text:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Prepared for A r i z o n a D e p a r t m e n t o f Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n December 2004
Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase II Plan
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation Transportation Planning Division Project Manager: Carol Slaker
Prepared by:
Consultant: Kimley-H orn and Associates, Inc. Project Manager: Michael Colety, P.E. Subconsultant: Project Manager: Matt Zoll
December, 2004
091374007 Copyright � 2004, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
The Arizona Department of Transportation' Transportation Planning Division would like to express its s appreciation to the dedicated individuals who provided valuable input in the development of Phase II of Arizona' first ever Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. It addition to the many citizens who s attended the public open houses and provided important recommendations, the following Steering Committee Members were instrumental in the preparation of the plan: Bob Aberg, Citizen of the State of Arizona Randi Alcott, Valley Metro Susan Bookspan, Phoenix Children' Hospital s Karen Bult, Arizona Office of Tourism Dawn Coomer, City of Scottsdale Kenneth Cooper, ADOT Roadway Standards Richard Corbett, Pima Association of Governments Maureen DeCindis, Maricopa Association of Governments Nancy Ellis, Town of Oro Valley Jami Rae Garrison, ADOT Geographic Information Services Chuck Gillick, ADOT Flagstaff Regional Traffic Engineer Shellie Ginn, Tucson Department of Transportation Pam Gosler, Catholic Healthcare West, St. Joseph' s Eric Iwersen, City of Tempe Transportation Judy Jones, Foothill Bicycle Club Reed Kempton, City of Scottsdale Dan Lance, ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division Bill Lazenby, Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists Briiana Leon, City of Phoenix John Lynch, Maricopa County DOT Richard Moeur, ADOT Traffic Engineering Terry Otterness, ADOT Roadway Design Don Reeves, City of Prescott Bicycle Advisory Committee Sarah Reinke, Arizona Office of Tourism Richard Rumer, Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists Michael Sanders, ADOT Transportation Planning Division Dick Schaffer, GABA Tucson Roy Schoonover, Tucson Pedestrian Committee Carol Slaker, ADOT Transportation Planning Division Elizabeth Thomas, City of Tempe Jack Welch, Flagstaff Bicycle Advisory Committee Dave Wessel, Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization
Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 1
1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. Stakeholder Coordination................................................................................................1 Bicycle User Maps ............................................................................................................ 1 Website Enhancements .................................................................................................... 1 Grant and Funding Plans.................................................................................................2 Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program...........................................................................2 Safety and Education Booklets ........................................................................................ 3 Maintenance and Facility Request System ...................................................................... 3 Pedestrian Action Plan.....................................................................................................4
Stakeholder Coordination .............................................................................................. 5
2.1. 2.2. Steering Committee Input................................................................................................5 ADOT District and Regional Traffic Engineer Input ..................................................... 6
3. 4.
Bicycle User Map............................................................................................................ 7 ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Website.......................................................... 8
Website Content ................................................................................................................. 8 Web Page Access/Navigation ............................................................................................. 8 Readability.........................................................................................................................9
Grant and Funding Plan .............................................................................................. 11
5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. ADOT Funding Plan ...................................................................................................... 11 Non-ADOT Funding Strategies ..................................................................................... 12 Project Combination and the Prioritization Process.....................................................14 Funding Sources Summary............................................................................................15 Transportation Enhancement Program.............................................................................16 Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program.....................................................................17 Highway Safety Program ................................................................................................. 17 Transit Enhancements Program ....................................................................................... 17 Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) ............................................................................ 18 HURF Local Jurisdiction Allocation ....................................................................... 18 HURF State Allocation ........................................................................................... 21 Local Transportation Assistance Fund I and II (LTAF).....................................................24 Arizona State Parks Grant Programs ............................................................................... 25 Growing Smarter Program ...................................................................................... 26 Recr eationa l Trails Program.................................................................................... 26 Trails Heritage Program.......................................................................................... 26 Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Grant Funds ..................................... 27 Arizona Office of Tourism...................................................................................... 27 Small Project Grants ............................................................................................... 28
Table of Contents
Funding Strategies �Other Agencies ............................................................................ 28 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) ................................................. 28 Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)....................................................................29 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)................................................................29 Washington State Department of Transportation (WsDOT) .............................................. 29 Wisconsin Department of Transportation (Wisconsin DOT)..............................................30
Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program Plan............................................................... 33
6.1. Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 33 Safety Education Program................................................................................................33 Safe Routes to School Program ........................................................................................ 36 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Design Training Program......................................................38 Safety Awareness Campaign.............................................................................................39 Archived Data..................................................................................................................40 Recommended Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Program........................41 Safety Education Training................................................................................................41 Safe Routes to School ....................................................................................................... 43 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Training..............................................................44 Safety Awareness Campaign.............................................................................................45 Archived Data..................................................................................................................47
Safety and Education Booklets..................................................................................... 49
7.1. 7.2. 7.3. Share the Road Guide .................................................................................................... 49 Share the Road with Pedestrians Guide ........................................................................ 49 Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts....................................................................................49
Maintenance and Facility Request System .................................................................. 50
8.1. 8.2. 8.3. Initial Program Implementation....................................................................................50 Long-Range Implementation ......................................................................................... 51 Review of Other Jurisdiction Maintenance and Request Systems................................51
Pedestrian Action Plan ................................................................................................. 53
Table of Contents
List of Appendices
Appendix A �Bicycle User Map Appendix B �Website Review Appendix C �Share the Road Appendix D �Share the Road with Pedestrians Appendix E �Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts Appendix F �Maintenance and Improvement Request From
List of Tables
Table 5-1 �FY 2002-2003 Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) ...................................................... 19 Table 5-2 �Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)..............................................................................23 Table 5-3 �Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)..............................................................................24 Table 5-4 �Funding Source Summary ................................................................................................ 31
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase II Plan (Phase II Plan) focuses on implementing some of the main recommendations of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase I Plan (Phase I Plan). This includes the development of documents for statewide distribution, the development of plans for a number of future programs, and significant improvements to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program websit e. The following documents for statewide distribution are included within the Phase II Plan: � Bicycle User Map; � Share the Road; � Share the Road with Pedestrians; and � Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts. The following program plans are also included: � Grant and Funding Plan; � Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Program Plan; � Maint enance and Facility Request System; and � Pedestrian Action Plan.
Stakeholder Coordination
The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Phase II focused on input from the Steering Committee with field condition information requested of the ADOT Traffic Engineers. Similar to the Phase I Plan, the participation by representatives from both engineering and planning divisions from ADOT, MPOs, and local jurisdictions plus interested organizations provides valuable input that is critical to the creation of an implementable plan that meets the needs of the citizens and visitors to Arizona.
Bicycle User Maps
The Bicycle User Map is a color, double sided 27"x 24"map that folds into 8"x 4.5"in size. The user map is provided in Appendix A. The map provides the shoulder width, grade, and traffic volume designation for state highways so that users can make a decision regarding the suitability of the route for their use. The map also provides the local bicycle routes with regional significance, points of public interests, monthly statewide average temperature, annual bicycle events, safety tips, Arizona bicycle safety laws, and other bicycle resources. Inset maps with a larger scale are provided for Flagstaff, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, and Yuma.
