo- cal public works or streets departments can conduct striping using agency staff or a contractor. Signed Route. A signed route applies directional signs to an existing roadway, identifying a single or series of bicycle routes. A signed route is often located on a street with low traf- fic volume or a route that connects two or more desirable des- tinations. Route signs may be placed in intervals as needed. A signed route may be included as part of a larger full depth construction, overlay, or striping project.

Off-Street Facilities Off-street bicycle facilities are separate from the motor- vehicle oriented roadway and often are shared use paths or trails. The trails may be adjacent to the roadway, or on an abandoned railroad ROW, or on another separate facility such as through public parks. The three types of path surfaces reviewed were stone dust (fine crushed stone), bituminous concrete, and portland cement concrete. The cost of off-street facilities varies widely based upon the pre-construction con- dition of the ROW and the elements that may be included in the project. Preparing an individual site can be expensive if the path is through an overgrown ROW with rocky or poor draining soil or less expensive if on ballast of an abandoned rail bed with rail and ties removed. Other elements that can cause costs to vary widely are bridges, drainage, and fencing. For each of these elements the costs can range from zero with natural drainage and no bridges, fencing, or lighting to substantial amounts for mul- tiple custom bridges, a piped storm drain system, and a fully fenced and fully lighted ROW. Landscaping can also vary from low-cost loam and seed to more expensive planting of shrubs, trees, benches, water features, and interpretive signs typical of an urban park. Other elements of off-street facilities such as striping and signage are described in the On-Street Facilities subsection. Equipment Bicycle facilities also include several types of equipment. Installation costs will vary depending on the type of equipment. Signs. Signs are the principal cost of bicycle routes. Sign types include regulatory signs, warning signs, and guide signs. Signs are typically placed in accordance with the Man- ual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (2). Traffic Signals. Typical traffic signals include pedestrian walk signals. Cost estimates are provided for two- and four- leg intersections. Barriers. Protection for bicycles and other vehicles may be provided with gates or bollards at trailheads and fencing along roads or trails as needed. Parking. Bicycle parking equipment includes racks, lockers, and rooms. Bicycle racks vary in size and price and can be customized to a particular location. For cost estima- tion purposes, the “ribbon” or wave rack is used. It is impor- tant to mention, however, that in some cases this type of rack often leads to misparked bicycles which limit its capacity. The advantage is that this rack can be installed in lengths as needed. In some settings, an inverted “U” type rack is con- sidered more of an industry standard. Bicycle lockers are typ- 8 ically installed in public locations such as transportation cen- ters or city properties, and in private locations such as com- pany parking lots. The typical design of a locker unit has capacity for two bicycles. Conveyance. Conveyance equipment is the equipment needed to transport bicycles on public transit. Typically, this equipment is a bus rack, which holds up to two bicycles. Variations include bus racks that hold three bicycles and inte- rior racks on rail systems. Bicycle Facility Cost Research To identify and develop input data for the bicycle facility cost model, the team reviewed a broad range of data sources. The objective was to identify unit costs for the project ele- ments previously described. Data Sources There were three principal sources used to collect bicycle facility cost data. Transportation Professionals. A survey of transporta- tion professionals and suppliers was conducted to collect information on costs of bicycle facilities and equipment. The following groups or persons were contacted: • Bicycle coordinator/planners at all state DOTs, and in federal agencies, • Selected local and regional transportation planners, bicycle program managers, and transportation project managers, • Advocacy organizations such as the Rails to Trails Con- servancy, and • Requests for information distributed to the following email lists: – Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), – Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)—Pedes- trian and Bicycle Council, – Bicycle Transportation Committee of the Transporta- tion Research Board (TRB), and – “Centerlines”—the bi-weekly e-newsletter of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking. Literature Review. A review of literature was conducted, with a strong focus on available cost information through an extensive Internet search. Industry Information. Researchers reviewed construc- tion industry data sources to identify unit prices for common construction elements such as bituminous or concrete paving.

In addition, industry data were used to identify and create indices for geographic and temporal variations in both con- struction and real estate costs: Engineering News Record (ENR) for construction cost information (3) and U.S. Depart- ment of Labor for consumer price index (4). The methodologies used for developing each individual unit cost are described in the following section. Data Types Available information on the costs of bicycle facilities varies considerably. In most instances, data were obtained from cost estimates of individual projects and contractors’ bid prices. In a few cases, data were gleaned from completed construction projects. Completed Projects. Several cost estimates were obtained from completed projects, particularly rail trails and highway construction projects. Although this data provides the most reliable overall cost information, it generally was not avail- able in sufficient detail to develop unit costs. For example, the Rails to Trails Conservancy provides a comprehensive database of trails built in the last 20 years throughout the United States. Available information includes trail costs, length, and year constructed. However, the database did not provide information about unique features of a given project such as number of bridges, soil conditions, and drainage. Agency Estimates. Several state DOTs developed unit cost estimates based on data that they have collected over time. Specifically, the states of Florida, Iowa, and Vermont developed cost estimate reports that outline unit costs, as well as provide project level costs (e.g., bicycle trails per mile). Bid Prices. Bid prices were also reviewed to identify unit costs. Unit bid prices can sometimes vary from actual cost when contractors include an allowance in the bid price for uncertainty on actual quantities needed to complete the construction. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING COSTS This section describes an interactive online tool for trans- portation planners to develop preliminary cost estimates for new bicycle facilities. The tool is based on a database built of unit cost and cost indices. Users are prompted to enter several characteristics about the size and type of a proposed facility in three or four modules. The user is then provided with a pre- liminary cost estimate for the proposed bicycle facility. The cost model provides a comprehensive estimate of cap- ital costs including construction, procurement and installa- tion of equipment, design, and project administration costs. Costs are based on standard facilities constructed in the con- 9 tinental United States and are represented year 2002 dollars. Indexes are provided to adjust for inflation to the project build year and regional variations in construction costs. As projects advance from early planning into design, project specifications will become more precise and design engineers’ estimates will provide a more reliable estimate of construc- tion costs. Accordingly, this application includes substantial contingencies to account for both the preliminary nature of the cost estimates and the absence of detailed project speci- fications. Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 display the cost model tables. These spreadsheets show the cost models interface with the user. The web page prompt instructs the user to des- ignate the broad category of facility desired: • On-Street Facility Lane with Parking • On-Street Facility Lane without Parking • Off-Street Facility • Bicycle-Related Equipment (Cost estimate only) Geography Cost values for each element were gathered from a num- ber of sources around the country. To normalize each cost element to a national level, a construction cost index by state or region was developed. The index is the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News Record (ENR), June 30, 2003. This ENR index was chosen because it iden- tifies regional construction costs relative to the national base of 1.00. The index identifies 36 major construction markets throughout the country. All major cities are not listed, nor are all states represented. Table 5 shows the geographic index that was used to control for regional differences in the con- struction costs. For ease of use, the team developed an index for each state based on the ENR index. Additionally, in states with signif- icant variance in construction costs for urban centers, an index for those urban areas was developed. In cities that have high labor and or material costs, specifically New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, and the Bay Area in California, sepa- rate rates were developed. The 36 construction markets were mapped and then abut- ting states/regions with similar characteristics were assigned to similar values. All states and select regions were assigned a construction value. (See the chart below for the Normal- ized Index.) The geographic index was applied to selected unit costs to normalize base values geographically. When the model user enters a project location (city and state) into the cost model, the model applies the geographic index to the construction cost to reflect costs for that state or urban area. No data were available for Alaska or Hawaii. The user may use the default national values, though it is suspected that construction costs in both states may be higher than average

10 ITEM DESCRIPTION INSTRUCTIONS City Enter city name from list in Downtown Table if applicable State Code Postal Code for state in which project is located with 4 exceptions: Boston area-MAB, Phil-PAP,NYCity-NYC;San Fran-CAS Build Year Projected mid-year of construction 1.00 Roadway Construction 1.10 Earthwork 1.11 Clearing and Grubbing Clearing and grubbing is calculated by acre. Use the total acreage of the project that will be cleared of native vegetation 1.12 Excavation Unit cost is proviided in cubic yards. Estimate the total volume of excavation for specific project conditions. 1.13 Grading Based on grading costs for a path with an assumed width of 10' 1.14 Pavement Removal Unit price is based on removal of a cubic yard of either portland cement or bituminous concrete pavement. 1.15 Curb/Gutter Removal Removal of existing curbs - Earthwork Contingency Contingency for earthwork is variable. Use default or input best guess based on specifics of the project. 1.20 Pavement Identify the surface treatment. For full depth construction, aggregate base is necessary. Default depth of pavement is ____. Default depth of base is ____ 1.21 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Assumes a 5 inch pavement depth 1.22 Bituminous Concrete Pavement Assumes a 3 inch pavement depth 1.23 Crushed Stone Surface Assumes a 3 inch stone surface depth 1.24 Aggregate Base Assumes a 4 inch base. Use if full depth pavement construction. 1.25 Curbing Unit cost is median cost of cast-in-place concrete or granite curb. Concrete curbs may vary due to project size. Roadway projects will have smaller unit cost 1.26 Curb Ramps Cost to install a single curb ramp. Includes removal of existing concrete sidewalk and replacing with a ramp. 1.30 Drainage 1.31 Storm Drains Drainage provided 1.40 Pavement Markings Markings needed vary by location, geometrics, sight distance, and local requirements. Consult AASHTO and MUTCD for guidelines. 1.41 Bicycle Arrow Directional arrow as defined by AASHTO and MUTCD. Used in tandem with bicycle symbol. Usually, 2/bike lane/intersection. 1.42 Bicycle Symbol Bicycle Symbol as defined by AASHTO and MUTCD. Used in tandem with bicycle arrow. Usually, 2/bike lane/intersection. 1.43 Bicycle Box (colored pavement) Colored box used as needed to increase visability. Unit cost for Thermoplastic application. Usually 2 per lane per intersection. 1.44 Lane Striping Striping for a bike lane (one side) or trail centerline. Assumes a 4" wide solid line. 1.45 Shared Lane Marking (sharrow) No default cost provided for a sharrow. Assuming the cost of a bicycle symbol. Enter in local cost if known. 1.50 Landscaping Landscaping costs are variable by terrain, adjacent land use, and existing conditions. 1.51 Landscaping - Grass Unit cost is for basic seeding and mulching. Input higher estimated cost for other landscaping such as trees, sod, or furniture. 1.52 Landscaping - Trail Unit cost assumes a "complete" landscaping effort including grading, grass, plantings, trees, etc as required. 1.53 Root Dams Cost of root dam to protect tree roots from buckling pavement. Assume 18" deep plastic sheeting 2.00 Structures 2.10 Bridge Bridge costs are highly variable, especially the abutments. Unit costs for pre-fab steel structures are relatively constant. 2.12 Bridge Deck (concrete or steel) Unit cost for the bridge structure, not including abutments. Bridge structure may be concrete or steel. Trail bridges are often prefabricated. 2.13 Abutments Highly variable. Rule of thumb provided. Best to use a project specific cost if available. Unit cost is for 2 abutments or for 1 bridge. - Bridge Contingency 2.20 Underpass 2.21 Underpass Cost of constructing an underpass of a roadway to accommodate bicycles. - Construction Estimate - Location Index Enter the location based on the Location Chart - Construction Contingency TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3.00 Equipment 3.10 Signs Sign content and frequency vary by project, by state, and region. 3.12 Sign with Post Unit cost includes sign, post, and installation for a bike lane sign or bicycle route sign (12' x 18'). Use actual local cost if available. 3.20 Traffic Signals 3.21 Bicycle Signal Unit cost for a bicycle or pedestrian signal 3.22 Pedestrian Signal Activation - 4 Way Cost for installation of a 4-way pedestrian/bicycle activated signal to an existing signalized intersection 3.23 Pedestrian Signal Activation - 2 Way Cost for installation of a 2-way pedestrian/bicycle activated signal to an existing signalized intersection 3.24 Loop Detector Cost of installation of a loop detector in the pavement to detect bicycles 3.30 Barriers 3.31 Gates Gate for a trail or other purpose. Use local cost if available 3.32 Trail Bollards Unit cost provided for single trail bollard. 