6.0 Implementation Strategy

This section identifies costs for the proposed bicycle improvements, plus strategies on funding and financing.

6.1 Cost Breakdown

Costs are separated between bicycle facilities and programs. A complete breakdown of costs for bicycle projects is presented in Table 7. The total cost over 20 years is estimated at $3.6 million, with the Alameda Point Class I facilities (including the Bay Trail) representing 55% of the total costs. Table 8 presents a summary of program costs which are estimated to cost about $36,000 per year and a fraction of which would be the City's responsibility . Table 9 presents a more detailed breakdown of the funding sources by project over the next 20 years. Of the total project cost over 20 years, it is projected that the City will be responsible for about 13%. The average cost per year to the City would be about $47,000. It is important to note that while many of the projects can be funded with federal, state, and regional transportation, safety, and/or air quality grants, others are recreational or educational in nature and must be funded by local or private sources.

Short and mid-term improvements are recommended to be implemented over the next ten years, or as funding is available. It also presents a best case scenario for Alameda, providing a network of bicycle facilities and programs within the short to mid-term. Some of the more expensive projects may take longer to implement.

Table 9 presents a breakdown of projects by funding source, with the likely sequence of projects listed based on priority and sequencing in the capital improvement program. It is important to note that many of the funding sources are highly competitive, and therefore impossible to determine exactly which projects will be funded by which funding sources. Timing of projects is also difficult to pinpoint exactly, due to dependence on competitive funding sources, timing of roadway and development projects, and the overall economy.





















Table 7

Bicycle Project Cost Estimates
Segment Year Length (miles) Type Cost ($1998)
SHORT to MID TERM (YEARS 1-10)
1. Webster/Posey Tubes 1999-09

Tube Improvements

 n/a
Oakland Connection Water Taxi n/a
2. Central Avenue Bike Lanes 1999-04

2.05

II

$ 51,250

3. Bikeway Enhancements
Signal Detectors 1999-04 20 detectors $ 60,000
Intersection 1999-04 10 striping/signs $ 10,000
Bicycle Parking 1999-04 $ 25,000
4. Shoreline Trail Enhancements
Improve Existing Trail 1999-04 2.7 I $ 270,000
New Trail Segment 1999-04 0.4 I $ 115,000
5. Bay Farm Island Bridge Access 1999-04 0.1 I $ 100,000
6. Clement Corridor/Bridge Access 1999-04 1.85 II $ 46,250
7. San Jose-Sherman Bikeway 1999-04 2.6 III $ 206,000
8. Oak Street Bikeway Corridor 1999-04 1 III $ 10,000
9. Fifth Street Bikeway Corridor 2004-09 1.2 II $ 30,000
10.Atlantic Avenue Bikeway 1999-04 0.8 I $ 200,000
11. Bay Farm Island Bikeways
Island Dr. Bike Lanes/Pathway 1998-04 0.75 I/II $ 41,250
McCartney Road Bike Lanes 1998-04 0.3 II $ 7,500
12.Alameda Point and FISC Bikeways
Alameda Point Class I Paths 1999-09 8 I $ 2,000,000
Alameda Point Class II Lanes 1999-09 4.6 II $ 115,000
FISC Class I Paths 1999-09 1.3 I $ 325,000
FISC Class II Lanes 1999-09 0.8 II $ 20,000
Sub-Total $ 3,607,250




















Table 8

Program Cost Estimates

Unit Cost Description Units Cost
Class I Maintenance $8,500.00 Mi/Year 26.8 $ 227,800
Class II Maintenance $2,000.00 Mi/Year 20.75 $ 41,500
Bicycle Parking
Class I Bike Lockers $ 350.00 EA/2 bikes 40 $ 14,000
Class II Bike Racks $ 150.00 EA/12 bikes 60 $ 9,000
Bicycle Corrals $ 450.00 EA/40 bikes - $ -
Bicycle Education
Safety Grants $5,000.00 Year 20 $ 100,000
Safety Materials $2,000.00 Every 5 years 4 $ 8,000
School Commute Program $2,500.00 Year 20 $ 50,000
Bicycle Lender/Repair Program $2,500.00 Year 20 $ 50,000
Bikeway Map $5,000.00 Every 5 years 4 $ 20,000
Community Adoption Program $2,500.00 Year 20 $ 50,000
Bike Fairs/Races $2,500.00 Year 20 $ 50,000
Employer Incentives $2,500.00 Year 20 $ 50,000
Bike-to-Work Days $2,500.00 Year 20 $ 50,000
20-Year Cost $ 720,300
Avg. Cost/Year $ 36,015




