Website Enhancements
A review of nine other State DOT websites was completed in order to aid in the enhancement of the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website. In general, all of the state websites reviewed offered similar information. Several states offered expanded information on walking including safety tips, recreational facilities, multi-modal links, walk to school and planned projects. The most common infor mation presented included; 1) Infor mation on trails and bike touring (9 of 9) 2) Infor mation of available safety materials (9 of 9) 3) Information on bicycling and pedestrian laws (9 of 9) 4) Copy of State Bicycling and Pedestrian Plan (5 of 9)
Executive Summary
5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12)
Copies of statewide bicycling maps (9 of 9) Information on commuting to work by bike (4 of 9) Contact information for State Bicycle Coordinator and other State DOT staff (7 of 9) State Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee information (5 of 9) Bike and or pedestrian design guides (6 of 9) School related information/materials, Crossing Guard Program (4 of 9) Bicycling Events (5 of 9) Programmed or planned bicycle/pedestrian projects, funding (4 of 9)
Based on available information, all of the above data is incorporated into the enhanced website. The website is available at http://www.azbikeped.org.
Grant and Funding Plans
Bicycle and pedestrian programs in Arizona need additional funding in order to continue the improvement of conditions for walking and cycling in Arizona. The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase I Plan identified a number of potential federal, state, and local funding sources in Table 8 of Chapter 12, for which bicycle and pedestrian improvements were eligible. In this Phase II Plan, the potential funding is categorized with two strategies: ADOT funding strategies and Non-ADOT funding strategies in Chapter 5. The ADOT funding strategies are recommended for ADOT personnel to require funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. On the other hand, the non-ADOT funding strategies are recommended for non-ADOT personnel. As a funding source for both strategies, a new concept of " roject Combination"is introduced to utilize opportunities of major construction and reconstruction P projects to construct the bicycle and walking facilities. Project combination is based on the ADOT Bicycle Policy which states that appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be included in major construction and reconstruction projects and similar federal guidelines which state that bicycling and walking facilities should be provided. The project prioritization process is summarized, and more detailed information is included for each of the potential funding sources. The actions in the following sections are recommended as an aid to statewide bicycle and pedestrian program coordinators, individuals, organizations, and agencies interested in the implementation and/or improvement of programs and facilities. The following are potential funding sources for the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program: � State Planning Research (SPR) funds; � ADOT Construction Program (Project Combination) �Undefined; � Transportation Enhancements or Highway User Resource Fund �up to $1.5 million annually; and � Highway Safety Program Funds �up to $400,000 annually, April 21 application deadline.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program
The education of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists is a key component to reduce vehicle and bicycle/pedestrian conflicts. In order for bicyclists to safely travel with motorists, bicyclists need to develop good cycling skills that include knowledge of the "ules of the road." Like drivers, bicyclists r must understand and obey the rules and laws that apply. Likewise, pedestrians must also understand and obey rules and laws if they are to coexist safely with vehicles. Drivers also can be made more aware and careful around bicyclists and pedestrians through safety and education campaigns and through spot enforcement programs.
Executive Summary
The overall goal is to implement a statewide program that targets pedestrians and bicycle riders of all ages, community leaders, and facility designers. For Arizona, the recommended statewide approach to safety and education should be " ne-Message" The " ne-Message"intent is to reduce costs through O . O shared development and implementation. As a process of identifying implementation plans, the publication and existing programs focusing on different bicycle and pedestrian safety education programs in Arizona and nationwide were reviewed, and then implementation plans were developed with the review process. Five programming areas for statewide implementation are identified as follows: � Safety Education Training; � Safe Routes to School; � Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Training; � Safety Awareness Campaign; and � Archived Data.
Safety and Education Booklets
Safety and education booklets were developed in support of the recommendations of the Education Program Plan described in Section 6. The Share the Road Guide for bicycling by Pima County Department of Transportation was modified to be specific statewide (see Appendix C) and a similar Share the Road with Pedestrians document was created (see Appendix D). In addition, the existing Bicycling Street Smarts guide by Rubel Bike Maps was modified by them to be specific to Arizona (see Appendix E). The intent of the development of the Share the Road Guides, is for these documents to be targeted at the general public, both motorists and users. On the other hand, the Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts is intended to be used by intermediate to advanced bicyclists interested in learning the detail behind becoming a better and safer rider.
Maintenance and Facility Request System
The State of Arizona should implement a bicycle facility maintenance program that responds to citizen' s requ est. As with other citizen request and/or complaints, response to the maintenance problem should be timely. The program goal would be to correct and/or inspect the problem within 72 hours and schedule repairs within a reasonable timeframe. In order to track the maintenance request and ensure the proper response Arizona should develop a statewide notification and follow-up system. To be successful the statewide system should establish an existing ADOT position as the central point of contact for citizen notification and the same point for facilit y maintenance coordination. Implementation steps: � receive approval from the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and ADOT Risk Management for the draft program outline and sample form (See Appendix F); � coordinate adoption of the program with all federal, state and local agencies having bicycle facility ma intenance responsibilities; � establish a single statewide central point of contact within an existing position; o recommended that the center be located within the ADOT Statewide Bicycle/Pedestrian Coor dinators Office. � each agency having bicycle facility maintenance responsibility provides phone number and email addr ess to the statewide center for the responsible maintenance supervisor and/or point of contact.
Executive Summary
Pedestrian Action Plan
Several states and regions across the U.S. have developed and are implementing effective pedestrian plans. Some examples include the states of Oregon, Vermont, California, Maryland, and Georgia, and communit ies and regions including Santa Barbara, Portland, Madison, and San Diego, just to name a few. These states and regions are actively promoting pedestrian travel and access for all pedestrians, with a particular emphasis on meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. A primary component of the plans is the inclusion of policies supporting the development of improved pedestrian facilit ies and access as well as improved education of pedestrians and motorists. Currently, the State of Arizona has limited policies regarding pedestrian travel, generally providing pedestrian facilities only if the local jurisdictions through which the State facilities travel take on the liability and maintenance of the sidewalks. The purpose of this pedestrian action plan is to support the adoption of a proposed pedestrian policy by the State and to list potential action items that can be taken to achieve the policy. The draft pedestrian policy is intended to address pedestrian access, safety issues, and facility needs. This draft policy is a first step in improving the pedestrian environment and addressing ADA requirements. The draft pedestrian policy reads as follows: It is the policy of the State of Arizona to provide accessible and convenient walking facilities and to support and encourage increased levels of walking. Strategies to achieve the policy are listed in the " DOT Pedestrian Policy for Consideration" The A . ADOT Pedestrian Policy for Consideration is on pages 127-129 of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Section 10.1 Phase I) and is not included in this plan. Additional specific actions to achieve the draft pedestrian policy are recommended for consideration by ADOT and by incorporated jurisdictions and counties in Arizona. These actions are intended to improve the overall pedestrian environment for all pedestrians and in particular to address needs for persons with disabilities.
Executive Summary
2. Stakeholder Coordination
The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Phase II focused on input from the Steering Committee with field condition information requested of the ADOT Traffic Engineers. Similar to the Phase I Plan, the participation by representatives from both engineering and planning divisions from ADOT, MPOs, and local jurisdictions plus interested organizations provides valuable input that is critical to the creation of an implementable plan that meets the needs of the citizens and visitors to Arizona.