3.33 Fencing Materials $43,000/mile. Installation assumed at $48,000. Highly variable. Use local cost if available. 3.40 Parking 3.41 Bicycle Rack (Inverted U, 2 bicycles) Single rack assumes the use of an inverted "U", a standard rack type. Unique designs may have a higher cost. 3.42 Bicycle Rack (Coathanger or similar, 6 bicycles) Racks designed to hold multiple bicycles. Can be customized to the desired length/capacity. "Coathanger" style racks are a good acceptable example. 3.43 Bicycle Locker (2 bicycles) Assumes each locker unit holds two bicycles. Other designs are commercially available. 3.44 Bike Station No default cost provided. Enter the estimated cost if known. 3.50 Conveyance 3.51 Bus Rack Cost is the average cost from Sportworks, the primary supplier of bus racks in the US. High quantity 3.52 Interior Train Rack No default cost provided. Enter the estimated cost if known. 3.60 Lighting 3.61 Street Lights Street Light purchase and installation 3.70 Security 3.71 Emergency Call Boxes Unit cost for a call box is provided. Call box is typical of what would be found on a road shoulder or sidewalk for emergency use. 3.72 Security Cameras Unit cost for a security camera is an estimate and will vary based on location, means of data transimission, and hardware needs. Use local cost if known. TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST 4.00 Real Estate 4.01 Rural/Undeveloped If the project is located in an undeveloped or rural area, enter city name from drop-down menu, if applicable 4.02 Suburban/Single Family Residential If the project is located in a primarily single family residential area, enter the value from the Residential Chart 4.03 Urban/High Density Residential If the project is located in a high density residential area, enter the value from the Urban Chart 4.04 Urban CBD If the project is located in the downtown area of a city on the Downtown Chart, enter the value in the 2002 Rate column - Real Estate Contingency TOTAL REAL ESTATE COST - Administration (Construction) - Planning (Construction) - Design/Engineering - Field Inspection SUBTOTAL PROJECT COST - Project Contingency Overall project contingency. TOTAL BASE YEAR CAPITAL COST Default base year is 2002. Unit prices reflect 2002 costs. TOTAL BUILD YEAR CAPITAL COST The build year is the midpoint of construction period of the project. 5.00 Operations and Maintenance 5.10 Maintenance Enter in mileage of trail or road maintenance. Output will be the cost of maintenance per year TOTAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE TABLE 2 Cost descriptions and instructions

because of their remote locations. The user is encouraged to enter construction factors if known. Inflation The team researched cost values for each cost element. One or more cost values were obtained for each element. The team chose the cost from the source determined to be the most reliable, representative, or current. The Producer Price Index for highway and street construc- tion was used to adjust construction costs to the base year. The Consumer Price Index for housing was used for real estate costs. Both indexes are compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data for the years 1987–2003 were collected for both indexes. All construction values were normalized to a base year of 2002. Inflation factors were developed to convert unit costs from 2002 levels to the build year. Growth rates for both the construction and real estate costs were projected from the 1987–2003 data by the Microsoft® Excel growth function. 11 The growth function predicts the exponential growth by using the existing data. The projected growth rates were then used to predict construction and real estate costs up to the year 2012 based on the midpoint of construction entered by the user. The user is then asked to provide more specifics on facility type (those selecting on-street facilities will be asked to choose bicycle lanes or paved shoulders, for example, while those choosing equipment would see bus racks and bicycle lockers as options). Each of these facility types, in turn, trig- gers additional user prompts on site characteristics (terrain, current land ownership, etc.) and specifications (width, length, number of signs). The database has been set up to be as com- prehensive as possible given available cost data, while being sufficiently simple to allow planners to generate preliminary cost estimates quickly without exhaustive research into spe- cific project components at an early stage of planning. The final column in the interface section of the spread- sheet provides preliminary estimates of capital costs for spe- cific facility types. The resultant cost estimate along with the Itemized COSTS ITEM DESCRIPTION Units Length (Feet) Width (Feet) Depth (Inches) BASE YR (2002) UNIT City Boston State Code MAB Build Year 2002 1.00 Roadway Construction 1.10 Earthwork 1.11 Clearing and Grubbing 1,703$ acre -$ 1.12 Excavation 6 15$ cu yd -$ 1.13 Grading 2,108$ acre -$ 1.14 Pavement Removal 14$ cu yd -$ 1.15 Curb/Gutter Removal 4$ l ft -$ - Earthwork Contingency 10% -$ 1.20 Pavement 1.21 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement 5 142$ cu yd -$ 1.22 Bituminous Concrete Pavement 3 135$ cu yd -$ 1.23 Crushed Stone Surface 3 37$ cu yd -$ 1.24 Aggregate Base 4 28$ cu yd -$ 1.25 Curbing 22$ l ft -$ 1.26 Curb Ramps 1,068$ each -$ 1.30 Drainage 1.31 Storm Drains 113$ l ft -$ 1.40 Pavement Markings 1.41 Bicycle Arrow 53$ each -$ 1.42 Bicycle Symbol 71$ each -$ 1.43 Bicycle Box (colored pavement) 9$ sqft -$ 1.44 Lane Striping 3,266$ mile -$ 1.45 Shared Lane Marking (sharrow) 71$ each -$ 1.50 Landscaping 1.51 Landscaping - Grass 1,363$ acre -$ 1.52 Landscaping - Trail 27,188$ mile -$ 1.53 Root Dams 11$ l ft -$ 2.00 Structures 2.10 Bridge 2.12 Bridge Deck (concrete or steel) 16 91$ sqft -$ 2.13 Abutments 17,273$ each -$ - Bridge Contingency 10% -$ 2.20 Underpass 2.21 Underpass 3,840$ l ft -$ - Construction Estimate -$ - Location Index 125% -$ - Construction Contingency 10% -$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST -$ English UnitsInput TABLE 3 Cost worksheet, part 1

formula is presented on the final module. The formulas con- sist of unit cost figures (such as paving per cubic yard and land cost per acre), quantities and dimensions (length, width, number) as well as indices to adjust to regional or sub- regional (urban/suburban/rural) markets. A draft catalog of these unit costs and other input is included in the box in the upper right corner of the spread- sheet. Some of these values (e.g., regional cost indices) are included in the cost database; others (e.g., project specifica- tions and location) are input by users as they respond to prompts. In addition to the cost estimate, the final screen also allows users to access information on the source of all values (i.e., ENR regional construction cost indices). All basic inputs to the cost computation are default values that can be adjusted according to user specifications. For example, the 12 user can provide more accurate land cost information for the facility site than the default value. The following text, which corresponds to Tables 1–4, describes each cost component and the justification of the default value (indicated by “*” in the following subsections). 