Table 9

Projects and Programs by Funding Source

Local Regional State Federal Private/ Total
SHORT to MID TERM (YEARS 1-10) Other
1. Webster/Posey Tubes, Oakland $ - $ - $ - $ - n/a
Connection $ - $ - $ - $ - n/a
2. Central Avenue Bike Lanes $ 5,125 $ 7,688 $ 5,125 $ 33,313 $ 51,250
3. Bikeway Enhancements
Signal Detectors $ 6,000 $ 9,000 $ 6,000 $ 39,000 $ 60,000
Intersection $ 1,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,000 $ 6,500 $ 10,000
Bicycle Parking
4. Shoreline Trail Enhancements
Improve Existing Trail $ 27,000 $ 135,000 $ 27,000 $ 81,000 $ 270,000
New Trail Segment $ 4,000 $ 20,000 $ 4,000 $ 12,000 $ 40,000
5. Bay Farm Island Bridge Access $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 65,000 $ 100,000
6. Clement Corridor/Bridge Access $ 4,625 $ 6,938 $ 4,625 $ 30,063 $ 46,250
7. San Jose-Sherman Bikeway $ 20,600 $ 30,900 $ 20,600 $ 133,900 $ 206,000
8. Oak Street Bikeway Corridor $ 1,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,000 $ 6,500 $ 10,000
9. Fifth Street Bikeway Corridor $ 3,000 $ 4,500 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 10,500 $ 30,000
10.Atlantic Avenue Bikeway $ 20,000 $ 30,000 $ 20,000 $ 130,000 $ 200,000
11. Bay Farm Island Bikeways $ -
Island Dr. Bike Lanes/Pathway $ 4,125 $ 6,188 $ 4,125 $ 26,813 $ 41,250
McCartney Road Bike Lanes $ 750 $ 1,125 $ 750 $ 4,875 $ 7,500
12.Alameda Point and FISC Bikeways $ -
Alameda Point Class I Paths $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 200,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000 $ 2,000,000
Alameda Point Class II Lanes $ 11,500 $ 17,250 $ 11,500 $ 34,500 $ 40,250 $ 115,000
FISC Class I Paths $ 32,500 $ 48,750 $ 32,500 $ 97,500 $ 113,750 $ 325,000
FISC Class II Lanes $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,000 $ 20,000
13.Ballena Bay Shoreline Trail Gap $ 7,500 $ 11,250 $ 7,500 $ 48,750 $ 75,000
$ 360,725 $ 649,588 $ 360,725 $ 1,364,713 $ 871,500 $ 3,607,250

Table 9 (Continued)

Projects and Programs by Funding Source

Local Regional State Federal Private/ Total
SHORT to MID TERM (YEARS 1-10) Other
Programs
Class II Maintenance $ 41,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41,500
Bicycle Parking
Class I Bike Lockers $ 7,000 $ 2,100 $ - $ - $ 4,900 $ 14,000
Class II Bike Racks $ 4,500 $ 1,350 $ - $ - $ 3,150 $ 9,000
Bicycle Corrals
Bicycle Education
Safety Grants $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 $ 100,000
Safety Materials $ 800 $ 1,200 $ 1,600 $ 2,000 $ 2,400 $ 8,000
School Commute Program $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 12,500 $ 15,000 $ 50,000
Bicycle Lender/Repair Program $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 12,500 $ 15,000 $ 50,000
Bikeway Map $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 20,000
Community Adoption Program $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 12,500 $ 15,000 $ 50,000
Bike Fairs/Races $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 12,500 $ 15,000 $ 50,000
Employer Incentives $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 12,500 $ 15,000 $ 50,000
Bike-to-Work Days $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 12,500 $ 15,000 $ 50,000
Sub-Total $ 209,700 $ 147,380 $ 119,770 $ 107,000 $ 136,450 $ 720,300
TOTAL $ 570,425 $ 796,968 $ 480,495 $ 1,471,713 $ 1,007,950 $ 4,327,550
Per Year Average $ 46,558 $ 72,328 $ 42,061 $ 141,821 $ 93,973 $ 396,740