Steering Committee Input
Members of the Steering Committee were actively involved in the review and development of the plan. Comments provided by the Steering Committee were discussed at the meetings and the documents were revised based on the consensus of the group. Steering Committee members also were able to stay involved with the project through e-mail communication. Representatives of the following organizations made up the Steering Committee: � City of Yuma Community Development; � ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division; � Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists; � ADOT Northern Regional Traffic Engineer; � Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning � ADOT Regional Traffic; Organization; � ADOT Roadway Design; � Greater Arizona Bicycling Association � � ADOT Roadway Standards Tucson; � ADOT Traffic Engineering; � Lake Havasu City Transportation � ADOT Transportation Enhancements; � Maricopa Association of Governments; � ADOT Transportation Planning Division; � Maricopa County DOT; � ADOT Western Regional Traffic Engineer: � Northern Arizona University; � Arizona Office of Tourism; � Northern Arizona Council of Governments; � Arizona State Parks: � Phoenix Children' Hospital; s � Bicycle Advisory Committee �Flagstaff; � Pima Association of Governments; � Bicycle Advisory Committee �Glendale; � Pedestrian Advisory Committee �Tucson; � Bicycle Advisory Committee �Prescott; � Prescott Alternative Transportation; � Bicycle Advisory Committee �Tempe; � Sedona Bicycle Advocate � Catholic Healthcare West, St. Josephs; � Southeastern Arizona Governments; � Central Arizona Association of � Southwest Gas; Governments; � Tucson Department of Transportation; � City of Flagstaff; � Town of Oro Valley; � City of Flagstaff City Council; � Valley Metro; � City of Glendale; � Wester n Arizona Council of Governments; � City of Goodyear; � Yuma Unofficial Foothills Bicycle Club; � City of Mesa; � Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization; � City of Phoenix Trails; and � City of Phoenix Bicycle Coordinator; � Yuma Safety Representative. � City of Scottsdale; � City of Tempe Transportation; � City of Tucson;
Stakeholder Coordination
ADOT District and Regional Traffic Engineer Input
The ADOT District and Regional traffic engineers have a vast knowledge of the conditions of roadways under their jurisdiction and issues related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The following list of district and regional traffic engineers that were involved in the data request for the Phase I Plan were involved directly or indirectly in the Phase II Plan: � Baja Regional Traffic Engineer; � Flagstaff District Engineer; � Globe District Engineer ADOT � Holbrook District Engineer; � Kingma n Maintenance District Engineer; � Kingma n District Engineer; � Northern Regional Traffic Engineer; � Prescott Maintenance District Engineer; � Phoenix Construction Assistant DE; � Phoenix Construction District Engineer; � Phoenix Regional Traffic Engineer; � Phoenix Prescott District Engineer; � Safford Development and Maintenance Engineer; � Safford District Engineer; � Tucson District Engineer; � Western Regional Traffic Engineer; and � Yuma District Engineer. The district and regional traffic engineers were coordinated with through a request of the shoulder width data on the draft user map to the Regional Traffic Engineers listed above. It was requested that the Regional Traffic Engineers coordinate with the District Engineers within their region. Information was received for areas within the Western and Northern Regions. That information provided is included in the Bicycle User Map described in Section 3.0.
Stakeholder Coordination
3. Bicycle User Map
The information and format of the Cycle Arizona Map of Suitable Bicycle Routes on the State Highway System, printed in 1998 by ADOT was evaluated and modified for the Bicycle User Map. The Bicycle User Map is a color, double sided 27"x 24"map that folds into 8"by 4.5"in size. The user map is provided in Appendix A. The map provides the shoulder width, grade, and traffic volume designation for state highways so that users can make a decision regarding the suitability of the route for their use. The map also provides the local bicycle routes with regional significance, points of public interests, monthly statewide average temperature, annual bicycle events, safety tips, Arizona bicycle safety laws, and other bicycle resources. Blow up inset maps are provided for Flagstaff, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, and Yuma. The main revision to the format of the data on the map was that the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data that was used in the legend on the Phase I Plan Network Map was revised to label low, medium, or high traffic volume. The Steering Committee felt that the low, medium, or high traffic volume designation was more usable to the common rider. The AADT associated with each traffic volume was labeled within the legend. The consensus of the committee was to utilize the following: � Low Traffic Volume Less than 2,500 Vehicles per Day � Medium Traffic Volume Between 2,500 and 7,500 Vehicles per Day � High Traffic Volume Greater than 7,500 Vehicles per Day
Bicycle User Map
4. ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Website
A review of other State DOT websites was completed in order to aid in the enhancement of the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website. The review team primarily looked at content available on the bicycle and pedestrian website, but also reviewed a number of additional features including: ease of access, navigation within the website, number of web page layers (clicks) required to reach the requ est ed information, and readability. Approximat ely 15 state department of transportation websites were reviewed in order to determine which were the most effective. It was decided to further review the websites hosted by Washington, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. These eight states presented the best information for comparison and/or features for incorporation into the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website. The website content is available at http://www.azbikep ed.or g. The following is a summary of the review of other state department of transportation websites: Website Content In general, all of the state websites reviewed offered similar information. Several states offered expanded information on walking including safety tips, recreational facilities, multi-modal links, walk to school and planned projects. The most common information presented included: 1) Infor mation on trails and bike touring (9 of 9) 2) Infor mation of available safety materials (9 of 9) 3) Information on bicycling and pedestrian laws (9 of 9) 4) Copy of State Bicycling and Pedestrian Plan (5 of 9) 5) Copies of statewide bicycling maps (9 of 9) 6) Information on commuting to work by bike (4 of 9) 7) Contact information for State Bicycle Coordinator and other State DOT staff (7 of 9) 8) State Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee information (5 of 9) 9) Bike and or pedestrian design guides (6 of 9) 10) School related information/materials, Crossing Guard Program (4 of 9) 11) Bicycling Events (5 of 9) 12) Programmed or planned bicycle/pedestrian projects, funding (4 of 9) Based on available information, all of the above data is incorporated into the revised website. Web Page Access/Navigation The keys to accessing any bicycling and pedestrian information are: an easily identifiable link on the DOT Home Page, navigation to the information with a minimal number of pages to review, and navigation within the site. A number of dot web sites included a link directly from the DOT Home Page to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program page. This removes location guess work and places the infor mation within a single click. On the other hand, many states (including Arizona), currently have the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website under general information, available maps or different divisions within the department. Since the original review of the ADOT website, the ADOT website has been updated to include the Transportation Planning Division on the Home Page and a link to the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program is on the main page of the Transportation Planning Division page. ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Website
The States of Florida, North Carolina, and Washington each offer a Bicycle/Pedestrian Home Page briefly describing the program and providing a menu of additional information. Each style is different. North Carolina uses drop down menus. Florida lists each major topic web page along the left margin, while Washington lists each major heading across the page with sub-topics (Exhibits 1-3, respectively). Each method is successful while the North Carolina style allows for the addition of sub-topics within the drop down menu without reformatting the web page. Each of the three examples allows the reader to access a sub-topic with a minimum of two clicks from the DOT Home Page. A general "ule of thumb" r is that a reader should be able to access the desired information with a maximum of three clicks. The third consideration is site navigation, moving within the web pages without use of the Back Arrow. Florida, North Carolina, and Washington each accomplish this in a similar fashion listing the major area sub-topics on the left margin. The one noted difference is that North Carolina' drop down menus allow s for the movement between any major area sub-topic with a single click (Exhibit 4). Virginia maintains links to other VDOT web pages and provides navigation between the bicycling and pedestrian site through the use of the footer links. Florida helps the reader by providing a " ou are here"line below the y top header and the page content. In addition Florida provides a page indicator for multi-page reports (Exhibit 5). Several states also provided a search capability, (Exhibits 1 and 2). We received feedback from the Steering Committee regarding a desired heading layout and navigation throughout. Readability The team considered several readability factors. The first factor was the ease and time it took for the reader to determine whether the web page contained the information requested, the second factor looked at material presentation and whether it could be understood by all ages and educational levels and the thir d factor was whether or not the information could easily be downloaded within the normal print margins. In general it was found that most websites are written for an adult audience, most sites contained a lot of narrative which requires the reader to review considerable text to gain the information requ est ed and the text width exceeds the normal print page format for downloading. Florida and Washington commonly used small text descriptions to introduce a subject (Exhibits 6 and 6a). North Carolina as one example uses more text requiring additional time to scan the information (Exhibit 7). Web pages, especially those summarizing traffic laws and safety tips should be written in layma n terms and at a level easily understood by children. A couple of examples where the website provided information for all ages were PennDOTs interactive graphics and games and the Bike Safety laws offered by Connecticut DOT (Exhibits 8 and 8a, respectively). Virginia and North Carolina' s website (Exhibits 9 and 9a) both display a text format that exceeds the print area width. Several states websites provided the file size of the material to be downloaded. Each state that was reviewed is unique in how it presented information to the public. Each provides a list of safety tips. One is very brief but complete, the other consisting of more text (Exhibits 8a, 10 and 10a). Exhibit 6a displays an interactive map allowing one click to access the requested trail information and Exhibit 11 presents an informative and useable trail description table format. Pictures and graphics are informative and tell a lot at a quick glance but were generally limited to one picture per page for the states reviewed. All exhibits are included in Appendix B.
ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Website
ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Website
5. Grant and Funding Plan
Bicycle and pedestrian programs in Arizona need additional funding in order to continue to improve conditions for walking and cycling in Arizona. The ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan � Phase I report identified a number of potential federal, state, and local funding sources in Table 8 of Chapter 12, for which bicycle and pedestrian improvements were eligible. The following funding plan builds upon this information. The project prioritization process is summarized, and more detailed information is included for each of the potential funding sources. The actions in the following sections are recommended as an aid to statewide bicycle and pedestrian program coordinators, individuals, organizations, and agencies interested in the implementation and/or improvement of programs and facilities. Section 5.1 provides a list of recommended strategies for ADOT staff to consider. Section 5.2 provides a list of recommended actions for local jurisdictions and organizations. Additional detail on the funding sources is provided in Sections 5.3 and 5.4. Section 5.5 provides a summary of funding strategies of bicycle and pedestrian programs within Arizona and nationwide. The MoveAZ Long Range Transportation Plan will provide the means to allocate funding to transportation projects, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, throughout the state as required by both federal and state law. Projects will be evaluated based on their contribution to the performance of the transportation system. One of the performance factors is " ccessibility"with an objective to a "ntegrate transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities into highway improvements (where feasible)." i Measure 6.3 is " ike suitability"and is based on the definition of Bicycling Conditions Score in the b Bicycle and Pedestrian Phase I Plan. Projects that increase the systemwide bike suitability by the gr eatest percentage receive the most points for this measure."
ADOT Funding Plan
The following are potential funding sources for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program: � State Planning Research (SPR) funds; � ADOT Construction Program (Project Combination) �Undefined; � Transportation Enhancements or Highway User Resource Fund �up to $1.5 million annually; and � Highway Safety Program Funds �up to $400,000 annually, April 21 application deadline. The following paragraphs summarize the rationale for selecting these four recommended funding sources. Additional detail on the funding sources is provided in Sections 5.3 and 5.4. Federal State Planning Research (SPR) funds have been used to fund the first two phases of the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The continued support of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program with SPR funds will enable the implementation of the plan to continue and the effectiveness of the program to significantly improve. Both the recommended facility improvements and the proposed programs, such as the Education Program, are significantly more likely to be implemented if the program is a continuous program as compared to spot funding. Funds should be used annually to assist with the monitoring of the plan and to update the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan at a minimum of every five years. Included within the plan update should be a summary of improvements that have been made since the previous plan, and a comprehensive list of proposed bicycle/pedestrian capital facilities improvements and program implementations grouped by the desired time frame (short, medium and long-range) with an estimate of probable cost included. The update should review and Grant and Funding Plan
modify, as necessary, statewide facility design criteria, operational and maintenance policies and bicycle/pedestrian policies. Although the term " roject Combination"is not a recognized process typically identified as a funding P source, project combination is based on the ADOT Bicycle Policy which states that appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be included in major construction and reconstruction projects; therefore, the standard application of this policy could be the most significant contributor to the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on state highways. Thus it is recommended that an annual review of all large roadway capacity, corridor, bridge reconstruction, and/or spot location projects be completed as part of the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. The purpose of the review is to ensure that appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements are being incorporated into ADOT projects and so that these improvements are incorporated into future Bicycle User Map updates, although the user map will not be changed every time a new project comes on line. The proposed improvements should be consistent with adopted bicycle/pedestrian plans and implementation policies. The review should occur early in the project identification process in order to develop project staff and management support. The goal for this effort is to incorporate bicycle shoulder improvements and/or pedestrian improvements into all appropriate construction projects. Implementation can be accomplished with a " heck-off"requiring the design c project manger to coordinate with ADOT' Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator. Design, construction, and s coordination costs are eligible expenses through the larger project whether federally and/or state funded. An annual allocation request could be made to Management and the State Transportation Board, in consultation with the Resource Allocation Advisory Committee (RAAC), the Priority Planning Advisor y Committee (PPAC) and with coordination with the MoveAZ process. The funding programs and dollar amounts for ADOT construction will be determined through the MoveAZ process. This report recommends the request for an annual allocation be from the Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds retained by ADOT and/or the Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) revenues. The annual allocation can be included within the ADOT' System Improvements �Roadside Facilities s Improvements sub-category. The second alternative would be to request Management and Board policy support to fund state bicycle/pedestrian projects up to $1.5 million each year. Federal National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) Highway Safety Program funds, Section 402, administered by the Governor' Office of Traffic Safety, could be applied for in order to s support the Education Program. Funds would be applied in support of statewide bicycle/pedestrian edu cational programs, development of educational materials, procurement of the required program support equipment, and for initial development and deployment of new programs. The State Coor dinator could request up to $400,000 annually to support statewide implementation of programs appropriate for all age and user groups including a public education campaign, facilities design, and law enforcement training.