1.00 Roadway Construction 1.10 Earthwork 1.11 Clearing and Grubbing. The Iowa DOT’s Iowa Trails 2000 report was the only source that identified a spe- cific cost for the clearing and grubbing component of trail construction. Estimated at $2,000 per acre, this figure was 3.00 Equipment 3.10 Signs 3.12 Sign with Post 200$ each -$ 3.20 Traffic Signals 3.21 Bicycle Signal 10,000$ each -$ 3.22 Pedestrian Signal Activation - 4 Way 3,900$ each -$ 3.23 Pedestrian Signal Activation - 2 Way 1,900$ each -$ 3.24 Loop Detector 1,500$ each -$ 3.30 Barriers 3.31 Gates 1,500$ each -$ 3.32 Trail Bollards 130$ each -$ 3.33 Fencing 13$ l ft -$ 3.40 Parking 3.41 Bicycle Rack (Inverted U, 2 bicycles) 190$ each -$ 3.42 Bicycle Rack (Coathanger or similar, 6 bicycles) 65$ per bike -$ 3.43 Bicycle Locker (2 bicycles) 1,000$ each -$ 3.44 Bike Station 200,000$ each -$ 3.50 Conveyance 3.51 Bus Rack 570$ each -$ 3.52 Interior Train Rack -$ each -$ 3.60 Lighting 3.61 Street Lights 3,640$ each -$ 3.70 Security 3.71 Emergency Call Boxes 5,590$ each -$ 3.72 Security Cameras 7,500$ each -$ TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST -$ 4.00 Real Estate 4.01 Rural/Undeveloped 9,234$ acre -$ 4.02 Suburban/Single Family Residential 65,805$ acre -$ 4.03 Urban/High Density Residential 23$ sqft -$ 4.04 Urban CBD 56$ sqft -$ - Real Estate Contingency 20% -$ TOTAL REAL ESTATE COST -$ - Administration (Construction) 6% -$ - Planning (Construction) 2% -$ - Design/Engineering 10% -$ - Field Inspection 2% -$ SUBTOTAL PROJECT COST -$ - Project Contingency 30% -$ TOTAL BASE YEAR CAPITAL COST 1.00 2002 -$ TOTAL BUILD YEAR CAPITAL COST 100% 2002 -$ 5.00 Operations and Maintenance 5.10 Maintenance 0 6,500$ mile/yr -$ TOTAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE -$ TABLE 4 Cost worksheet, part 2

13 adjusted to $1,703* to reflect construction costs in 2002 in Ohio, the baseline location for regional variations in con- struction costs (5). 1.12 Excavation. An Internet search was conducted to identify estimated excavation costs. The expectation was that information would not be available specifically for bike trail projects. However, general excavation costs for roadway pro- jects were sought to approximate bike trail excavation costs, as well as a bike lane’s share of roadway excavation costs. A review of several websites resulted in a range of excavation costs, typically provided in cost per cubic yard. The Contra Costa Bicycle Pedestrian plan uses a wide range of $10–$50 per cubic yard for excavation for a shared use pathway (6). Advanced Drainage Systems, the largest manufacturer of drainage equipment, identified $5 to $15* per cubic yard as the national standard range for excavation costs (7). Because this factor is based on volume rather than facility length, its use will require some understanding of excava- tion needs for the specific bike facility. 1.13 Grading. Trail grading estimates were also taken from the Iowa Trails 2000 report with the same adjust- ments made for regional differences and cost escalation to arrive at $2,555* per trail mi (5). The Iowa report estimate was based on a 10-ft wide hard surface trail. 1.14 Pavement Removal. A layer of pavement is often removed prior to an overlay. An engineering estimate from the city of Chino in southern California identifies both port- land cement and bituminous concrete pavement removal at $15.60* per cubic yard (8). 1.15 Curb/Gutter Removal. Removal of curbing was given in a report from the San Francisco Department of Park- ing and Traffic at a cost of $5* per linear ft (9). This cost is used in the model. 1.20 Pavement Bicycle facilities on roadways are typically paved in bitu- minous concrete or portland cement concrete. Brick, paving stones, or other materials are occasionally used in select sit- uations. Trails may also be paved in a soft surface such as crushed stone, or a natural surface. The cost model provides the user with a selection of the three most common trail sur- faces; portland cement concrete, bituminous concrete, and crushed stone. Depth of pavement and aggregate base will vary at the project and at the regional level. The unit cost of an installed concrete path was derived from the survey of bikeway projects. However, the survey data were Normalized Index by State or Region State Location Index AK All AL All 0.90 AR All 0.90 AZ All 1.00 CA Except Bay Area 1.10 CAS Bay Area 1.40 CO All 1.00 CT All 1.15 DC All 1.05 DE All 1.05 FL All 0.90 GA All 0.95 HI All IA All 1.15 ID All 0.95 IL All 1.20 IN All 1.00 KS All 0.90 KY All 0.95 LA All 0.90 MA Western 1.10 MAB Eastern 1.25 MD All 1.05 ME All 1.10 MI All 1.15 MN All 1.15 MO All 1.15 MS All 0.90 MT All 0.95 NB All 0.95 NC All 0.90 ND All 0.95 NH All 1.10 NJ All 1.25 NM All 0.95 NV All 0.95 NY Upstate NY 1.10 NYC New York City Metro 1.40 OH All 1.00 OK All 0.90 OR All 1.10 PA Except Philadelphia 1.05 PAP Philadelphia Area 1.25 RI All 1.15 SC All 0.90 SD All 0.95 TN All 0.90 TX All 0.90 USA All 1.00 UT All 0.95 VA All 0.95 VT All 1.10 WA All 1.15 WI All 1.10 WV All 1.00 WY All 0.95 TABLE 5 Normalized index by state or region

highly variable in the specificity of information provided about the facility and what elements of construction were included in the costs. In addition, unit costs were often provided using different methods such as miles or square feet. To normalize the cost data to a common measure, all costs were converted to cubic yards. In instances in which all pathway dimensions were not provided, standard dimensions were assumed for pathway width and depth. Bike paths were assumed to be 10 ft wide and bike lanes on roadways, 5 ft wide. Depth of finish pavement was assumed to be 5 in. for portland cement, 3 in. for bituminous concrete and 3 in. for stone dust surfaces. Depth of pavement will vary by location, soil conditions, cli- mate, cost, and other factors. The aggregate base was assumed to be 4 in. deep. These assumptions are derived from the sur- vey results. The cubic yard measures were further adjusted to a 2002 base year using the factors described at the end of this section for adjusting costs by year of construction. Factors for regional cost variance as described earlier were applied to further normalize the costs. The model user should also be aware that pavement design could affect the functional and, in turn, the economic life of the pavement. Because pavement life depends on a number of variables unique to a site, no adjustment has been made for life of pavement in the model. The resulting unit costs still had wide variation most likely resulting from varying scope. Some costs may have been lim- ited to the marginal cost of additional paving as part of a road- way project. Others may have included clearing and grubbing, excavation, and drainage. Median values from the sample were used to provide an estimate of paving costs. 1.21 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. Portland cement concrete pavement is used in many regions of the country. Ten of the surveyed projects specified concrete paths and the median unit cost is employed in the model. The selected median value of $142/cubic yard* is between the low cost of $84/cubic yard for an Iowa DOT project (5) and the high of $189/cubic yard for widening a bike lane by 1 ft in Wisconsin (10). The research on concrete pavement provided a wide range of values. Given this range and the skew, it was decided a median value would best reflect the value at the national level of concrete pavement. State or regional conversions factors would then be applied to convert to local costs. 1.22 Bituminous Concrete Pavement. Bituminous con- crete pavement is the most common surface for both road- ways and trails. The unit cost of $135/cubic yard* for bitu- minous concrete paving used in the cost model represents the median cost from a sample of 26 bikeway projects that spec- ified the use of bituminous concrete paving. The value falls between the cost of widening a bike lane by 1 ft in Wisconsin in 2002 (10) and the 2004 estimated cost of adding 4-ft wide shoulders to a roadway in South Dakota (11). 