6.2 Funding

There are a variety of potential funding sources including local, state, regional, and federal funding programs that can be used to construct the proposed bicycle improvements. Many of the federal, state, and regional programs are competitive, and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of the project need, costs, and benefits. Local funding for bicycle projects typically comes from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding, which is derived from gasoline taxes and distributed to each community based on population and geographic area. Funding for many of the programs (such as education) would need to be funded either with TDA, general fund (staff time), or possibly private grants. Table 10 presents a summary of available funding along with timing, criteria, and funding agency.



TEA-21

TEA-21 was adopted by both houses of Congress on May 22, 1998. The follow-up to ISTEA, TEA-21 offers some important changes in funding opportunities.

1. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) was amended as follows:

2. The National Highway System (NHS) program was amended as follows:

3. The Transportation Enhancements (TE) program was amended as follows:

4. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements (CMAQ) program was amended as follows:

5. The Recreational Trails Program was amended as follows:

6. The Hazard Elimination Program was amended as follows:

7. A new category, Transit Enhancements Program, was created that calls for transit agencies in urbanized areas over 200,000 population to use 1 percent of their Urban Formula Funds for Transit Enhancements Activities. Up to $50 million per year may be available for pedestrian access, walkways, bicycle access, bike storage facilities, and bike-on-bus racks. The program calls for 95% Federal/5% local match.

8. Scenic Byway, bridge repair, transit, safety (non-construction), and Federal Lands programs all remain essentially the same under TEA-21, with the amounts either the same or increasing from ISTEA.

9. Planning provisions for states and MPO's have been streamlined, with bicycle and pedestrian needs to be given due consideration in the development of comprehensive transportation plans. Specific policies include directives to not approve any project or regulatory action that will have an adverse impact on non-motorized safety, unless a reasonable alternative route is provided or already exists.

10. When state or local regulations permit, allow use of bicycle facilities by electric bicycles and motorized wheelchairs.

11. Railway-highway crossings should consider bicycle safety.

12. A new Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative Research Program is established for funding non-motorized research.

13. In cooperation with AASHTO, ITE, and other groups, establish new bicycle design guidelines within 18 months.



A detailed program-by-program of available funding programs along with the latest relevant information is provided on Table 10. Once Alameda's bicycle projects and costs are identified, each project will be targeted for specific funding sources where it can be expected to compete effectively.





















Table 10: Summary of Funding Programs

Funding Programs Modes (Bicycle, pedestrian-walkways, trails) Trip Types (Commute/Transportation, Recreational) Project types (Construction, Non-construction, both)
Federal Funding
STP Both Transportation Both
Transportation Enhancement Activities (ISTEA) Both Transportation Construction
CMAQ Both Transportation Both
National Highway System (NHS) Both Transportation Both
Federal Lands Highway Funds Both Transportation Construction
Scenic Byways Program Both Both Construction (including planning design and development)
Bridge Repair and Replacement Bicycle Transportation Construction
National Recreation Trails Fund Both Both Both
Highway Safety Program Both Transportation Non-construction
Highway Safety and Development Pedestrian Transportation Non-construction
Recreational and Public Purposes Act Both Both (Primarily Recreational) Both
Funding Programs Modes (Bicycle, pedestrian-walkways, trails) Trip Types (Commute/Transportation, Recreational) Project types (Construction, Non-construction, both)
Schools and Roads Grants to States Both Transportation Construction