Non-ADOT Funding Strategies
The following actions are recommended for non-ADOT personnel to acquire funding for bicycle and pedestrians programs and facilities. Additional detail on the funding sources is provided in Sections 5.3 and 5.4. � Develop and adopt a comprehensive local and regional bicycle and pedestrian strategic plan establishing a short, medium, and long-range list of improvements including an estimate of probable Grant and Funding Plan
� �
� �
cost. In addition to facility improvements, the Plan should address operational and maintenance issues and other programs supporting education, safe communities, bike and walk-to-school, and bike-to-work programs, etc. Plans should be updated at least every five years. Funding support is available through federal MPO Planning Funds (PL) or through support offered by ADOT Transportation Planning Division. State and local revenues programmed for planning activities are an eligible funding source. Develop a project implementation strategy within each bicycle and pedestrian organization. The construction project priority process is developed through the MoveAZ Plan. Include a review of projects and fit the high priority projects to available funding programs including the competitive grant programs. This process should start during the summer in preparation of the grant application dea dlines February to April and the development of the 5-Year Construction Program and TIP programs. Participate in the 5-Year Construction Program and TIP development and review process. Work with the appropriate ADOT District and/or project design staff, MPO/COG to include bicycle/pedestrian improvements into larger roadway capacity, corridor, bridge reconstruction, and/or spot location projects. Stand-alone bicycle/pedestrian projects are eligible for other federal funds including National Highway System (NHS), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Transportation Enhancement (TE) and Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and other state revenue funding programs. Within Maricopa County bicycle/pedestrian projects are eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) federal funds. Establish annual project allocation for bicycle and pedestrian programs in coordination with the MoveAZ process. Local transportation policy makers and/or elected officials should establish an allocation from an existing funding category. The annual allocation should consider federal, state and/or locally generated funds. The best opportunity for dedicated federal funding would involve a statewide allocation from the Transportation Enhancement (TE) program, from Section 402 Safety Funds, and potentially from new federal Safe Routes to Schools funding that is currently included in pending federal legislation. The best opportunity for dedicated state funds would involve annual funding from the local area HURF allocation. Establishment of an annual HURF allocation within each jurisdiction may not be practical. The recommended action would be to develop a regional strategy and present the proposal to the nine MPO/COG' Boards. The second approach would be s to solicit a statement of MPO/COG Board policy supporting annual funding of bicycle/pedestrian projects. Propose a dedicated new funding source. This action would require a new tax initiative (existing tax measures generally have very specific enabling legislation identifying both the tax source and permissible/eligible distribution requirements). An example of a local tax is the 0.5 percent sales tax initiative implemented in the City of Yuma (ROAD) for the purpose of funding street and roadway improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements such as a wider curb lane and curb ramps may occur as part of the road project. However, any new tax initiative option presents administrative and political hurdles. A second approach would be to modify the HURF distribution for mula establishing a statewide set-aside. This would require a change in legislation. Work with the Maricopa Association of Government (MAG) and member agencies regarding allocation and project selection for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The recently adopted MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) allocates approximately $7 million annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
Grant and Funding Plan
Submittal of federal NHTSA Section 402 Highway Safety funds through the Governor' Office of s Traffic Safety is required. This would typically be submitted by regional/local bicycle/pedestrian coordinators and/or organizations. Funds can be applied in support of safety and educational programs, development of safety/educational materials, procurement of the required program support equipment and support initial deployment of separate programs. Regional/local program applications should be coordinated with the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator. Submit Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications for pedestrian improvements.
Project Combination and the Prioritization Process
Although the term " roject Combination"is not a recognized process typically identified as a funding P source, project combination is based on the ADOT Bicycle Policy which states that appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be included in major construction and reconstruction projects and similar federal guidelines which state that bicycling and walking facilities should be provided. As mentioned in the previous sections, the standard application of this policy could be the most significant contributor to the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on roadways in the state. The following summary is intended to provide bicycle and pedestrian planners with an understanding of how most public agencies in the state, fund and prioritize their roadway improvements. Each year the Arizona State Transportation Board adopts a 5-Year Construction Program allocating projected revenues from all federal, state, and other sources including a list of prioritized programs/projects. The Board, appointed by the Governor, must follow a process referred to as the "Priority Programming Law" outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. 28-6951). The 5-Year Construction Program must be adopted by June 30th of each year. The Board is assisted by the Resource Allocation Advisory Committee (RAAC) composed of the ADOT Assistant Director and State Engineer, one representative for Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and Pima Association of Governments (PAG), two representatives from rural COG', a representative for Phoenix Transit and a representative from an urban MPO. The RAAC is s responsible for allocating the necessary revenues to fund the ADOT program subdivided into three ma jor categories: System Preservation, System Management and System Improvements. Projects included within the System Improvements category were identified through adopted plans, studies, and ADOT staff through consultation with local jurisdictions, transportation agencies, individuals, and organizations. The number and type of projects prioritized is dependent upon the specific funding category eligibility requirements and projected revenues. During the program/project identification process, ADOT staff consults with each MPO/COG in development of the final list of recommended area projects. The consultation and cooperatively deter mined list aids in achieving program/project consistency and coordination between statewide and local area needs. The RAAC submits the recommended list of prioritized projects to the Board. Due to the competitive nature of project selection and prioritization attributed to limited funding, public review and adoption process, a sponsor should submit the proposed project at the earliest possible time for incorporation into a future 5-Year Construction Program. In addition to the 5-Year Construction Program, the State complies with the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 requires each state to submit a three year Statewide Transportation improvement Program (STIP) incorporating all statewide highway, federal lands, and
Grant and Funding Plan
transit projects funded under Title 23 and the Federal Transit Act. The STIP must be federally approved, consistent with the adopted statewide long-range transportation plan and it shall incorporate and be consistent with each MPO/COG TIP. Both the STIP and TIP identify programs/projects by federal funding category following distinct programming rules and requirements. MPO' follow federal guidelines requiring the TIP to be developed following an open public s participation and project identification process to include all projects funded by federal, state, local or other revenue sources and to be adopted by the MPO governing board. Following MPO adoption, the TIP is submitted to the Governor or his designee for approval; within Arizona the six COG' follow the s MPO requirements. Approved TIP' are incorporated into the STIP and submitted to FHWA/FTA for s approval by October 1st of each year. The Arizona STIP incorporates the programs/projects identified within the first three years of the 5-Year Construction Program. The PPAC, appointed by the ADOT Director and consisting of the Deputy Director as Chairperson and representatives from the Intermodal, Operations, Aeronautics, Motor Carrier and Administrative Services Division aids in development and coordination of the STIP. The PPAC administers the work program and makes recommendations to the Board on any changes to project scope and funding level.
Funding Sources Summary
Bicycle/pedestrian projects are an eligible program expense for roadway facility and transit system funds. Two of the larger eligible federal category funds include the National Highway System (NHS) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP). ADOT receives approximately $126 million in STP apportionment, besides the bicycle/pedestrian eligibility of the STP primary program; TEA-21 established 10 percent TE set aside or approximately $13 million per year. NHS funds are eligible and nor mally include bicycle/pedestrian facilities through project combination. The Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation category receives approximate $13.7 million annually and bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements are an eligible expense when part of a bridge reconstruction project. The other large federal apportionments category, Interstate Maintenance, generally is not used for bicycle/pedestrian improvements. The two smaller federal apportionments include the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ) and the Recreational Trails Program (RTP). Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) is the only recipient of CMAQ funds. ADOT also receives approximately $1.1 million annually in RTP apportionment; funds received are transferred to the Arizona State Parks for programming. RTP funds can be used for both motorized and non-motorized trail projects. Review of the 5-Year Construction Program and STIP showed virtually all statewide bicycle and pedestrian projects funded with STP �TE funds; within Maricopa County several projects utilized CMAQ funds. In addition, few projects were programmed using 100 percent state or local revenues and very few showed a larger state/local funding share than the required non-federal dollar match. This finding was confirmed through discussions with ADOT and other regional staff; however, it was stressed that an increasing number of bicycle/pedestrian improvements are being incorporated into larger roadway project and there is increased use of other regional and local revenues. Several projects were funded using Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and other local revenues.