14 1.23 Crushed Stone Surface. A crushed stone surface is a commonly used lower cost method of surfacing for trails with low use, in rural areas, in environmentally sensitive areas to minimize run-off, or other reasons as locally speci- fied. Only two of the sample responses specified costs for a stone-surfaced path. A cost range of $240 to $359/cubic yard was derived from estimates provided by The Rails to Trails Conservancy (12). A cost of $37/cubic yard* was derived from a 2000 Iowa DOT report cost (5). This value is consis- tent with other paving values whereas the Rails to Trails numbers appear to represent full trail construction rather than just the cost of surfacing. 1.24 Aggregate Base. A value of $28/cubic yard* for a granular base was derived from the Iowa Trails 2000 (5). This was the only source in the survey that specified a cost for the granular base. 1.25 Curbing. Curbing is often required when a road is built or rebuilt. Curbing is typically cast-in-place concrete; however, in the Northeast region, granite or other stone mate- rial is often used as a curb material. The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) projects a range of costs for con- crete curbing. Cast-in-place concrete curbing is $16 to $22 per linear ft as part of a larger roadway project and $26 to $37 per linear ft as part of a sidewalk project. The cost of granite curbing is estimated at $24 per linear ft* (13), which is an average of the midpoint values of concrete and granite curb- ing costs. 1.26 Curb Ramps. Curb ramps are located at the corners of intersections (either one or two per corner) providing acces- sible access between the sidewalk and street. According to the Public Works director at the City of Berkeley, the typical cost is $1,200 to install a curb ramp, including removal of existing curbs (14). 1.30 Drainage 1.31 Storm Drains. The best information found on drainage costs was in the Dutchess County, New York: 2002 Hopewell Hamlet Pedestrian Plan (15). This planning docu- ment included cost information on dozens of components of a village-wide pedestrian improvement project. Costs were identified as $113 per linear ft* for drainage pipes. Storm drains include only the cost of the pipe by length. Drainage is site specific and varies significantly. This report included only the cost of the pipes as a representative indica- tor of drainage costs. Complete estimation of drainage cost would include the cost and number of drain grates and exca- vation and fill requirements. Those factors are difficult to esti- mate at the planning level; hence the cost is based solely on

the length of the pipe. At one extreme, no formal drainage may be provided. This could be on flat terrain with soil and vege- tation along the edges to absorb and retain the runoff. At the other extreme, storm drains could include catch basins with sumps, grates, and a network of pipes. Because of the wide variance in drainage scope and cost, as determined by site con- ditions and facility design, only cost of the pipes is included. 1.40 Pavement Markings 1.41 Bicycle Arrow 1.42 Bicycle Symbol. Cost information on pavement arrow markings (which include the use of a typical bicycle symbol) were collected during an interview with the Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, bicycle coordinator (16). The city has used both tape and thermoplastic markings. However, the more expensive tape markings ($150 each) are more durable than the less expensive thermoplastic ($60 each*) when installed properly. The city has had problems with tape installation in the past and so it has shifted to thermoplastic exclusively. Guidelines for the number of arrows and symbols needed are as follows: bicycle arrows and symbols “shall be placed immediately after an intersection and at other locations as needed” (2, 17). 1.43 Blue Bike Lanes. Recently, bike lanes in high traf- fic or congested areas have been identified with color markings to increase lane visibility. Color markings have been used in Europe for a number of years and more recently in the United States. Portland, Oregon, and Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, mark the pavement in blue while Burlington, Vermont, uses a blue-green color. In Portland, Oregon, in a study conducted by Hunter et al. (18), the city identified seven different materials that can be used to mark the pavement. The materials were tested for durability, visibility, and cost. Recent experience by the City of Cambridge has identified thermoplastic as the material of choice because of its combination of durability and afford- ability. The cost of materials and installation in Cambridge was reported to be $10/sqft*. 1.44 Lane Striping. Lane striping delineates travel lanes, shoulders, and bike lanes. The most common width for bicycle lane striping is 4 in. The Virginia Department of Transportation, as reported by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, has estimated the cost of a 4-in. bike lane stripe at $0.60 per linear ft or $3,405 per mi* (19). The Ore- gon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies a cost of “as little as $2,000 per mile” (20). 1.45 Shared Lane Marking. The shared lane marking is a recent evolution in bicycle facility implementation. The 15 marking is used on roadways where significant volumes of bicycles may be present but there is no physical space for a bicycle lane. These markings are often used on roadways with two or more lanes in the direction the symbol is applied. The shared lane marking typically consists of a bicycle sym- bol with a directional arrow. California now uses a bicycle symbol and two chevrons. Given the similarity in size and application to the bicycle lane symbol, the cost of the bicy- cle lane application is used for the shared lane marking. 1.50 Landscaping 1.51 Landscaping—Grass 1.52 Landscaping—Trail. Although information spe- cific to bicycle lanes or trails was preferred, landscaping costs associated with highway projects should provide comparable cost information. Two sources in North Carolina provided per mile landscaping costs for bicycle lane median landscaping— Cary (21) and the Asheville Greenway 2003 Master Plan (22). Both sources recorded landscaping costs to be roughly $25,000/mi*. Additional information was provided by the Iowa Department of Transportation (5). The Iowa cost was for basic seeding and mulching by acre of land and was based on highway projects. Figures from these sources are included in the cost model to provide the user with a range of choices from basic loam and seed (Landscaping—Grass) to more park-like landscape treatment (Landscaping—Trail). 1.53 Root Dams. Root dams are installed around street trees that are next to the roadway and sidewalk. The root dam directs the roots downward, therefore preventing shal- low roots that heave the sidewalk, road, or trail over time. The cost of root dams ($10/linear ft) was taken from a rail trail project on Cape Cod in Massachusetts (23). 2.00 Structures 2.10 Bridge Bridge costs are presented in two categories: bridge decks and bridge abutments. The cost of bridge decks is more pre- dictable, and for short spans can be addressed with modular structures. If circumstances require custom design then, with the variety of bridge types and configurations, bridge costs can become quite unpredictable. Bridge abutments are nec- essarily site specific in design and costs are difficult to pre- dict reliably. 2.12 Bridge Decks (concrete or steel). A number of sources for bridge costs were consulted including state DOTs in Iowa (5), Florida (24), Vermont (13), and Wisconsin (10). Ultimately, the Vermont data on bridge costs were selected because they were specific to bike and pedestrian facilities