Table 10 (cont.'d): Summary of Funding Programs

Section 3 Mass Transit Capital Grants Both Transportation Both
Section 3 Mass Transit Capital Grants Bicycle Transportation Construction
State Funding
California Bikeways Act Bicycle Transportation Construction
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation program Both Transportation Construction
Flexible Congestion Relief Both Transportation Construction
Habitat conservation Fund Grant Program Both Both Construction
Kapiloff Land Bank Funds Both Transportation Construction (Land acquisition)
Land and Water conservation Fund Both Both Construction (Including land acquisition)
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts Both Both Both
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) TDA Article 3 Both Transportation Both


Federal Funding

Federal funding through the TEA-21 (Transportation Enhancements Act) program will provide the bulk of outside funding. TEA-21 currently contains three major programs, STP (Surface Transportation Program), TEA (Transportation Enhancement Activities), and CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement) along with other programs such as the National Recreational Trails Fund, Section 402(Safety) funds, Scenic Byways funds, and Federal Lands Highway funds.

TEA-21 funding is administered through the state (Caltrans or Resources Agency) and regional governments (Metropolitan Transportation Commission). Most, but not all, of the funding programs are transportation versus recreational oriented, with an emphasis on (a) reducing auto trips and (b) providing an inter-modal connection. Funding criteria often includes completion and adoption of a bicycle master plan, quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (such as saved vehicle trips and reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and support, CEQA compliance, and commitment of some local resources. In most cases, TEA-21 provides matching grants of 80 to 90 percent--but prefers to leverage other moneys at a lower rate.

With an active and effective regional agency such as the MTC, Alameda should be in a good position to secure more than its fair share of TEA-21 funding. It will be critical to get the local state assemblyman and senator briefed on these projects and lobbying Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission for these projects.

State

TDA Article III (SB 821)

Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III funds are state block grants awarded annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. These funds originate from the state gasoline tax and are distributed to local jurisdictions based on population.

Bicycle Lane Account

The state Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) is an annual program that is available for funding bicycle projects. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects which benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. While the fund is currently small ($700,000 available annually), it has been increased to $1 million/yr. starting in FY 1999 with an increase to $3 million/year by the state assembly and senate.

Regional

The Air Quality Management District is a major potential source of funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs. The Transportation for Clean Air Fund (TFCA) grants are generally in the $50,000 to $200,000 range and are highly competitive based on a cost-benefit formula developed by the District. Funding priorities also change annually with the District, between bicycle and other projects such as transit and electric bicycle/vehicle uses.

Local

New Construction

Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing bike lanes. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that an effective review process is in place to ensure that new roads meet the standards and guidelines presented in this master plan.



Impact Fees

Another potential local source of funding are developer impact fees, typically ties to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site bikeway improvements which will encourage residents to bicycle rather than drive. In-lieu parking fees may be used to help construct new or improved bicycle parking. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project's impacts is critical in avoiding a potential lawsuit.

Mello Roos

Bike paths, lanes, and pedestrian facilities can be funded as part of a local assessment or benefit district. Defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult unless the facility is part of a larger parks and recreation or public infrastructure program with broad community benefits and support.

Other

Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Volunteer programs may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways. Use of groups such as the California Conservation Corp (who offer low cost assistance) will be effective at reducing project costs. Local schools or community groups may use the bikeway or pedestrian project as a project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties may be formed to help clear the right of way where needed. A local construction company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, where corporations 'adopt' a bikeway and help construct and maintain the facility.

Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time which may be used to implement the system.

6.3 Financing

Proposed improvements and programs to be developed over the next 20 years in Alameda have been analyzed to determine the annual financing requirements, and to allow the City to budget its resources and target funding applications. It is important to note that the majority of funding for bicycle projects is expected to be derived from federal sources, TEA-21. These funding sources are extremely competitive, and require a combination of sound applications, local support, and lobbying on the regional and state level.

The City of Alameda has historically invested approximately $90,000 annually in bicycle facilities, in the form of bike lane and bike path construction and maintenance. Often these items are included in larger construction and maintenance projects, and specific line item accounts are not kept. Therefore, the annual expenditure figure is an estimate based on the City's Public Works Department review.