Grant and Funding Plan
The following sections include a summary of each funding source. Table 5-4 at the end of this section includes a summary of each funding source. Transportation Enhancement Program The TE program represents the best opportunity and historically has been the primary funding category for stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian projects. Annually ADOT retains $1 million from the federal appropriation for design, project administration, and contingency or " rojects of opportunity." The p remaining $12 million is sub-divided with ADOT retaining $6 million for " tate"sponsored projects S and the remaining $6 million available for local jurisdiction " ocal"TE projects. L ADOT administers the statewide TE program and is assisted by the 12 voting and 1 non-voting (FHWA) members of the Transportation Enhancement Review Committee (TERC). The 12 voting members represent the State Transportation Board, ADOT, MAG, PAG, 3 members appointed on a rotating basis from the 6 remaining MPO and COGs, Historical Advisory Commission, Commission of the Arts, Office of Tourism, State Parks Board, and the ADOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator. Refer to the ADOT web site at http://www.azdot.gov/ABOUT/envplan/enhancement_scenic_roads/ enhancement/index. html for downloadable versions of the Program Handbook, Grant Application, and Evaluation Criteria. It is important for project applicants to consult these updated documents annually for a complete understanding of the requirements and process. An individual, organization, or agency can apply for TE funds. Candidate projects must be submitted on a completed Arizona TEA-21 Transportation Enhancement Grant Application to the appropriate reviewing agency. In order for a project to be considered under the State program 75 percent of the overall project must be located within ADOT right-of-way and must receive support/endorsement by the appropriate District Engineer. All other projects are considered Local projects; this includes projects submitted by federal lands agencies. All TE projects require a 5.7 percent hard cash match; ADOT provides the hard match for State projects and the Local project sponsor provides the local hard match. The State TE project funding limit is $1.5 million and Local is $500,000. An application should be complete before being submitted to the appropriate reviewing agency. The reviewing agency may be ADOT, a local jurisdiction or a MPO/COG. The submittal should include any preliminary/conceptual architectural and/or engineering design information and an estimate of cost. All local jurisdiction supported projects are submitted to the appropriate MPO/COG for endorsement. Endorsed projects and those that have a committed sponsor, such as a local jurisdiction, ADOT or the federal lands agency, and that are submitted to the ADOT TE staff for further evaluation. Projects meeting all evaluation criteria are submitted to the TERC. The TERC reviews each enhancement candidate project and ranks each against the " eneral Merit"and G " ctivity-Specific"evaluation criteria. Project applicants should review the evaluation criteria during A the scoping and application development process to ensure the proposal meets the overall intent of the enhancement program. Projects receiving the highest number of points increase their ranking and cha nce for funding. The ranked list of projects is submitted to the State Transportation Board for approval. Approved TE projects are incorporated into the appropriate MPO TIP and subsequently the STIP. All project sponsors are required to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) prior to construction that defines how the project will be maintained, the organization(s) responsible, type of on-going program and source of funding. In addition each project applicant/sponsor is required to attend a TE Grant and Funding Plan
Workshop and Kick-off Project Scoping Meeting. A fee of $5,000 covering ADOT expenses is submitted by the sponsor with the project scoping document. Project applicants/sponsors should consult the TE Program Handbook for an explanation of a "ypical project development process." t Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has the responsibility for administering the CMAQ program including development of projects designed to achieve reductions in transportation related emissions. Projects for consideration for CMAQ funding are submitted by Maricopa County jurisdictions, ADOT, and MAG staff. MAG staff evaluates all projects submitted against vehicle emission reduction criteria ranking those projects producing the most benefit. Ranked projects are programmed to the extent of available funds. MAG is considering a formal CMAQ project application process. The CMAQ program offers a source of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Highway Safety Program Annually the Governor' Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) receives approximately $2.5 million from s NHTSA. Each year NHTSA identifies specific funding priorities. In general, funds are intended to enhance existing programs and may be used for conducting inventories, needed studies, engineering studies, systems development, and program implementation or for purchasing equipment. Bicycle and pedestrian safety is one of the eight GOHS priority program areas. Each January GOHS mails invitations soliciting submittal of funding request. Agencies responding to the request should carefully prepare the application to include a cover letter signed by the submitting agency, project description containing identification of the problem or reason for the request, how the problem will be solved and include a budget. Applications received are reviewed by a Grant Coor dinator and a recommended list is submitted to the Director. Applications are reviewed for completeness, evaluated against achieving identified priority areas and satisfying an overall need. Applications can not repeat work already funded. In addition, there are requirements and restrictions applicants should be aware of involving request for equipment and production of print media including printed materials, brochures and bumper stickers, etc. The applicant should contact a GOHS Grant Coor dinator for clarification of rules. Agencies applying for safety funds should refer to the GOHS grant application Proposal Guide web site at http://www.azgohs.state.az.us/dloadpdf/ProposalGuide.pdf. Application deadline is typically April 1st of each year. Transit Enhancements Program The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Basic Tier Funds urbanized area formula program provides funds that can be used for transit capital improvements, planning, and, in some cases, operating assistance. The Urbanized Area Formula Governors Apportionment for areas between 50,000 and 200,000 populations provides grant funds to Flagstaff and Yuma. The Urbanized Area Formula Apportionment, areas greater than 200,000, provides funds to Phoenix and Tucson transit systems. Based of need ADOT provides $4 million annually from the STP apportionment to urbanized area for mula recipients. Eligible expenses may include bicycle and pedestrian improvements at Park and Ride facilities, bus shelters, and bicycle racks on buses. FTA Section 5309 funds awarded on a discretionary basis are eligible for capital projects. TEA-21 requires the four transit operators to include programming of all federally funded projects into the local MPO TIP. Bicycle and pedestrian advocates should coordinate proposed projects and programs with the transit operator. Section 5307 funding is annual and offers a good source of funds for operational improvements versus facility improvements.
Grant and Funding Plan
Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) HURF represents the largest single source of transportation funding considering all federal, state, and local generated revenues. HURF includes taxes collected from motor fuels and a variety of user fees including motor carrier taxes, vehicle license taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, and other charges relating to the registration and operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of the state. These revenu es are distributed through formula to the State Highway Fund, cities and towns and counties. The State Constitution, Article IX, Section 14, restricts the use of HURF funds to highway and street purposes, cost of administering the state highway system, HURF administration, payment of principal and interest on highway and street bonds, expenses for enforcement of state traffic laws, administration of traffic safety programs and publication/distribution of the Arizona Highways magazine. Eligible expenditure of funds for highway and street purposes includes the acquisition of right-of-way and all facility improvements contained within the right-of-way. Between FY 2004-2012 HURF revenues are projected to grow at an annual rate of 4.3 percent per year, increasing revenues from $1.151 billion in 2004 to $1.616 billion in 2012. The HURF distribution for mula includes two takedowns, $10 million per year is transferred to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and $1 million per year set aside for the Economic Strength Project (ESP). The remaining funds are allocated to the State Highway Fund �ADOT receives 50.5 percent and 49.5 percent is allocated to cities/towns and counties. HURF Local Jurisdiction Allocation The 49.5 percent local jurisdiction share is further sub-divided with 27.5 percent sub-allocated to cities and towns, 3 percent to cities over 300,000, and 19 percent to counties. The 27.5 percent sub-allocated city and town share considers the incorporated area population and county origin of the gasoline sales in the distribution formula. From 2004 to 2012 the 27.5 percent share is projected to increase from approximat ely $313.5 million to $441.3 million. The 3 percent sub-allocated share is based solely on population. From 2004 to 2012 the 3 percent share is expected to increase from approximately $34.2 million to $48.1 million. Jurisdictions within the " ities over 300,000"category (Phoenix, Tucson, and c Mesa) also receive their eligible share of the funds from the cities and towns 27.5 percent suballocation. The 19 percent sub-allocation share distributed to the counties considers several factors including the distribution of gasoline sales, diesel fuel consumption, and unincorporated area population. From 2004 to 2012 the 19 percent share is projected to increase from approximately $216.6 million to $304.9 million. In FY 2002 �2003, Table 5-1, the combined 27.5 percent and 3 percent suballocation to cities and towns was approximately $321.8 million, the counties 19 percent share equaled approximat ely $200.5 million.