and because they included a unit cost (square feet) that could readily be applied to the model. The Vermont estimate of $100/sqft* for bridge construction also appeared to be consistent with the range of costs from the other state DOTs. It should be noted, however, that the Vermont figures were for spans of 100 ft or less. 2.13 Abutments. Bridge abutments support the bridge span at either end and link it to the trail surface. Abutment design can vary widely based on topography, geology, and environmental constraints (wetlands in particular). There- fore little information on cost of abutments is transferable from one setting to another. Users are encouraged to input their own abutment cost based on local conditions if avail- able. The Wisconsin DOT provided a bridge abutment cost of $9,500 each* with the caveat that this cost is highly vari- able (10). 2.20 Underpass 2.21 Underpass. Grade separation of pedestrian and bicycle paths is desirable when traffic volumes and speeds discourage safe crossing of a highway, or railroad tracks, or when necessitated by the crossing of a limited access high- way. Cost estimates for underpasses will vary considerably, depending on the geometric requirements of the specific site method of construction, potential disruption to the surface roadway or rail tracks, and the construction phasing required. A 100-ft long pedestrian underpass under Route 1 in Wool- wich, Maine, was built in 1999 for a cost of $400,000 or $4,000/ft* (25). 3.00 Equipment 3.10 Signs 3.11 Sign with Post. Studies and reports where sign costs had been specifically identified were reviewed to develop estimates for the cost of providing signs along a bicycle facility. The data sources did not always identify whether or not costs included signposts or cost of installation or only the cost of the uninstalled sign. The Asheville Greenways 2003 Master Plan (22) provided cost information for different sign types (informational, direction, warning, etc). The New York City Bicycle Coali- tion provided information from Pittsburgh’s experience with sign costs including installation and posts. Although there was a range of sign costs from these sources ($55 to $1,000 per sign), most examples for installed signs were between $100 and $250, with $200* being an amount identified by three different sources (26). 16 3.20 Traffic Signals 3.21 Bicycle Signal. Bicycle signals provide an exclu- sive (or shared crossing with pedestrians or motorists) cross- ing at an intersection. The cost element is the installation of a bicycle signal. The county of San Francisco provided an estimate of $10,000* to install a bicycle signal (27). 3.22 Pedestrian Signal—4 Way 3.23 Pedestrian Signal—2 Way. Bicycles are legal vehicles on the roadway; therefore, when riding on a road- way, cyclists are required to follow the same traffic signal directions as motorists. In addition to roadway signals, there are instances where a specific bicycle signal would be useful, such as at road crossings of multipurpose trails. According to the Florida DOT (24), a two-corner walk/don’t walk sig- nal system with a signal head and activator costs $1,900.* A four-corner system (with eight of each unit) costs $3,900.* Additional costs result if a full signal system is installed. 3.24 Loop Detector. Loop detectors are typically used at intersections to detect traffic. When activated, the detector will initiate change of the signal to a programmed sequence. How- ever, not all loop detectors detect bicycles. Loop detector designs that accommodate bicycles are available. An estimate of $1,500* developed for the County of San Francisco is used in the cost model (28). 3.30 Barriers 3.31 Trail Gates. Gates are sometimes required on bicy- cle trails to prevent access by private motor vehicles while providing access to public safety and security and mainte- nance vehicles. Cost information on security gates was not available from the survey. Gate prices are being sought from suppliers. 3.32 Trail Bollards. Typically bollards are placed at the intersection of a trail with local streets or other locations where passage of motor vehicles is prohibited and bicycles is permitted. The City and County of Denver, Colorado, prepared a report of bid cost data of road construction projects for 1999 iden- tifying a unit cost for bollards of $130 each* (29). 3.33 Fencing. Fencing is used for safety in some ROWs that are shared with other vehicles. Fencing is also used in some locations to protect private property, particularly in densely developed urban areas. The per mile cost of 6-ft black vinyl chain link fence with a top rail was developed using a suppliers online calculator (30). The estimated cost

was $43,000/mi uninstalled. The developed cost of installation was estimated at $24,000/mi, for a total estimated cost of $67,000/mi.* The installation cost assumes a five-person crew for 2 weeks at $2,400/day. 3.40 Parking Bicycle racks are the most common method of securing a bicycle. Bicycle lockers are also used, primarily at public facil- ities including train stations and other city property. Bicycle lockers have the advantage of weather protection and greater security for bicycles and gear. 3.41 Bicycle Rack (Inverted U, 2 bicycles). The most common bicycle rack, particularly on city streets, is the inverted U rack. In Boston, U racks were installed in 2003 for a total cost including installation of $190 each* (31). 3.42 Bicycle Rack (Ribbon or similar, 6 bicycles). High capacity bicycle racks are used at shopping malls, busi- nesses, hospitals, and other locations with high demand for bicycle parking. Most racks may be ordered in a desired length and capacity as needed. Virginia DOT reports a rack that holds 10 to 12 bicycles to have an installed cost range from $325 to $730 (26). Using the high-end number, the cost is estimated at $65 per bicycle space.* Length and quantity of racks ordered will affect the unit cost. 3.43 Bicycle Locker (2 bicycles). Bicycle locker units typically hold two bicycles each. Installed bicycle locker costs are reported by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information center as $1,000 per locker (32). 3.44 Bicycle Station. Bicycle stations are relatively new in the United States. Bicycle stations vary in what is pro- vided. They typically include bicycle storage facilities, showers, bicycle and bicycle repair equipment rental, and information about biking in the local area. Cost estimates to develop a bicycle station will vary widely based on location. The City of Bellevue in Washington State received a federal grant of $200,000* to fund a bike station. This number is used as a unit cost. Given the potential variability in cost, model users are encouraged to seek a local cost if available. 3.50 Conveyance 3.51 Bus Rack. Bus racks have been institutionalized throughout the country on many public transit systems. Bus racks are mounted on the front of the bus and fold up when 17 not in use. The rack can hold two bicycles securely. The racks, in constant view of the driver, are quite secure. The primary supplier for bus racks is Sportworks located in Woodinville, Washington. Sportworks reports the cost of a bicycle rack as “approximately $549 per unit*” (33). 3.52 Interior Train Rack. Bicycle racks have been installed in public transportation vehicles, particularly light rail and commuter rail cars. Installations to date have been unique from agency to agency and even from vehicle to vehi- cle. One transit agency reported that installation of racks added no cost to vehicle procurement. Due to the low cost and limited availability, it is recommended that the cost model user input an estimated cost based on local conditions. 3.60 Lighting 3.61 Street Lights. Street lighting will typically be a part of a larger roadway project; however, lighting may be installed as part of a trail project. A street light cost estimate for the City of Chino, California, was $3,640 per fixture* (8). 3.70 Security 3.71 Emergency Call Boxes. Emergency call boxes may be a part of a bicycle facility project, particularly off-street trails. The U.S. DOT Benefits and Costs Database provides information on a call box project in Georgia. The average cost for each call box including installation costs was about $5,590* (34). 3.72 Security Cameras. Security cameras are often used in public places and therefore may be used on public streets or trails. The U.S. DOT Benefits and Costs Database includes the cost of a roadside detection camera using a closed-circuit television (CCTV) video camera. The estimated cost of this camera is $7,500* to $17,000. The low end of this cost is used for the cost model. The cost cited includes installation of a color video camera with pan, tilt, and zoom (PTZ) (35). 4.00 Real Estate Alternative Sources of Data on Land Values The procedures and data provided in the model are intended as default values if other more traditional methods of obtain- ing land values are not used. The most direct method of obtain- ing an estimate of land value is to consult a local real estate broker. If the land is “on the market,” a value can be immedi- ately determined. A real estate broker can provide advice on the difference between the asking price and the projected

sales price. Property is almost always listed at a price higher than the seller is willing to accept. Another source of information on land values is the local property assessor’s office. Property assessments are made for all property in a municipality and are a matter of public record. Staff is available in the office to aid in finding land value data for a specific property. It is important to apply a factor that rep- resents the ratio of assessed value to market value. Assessed values are generally conservative and below market values. Assessors usually keep information on the ratio of assessed to market values. A third method of estimating the value of a given property is to have a land appraiser provide an estimate of value. Land appraisals are normally done at later stages in a project and can be expensive. Often three appraisals are required to firmly establish the value of land. Appraisers often will provide a “preliminary” estimate or “windshield appraisal” of land value for a smaller fee, in anticipation of a full appraisal when one is required for a project. Actual purchase prices can be higher than the appraised value if the purchase is negotiated or if a property value is contested in court. Real Estate Values Real estate values vary markedly by location throughout the country and by density of development in the project area. Unit prices for land acquisition were estimated for four settings—rural, suburban, urban residential, and urban cen- tral business district (CBD). Rural and Suburban Land Values. Estimates of per acre land costs for rural and suburban areas by state were obtained from the U.S. Census of Agriculture (rural land) and the U.S. Census of Housing (suburban land). The latest data from the Census of Agriculture (which is taken every 5 years) are for 2002. The latest data from the Census of Housing (which is taken every 10 years) are for 2000. Data were updated to 2002 using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for housing, published by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (4). An extrapolation of the data between 1987 and 2003 resulted in an annual rate of inflation of 2.5%. Data are compiled by state in both the Census of Agricul- ture and Census of Housing. State-level data were thought to be most appropriate for use because they reflect regional variation in land costs and can be readily identified by the cost estimator. Rural land value is reported by acre and can be used directly (adjusted in accordance with the CPI for year). Suburban property values are reported as the estimated value for a home. To estimate the value of suburban land, the prop- erty value must be divided into land and building (improve- ments) components. Typically, the value of land accounts for one-third of the total property value of single-family detached housing (36). This factor was used to derive estimates of 18 median land value by state from housing values reported in the Census of Housing. Urban Land Values. Urban land prices were estimated from an extensive listing of commercial property for sale com- piled by C. B. Richard Ellis Company (37). There were not enough listings for each state to provide a statistically defen- sible land value for each state. Using all the data of several hundred listings yields a statistically defensible price for land at the national level. The national price was estimated and indexed for each state using the state’s median household income. The derived U.S. average of $18.91/sqft* seems reasonable absent more site-specific data. Urban CBD Land Values. Estimates of land values for 53 downtown areas in U.S. cities were derived from rental rates from a Spaulding & Slye Colliers Survey of Class A Downtown Office Space Prices. Property value is generally between 6 and 9 times annual gross rent and CBD land val- ues are approximately 20% of the value of commercial prop- erty (38). Land prices for 53 urban CBDs were estimated based on property values equal to 7.5 times annual rental rates and a value of land equal to 20% of the property value. Applying the Real Estate Component of the Model Analysts using the model to estimate the land cost must identify the following: • The state in which the project is located, • The city in which the project is located (if land is to be acquired in a major urban CBD), and • Whether the land is in a rural (undeveloped area), a sub- urban (single family home area), an urban (dense resi- dential area), or an urban CBD area. Whether an area is defined as urbanized or is in a metro- politan area can be determined from U.S. Census informa- tion (accessible on the U.S. Census website at http://www. census.gov/). The predominant land use of an area can be determined from a land use map or an aerial photograph. A zoning map may help as well because land values are par- tially determined by zoning. Other Capital Costs In any construction, there is a need for design, construc- tion inspection, and administrative services. Planning Planning activities such as identification of project needs, definition of project objectives, project evaluation, and gen- eral definition of project scope tend to cost about 2% of the