Grant and Funding Plan
Table 5-1 �FY 2002-2003 Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) City/Town and County Distribution COUNTY Apache $6,359,875 CITY Eagar Springer ville St. Johns Bens on Bisbee Douglas Huachuca City Sierra Vista Tombstone Wilcox Flagstaff Fredonia Page Willia ms Sedona Globe Hayden Miami Payson Winkelma n Pima Safford Thatcher Clift on Dunca n Parker Quartzite $910,667 $445,726 $738,368 $369,205 $478,479 $1,123,371 $136,959 $2,964,848 $117,786 $292,597 $7,408,116 $145,509 $952,244 $397,703 $414,775 $702,573 $83,626 $181,828 $1,279,669 $41,304 $156,078 $725,194 $315,424 $186,913 $58,520 $898,194 $961,454
Greenlee La Paz
$708,992 $3,137,770
Grant and Funding Plan
Apache Junction Avondale Buckeye Carefree Cave Creek Chandler El Mirage Fountain Hills Gila Bend Gilbert Glendale Goodyear Guadalupe Litchfield Park Mesa Paradise Valley Peoria Phoenix Queen Creek Scottsdale Surprise Tempe Tolleson Wickenburg Youngtown Bullhead City Colorado City Kingma n Lake Havasu City Pinetop/Lakeside Holbrook Show Low Snowfla ke Taylor Winslow Marana Oro Valley South Tucson Tucson Sahuarita
$18,429 $2,323,982 $603,053 $188,985 $241,229 $11,443,761 $493,141 $1,310,997 $128,302 $7,103,864 $14,183,180 $1,226,423 $339,023 $246,715 $31,384,493 $885,598 $7,020,874 $104,596,507 $272,664 $13,136,860 $1,996,908 $10,285,029 $322,726 $330,432 $194,428 $3,222,246 $317,270 $1,914,305 $4,000,566 $484,552 $664,533 $1,039,230 $602,108 $429,920 $1,284,217 $1,043,282 $2,283,594 $422,000 $44,383,949 $249,135
Grant and Funding Plan
Apache Junction Casa Grande Coolidge Eloy Flor ence Kearny Mammoth Superior Queen Creek Winkelma n Nogales Patagonia Camp Verde Chino Valley Clarkdale Cottonwood Jerome Prescott Prescott Valley Sedona Peoria Somerton San Luis Welton Yu ma
$2,487,277 $1,987,709 $612,433 $818,531 $1,057,139 $177,565 $139,299 $255,406 $9,490 $165 $2,180,037 $92,291 $798,947 $662,298 $289,706 $775,805 $27,546 $2,865,724 $1,989,445 $610,933 $46 $631,597 $1,332,864 $158,665 $6,732,658
Santa Cruz Yavapai
$2,657,384 $9,504,729
Yu ma
Source �ADOT Financial Management Services Division HURF distribution report
HURF represents the single largest revenue source available to fund local jurisdiction transportation services. Table 5-1 identifies 92 cities/towns and 15 counties sharing the total HURF FY 2003 local jurisdiction distribution of $522 million. It is recommended that bicycle/pedestrian projects sponsors approach each of the larger entities to establish a dedicated funding allocation; however, for the smaller jurisdictions, developing a regional approach may be more acceptable. Any request should be supported by an adopted bicycle/pedestrian strategic plan. HURF State Allocation The 50.5 percent HURF sub-allocation is further sub-divided, 42.83 percent (approximately $531.6 million in 2004) is allocated to support the statewide program and 7.67 percent is identified for controlled access facility projects in Maricopa and Pima Counties (approximately $44.2 million in 2004). HURF represents to the principal share of non-federal revenues contributed to the State Highway Fund. The HURF allocation, federal apportionment and other state, local and private sources constitute the total State Highway Fund revenues. The Arizona share of the federal aid highway apportionment is projected at $500 million per year; ADOT retains the major portion of the apportionment, other apportioned funds are pass-through funds programmed by local jurisdictions and minor sums are allocated to other state agencies.
Grant and Funding Plan
The projected FY 2004-2008 5-Year Construction Program budget is $3.94 billion, approximately $788 million per year. Over the five year period $972 million has been identified for Maricopa County freewa y improvements leaving ADOT an average of approximately $594 million per year for all remaining statewide programs/projects. Working through an iterative process RAAC evaluates projected funding levels and recommended funding levels necessary to meet operational and ma intenance needs of the transportation system. Projected revenues are allocated between three major program areas, System Preservation, System Management, and System Improvements. The 5-Year Construction Program Resource Allocation, Table 5-2, represents the five-year budget and approximat e average annual funding levels for System Preservation at $744 million/$149M, System Management $365 million/$73 million and System Improvements $2,835 million/$567 million ($1,877 million/$375 million with the $972 million identified for Maricopa Co. removed). The 5-Year Construction Program Summary of Dollars by County, Table 5-3 indicates that the largest portion of all State Highway Fund revenues is programmed for capital improvements within the 15 counties. The list of capital projects represents the larger high-priority projects including spot and corridor improvement, roadside facility improvements and minor and major capacity/operational improvements. The identified list of projects was developed through a public participation process, identified through studies or responses to a need identified through public policy. The list was developed through consultation between ADOT and each of the local jurisdictions and MPO/COG'. Even though bicycle/pedestrian s projects are included within this list of prioritized projects they were selected through an evaluation and ranking process matching projects against competing needs. The process described develops a mix of project types which changes annually offering no guarantee of annual bicycle/pedestrian project selection; therefore, the approach of competing against other high priority projects does not present a reliable annual funding program for bicycle/pedestrian projects.