project cost for major transit projects. This value is also the estimated cost of planning used by the state of Iowa as iden- tified in the survey of bicycle facility cost data. Design/Engineering Design services are typically divided into basic services and special services. Basic services are the efforts required to perform basic design for a simple project. In addition to basic services, most projects require special services for such things as environmental assessment and permitting, commu- nity coordination, and custom design of features such as spe- cial landscaping or designing for unique soil conditions. From the survey of bicycle project cost data, Iowa estimated design fees as 7% of construction costs with an additional 5% for construction phase services for a total of 12%. Vermont estimated design fees at 10 to 30% of project costs (13). Design fees for the General Services Administration, Prop- erty Development generally range from 8% to 12% of project cost (39). Commonly, total design fees for public facilities average about 10%. Based on the foregoing information, for purposes of this project, a design fee of 10% of the construc- tion cost has been used as a default value in the cost model. Inspection Field inspection is required to ensure that work is being performed in accordance with the construction contract requirements and to ensure that quality standards are met. Agency engineering staff would commonly perform inspec- tion. Depending on the size of the job and availability of agency staff, an agency might hire a separate contractor to perform these services such as a “clerk of the works,” who might provide both inspection and administration services. For large transit projects, field inspection costs are about 2% of construction costs. Administration From the survey of bicycle projects, Vermont identified administration costs as 10% of construction, real estate, and design costs and Iowa cited project administration as 5% of total costs. Project administration costs typically run at 6% of construction costs + 2 % of planning and design costs for major FTA-funded projects. Since planning and design costs are typically a small portion of overall project costs, project administration costs of 6% of construction estimates have been assumed for cost estimating purposes. Contingencies Contingencies are included in cost estimates to reflect uncertainty. Uncertainty in construction project costs is a function of several factors: 19 • Specificity of project scope, • Time lag between estimate and actual construction, and • Changing market conditions. Project Scope As projects advance from concept through design to con- struction, the scope of the project becomes increasingly better defined. As a result, uncertainty declines and the appropriate contingency in the cost estimate correspondingly declines. Even with this progression, certain construction elements are better specified than others (e.g., installing stock items, such as signs or fences, is clearly specified with predictable costs). Custom items (e.g., constructing bridge abutments, items involving earthwork) are less well specified. Even with soil sampling, actual soil conditions are only fully identified dur- ing excavation. Time Lag The greater the lag in time between preparation of the cost estimate and project construction, the greater the potential for change in costs. An example of this is the increase in cost of bituminous concrete with increasing oil prices. The base year for the cost estimates is 2002. The contingency should reflect the uncertainty of future costs. Market Conditions An additional element of uncertainty is market conditions at the time of cost negotiations. Construction costs vary depending on how active the construction industry is in the area at the time project bids are sought. Additionally, real estate values can be very unpredictable. Considering the foregoing, an overall project contingency of 20% has been applied to the base year of 2002 capital cost estimate to reflect the uncertainty of future conditions. An additional contingency of 10% has been applied to the con- struction cost estimate to reflect the general nature of the project scope. Within construction, an additional 10% in con- tingency has been added for more unpredictable construction activities, specifically earthwork and the construction of bridge abutments. Finally, an additional 20% contingency has been added to the real estate cost estimate to reflect the uncertainty in predicting real estate markets. It is recommended that the model user review the applica- tion of contingencies and adjust the contingencies in the model as indicated by the level of uncertainty associated with specific cost elements of the proposed project. Total Build Year Capital Costs Unit costs in the cost model are based on a base year of 2002. The year 2002 is the latest year for which a substantial

amount of cost data is available for all elements. The con- struction, equipment, real estate, and contingency costs are summed to obtain the total project cost in 2002 dollars. Project construction occurs several years into the future. To provide a more accurate assessment of the project cost, the “build year” or midyear of construction is identified. For exam- ple, if construction is predicted to take 4 years and will start in 3 years (from 2004), the project completion year will be 2011. The build year or midpoint of the construction will be 2009. Researchers developed an inflation factor by extrapolating the Producer Price Index Industry Data for Highway and Street Construction from the period 1987 through 2003. When the cost model user enters the build year into the model, the index for the build year is applied to the 2002 base year costs to provide estimated build year costs. 5.00 Operations and Maintenance Operations cost for bicycle facilities typically includes the cost of security or policing the facility. Maintenance includes pavement (sweeping, snow removal, and repair), drainage (cleaning and repair of storm drains), traffic controls (pavement marking, signs, and traffic signal maintenance), and landscape maintenance. 20 When bicycle facilities are elements of other, larger facil- ities, the maintenance costs are often subsumed into the cost of the maintenance of the larger facility. Often the marginal or incremental costs of added maintenance are so modest that they are not accounted for as discrete facility costs. For exam- ple, for a roadway-widening project, it is difficult to discretely identify the added operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the widening from the overall costs of main- taining the road. Accordingly, for most facilities it is assumed that the added O&M costs are negligible. A typical exception to this assumption is the cost of land- scape maintenance for bicycle trails as discussed in sec- tion 5.10. 5.10 Maintenance Research into trail maintenance costs identified a data source that has been widely used by trail proponents to estimate costs. Although independent sources were also identified, several trail proponents used a Rails to Trails Conservancy breakdown of maintenance costs for the year 2000. The cost items include drainage maintenance, sweeping, trash removal, weed con- trol, mowing, minor repairs, supplies, and fuel. The total annual per mile cost is estimated at $6,500 (40).

Next: Chapter 2 - Measuring and Forecasting the Demand for Bicycling »
Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552: Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities includes methodologies and tools to estimate the cost of various bicycle facilities and for evaluating their potential value and benefits. The report is designed to help transportation planners integrate bicycle facilities into their overall transportation plans and on a project-by-project basis. The research described in the report has been used to develop a set of web-based guidelines, available on the Internet at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/, that provide a step-by-step worksheet for estimating costs, demands, and benefits associated with specific facilities under consideration.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!