Grant and Funding Plan
Table 5-2 �Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) Resource Allocation (000) Thousand
The SubProgram category listed in Table 5-3 represents the Departments five-year internal budget. The total is approximately $1 billion or $200 million per year. The annual budget is sub-allocated between System Preservation, Management and Improvements. The Department has identified System Preservation and Management as high priority funding areas, suggesting any proposed reallocation of "imited"funds would be difficult to support. The third category, System Improvements, has a five-year l annual average budget of $38 million. State funds account for 76 percent of the category budget currently sub-divided into a number of separate program areas. The SubProgram System Improvements category contains the smaller capital improvement projects including discretionary or projects of opportunity. Program areas range in funding from as high as $95 million to $400,000. The average is approximat ely $1 million per year. System Improvements includes the Roadside Facilities
Grant and Funding Plan
Improvements sub-category which contains funding for facility improvements and program support for statewide transportation enhancement and the recreational trails programs. Implementation of a bicycle and pedestrian sub-allocation would require approval of the State Transportation Board, concurrence from ADOT Management and coordination with the RAAC and ADOT staff on the appropriate funding level. To support the request, the adopted local area plans within the MoveAZ Plan should document the identified need. Table 5-3 �Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) Summary of Dollars by County (000) Thousand
Local Transportation Assistance Fund I and II (LTAF) The Local Transportation Assistance Fund I (LTAF I) program may receive up to $23 million per year. The LTAF I funds are distributed on the basis of population; the proportion received by a city/town is based on the share of total population compared to all cities and towns in the state. Funds can be used for public transportation and transportation purposes depending on the jurisdiction's population.
Grant and Funding Plan
Generally, a city or town with a population less than 300,000, use the funds for general transportation services and public transit including operating and related capital expenses. A city or town with a population over 300,000, use the funds for public transit operating and related capital purposes. Through resolution, a city or town may authorize 10 percent of the LTAF I for cultural, educational, historica l, recreational, scientific facilities, programs for nonresidential outpatient programs and/or services for persons with a developmental disability. Similar to the federal Section 5307, funds can be programmed for operational type improvements, bus bike racks, bus shelters and Park and Ride facility improvements. Reliance on funding for recreational uses through the resolution process is highly competitive, and depending upon the jurisdiction, potentially offers a small funding source. This avenue is not recommended. LTAF II program may receive up to $18 million per year, funding provides additional statewide transit and transportation funds to counties, cities, and towns. The LTAF II program is administered by ADOT, funds are distributed to the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), MPO, and cities and counties not represented by a RPTA or MPO. A jurisdiction' share of the fund is proportional to s its share of the total state population. Counties with a population greater than 500,000 can use the funds for public transit, or under certain circumstances, other programs up to a maximum 50 percent grant match. In counties with a population less than 500,000, the grant funds are distributed to the cities/towns and county board of supervisors and require a 25 percent match. The distribution to the cou nty board of supervisors shall be based on the unincorporated population of the county. Cities with gr eater than 50,000 in population are awarded grants requiring a 50 percent match, less than 50,000 the match is 25 percent. Annually ADOT, RPTA or MPO notifies each city/town and county board of supervisors the amount of grant monies available. The jurisdiction may submit proposals to the appropriate agency, RPTA, MPO or ADOT requesting some or all of the matching grant monies available to the jurisdiction. The proposal shall certify the appropriate match is available and detail a plan for spending the grant and local match. Funds can only be used for public transit purposes, including operating and capital purposes that conform to the long-range transportation plan or regional transportation plan. Eligible expenses may include bicycle and pedestrian improvements at Park and Ride facilities, bus shelters and bicycle racks on buses. Arizona State Parks Grant Programs The ASP Board administers nine competitive grant programs funded through both federal and state funds covering a variety of recreational and preservation programs throughout the state. Three programs offer an opportunity for bicycle and pedestrian access and facility improvements. The programs include the Trails portion of the Arizona State Parks Heritage Fund, federally funded Recr eationa l Trails Program (RTP) and the Growing Smarter Grant program for land conservation and acquisition. Program information can be found on the ASP web site http://www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/grants/grants.html. Annually ASP updates each grant program application; the documents are down-loadable and it is recommended project applicants consult the docu ments to ensure an understanding of the grant process and that the most recent program requir ements are being followed. Each grant application submitted is reviewed by ASP staff; the review deter mines project eligibility following the basic requirements outlined in the appropriate grant manual. Eligible applications are submitted to the appropriate ASP committee; the committee evaluates each applicant against established criteria and submits a prioritized list to the ASP Board.
Grant and Funding Plan
Growing Smarter Program The Growing Smarter program provides assistance for the acquisition and preservation of open spaces in or near urban centers. Competitive grants are awarded for either land acquisition or purchase/lease of the development rights. The Program can receive up to $18 million per year transferred to the Land Conser vation Fund from the State General Fund. Prior to the site acquisition recommendation, the location must be classified as suitable for conservation and added to State Trust Lands property by the Arizona State Land Department. Funding requests can not exceed 50 percent of the appraised value based on highest and best offer. Grant applications for suitable sites are recommended to the ASP Board by the Governor appointed Conservation Acquisition Board (CAB). Grant applications are due the last working day of March each year. The lands can be used for recreational purposes including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Recreational Trails Program ADOT receives an approximate $1.1 million annual federal apportionment to fund the RTP. Approximately $967,000 is transferred to ASP for program implementation. ASP currently programs 7 percent of the funds to support Program administration, 5 percent for educationally based projects and the remaining is divided equally between two programs, RTP �Motorized Portion and maintenance of statewide trails. Motorized and non-motorized trails can be for recreational and/or transportation purposes, trails used for transportation purposes are eligible for other federal highway funds. RTP �Motorized Portion is a competitive grant application process. ASP Board is assisted in project grant application review and prioritization by the Off-Highway Vehicle Advisory Group (OHVAG). Approximately $430,000 is available annually. Governmental entities, cities, towns, counties, tribal governments, state and federal agencies, and non-profit organizations designated as 501(c) by the Internal Revenue Service and meeting all eligibility criteria can apply for RTP grants. The federal RTP funds can be used to pay a maximum 80 percent of the total project cost; the applicant must provide the remaining 20 percent as match. A federal agency may provide 15 percent of the match from other federal sources but the remaining 5 percent must be non-federal. The applicant' matching share must s be certified at the time of application. Grant applications are due the last working day of March each year. Trails Heritage Program The Trails Heritage Fund Grant Program is a competitive grant program providing funding assistance for non-motorized trail projects. Annually $475,000 is contributed by the Arizona Lottery for project funding. The ASP Board administers the program assistance with policy and grant application evaluation criteria development provided by the Arizona State Committee on Trails (ASCOT) and the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Committee (AORCC). AORCC reviews each eligible application and recommends a prioritized list including the level of funding to the ASP Board. Trails proposed for funding assistance must be listed in the State Trails System or a nomination application must be submitted. Deadline for the trail nomination is July 1 of the year preceding the planned grant application submittal. Acceptance into the State Trails System must occur prior to the project grant application deadline. State Trails System nomination forms are available on this website under " rails T Program." Trail nominations can include projects for both recreational and for transportation purposes. Grant applicants may include governmental entities, cities, towns, counties, tribal governments, and state and federal agencies. Private or non-profit organizations may apply through a governmental entity acting as a third party. An entity may submit more than one application per year for completely different projects; however, no one entity can be awarded more than 20 percent of the funds available regardless Grant and Funding Plan
of the number of applications submitted. Federal land agencies including the National Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management are considered a single entity. Grants require a 50 percent match based on the total eligible project cost. The project applicant can provide matching funds in the form of cash or in-kind contributions including donated land, materials or services, cost of in-house labor and equipment, local appropriations or bond monies, or monetary contributions from outside sources. The applicant' matching share must be certified at the time of s application. The minimum dollar amount that can be requested is $4000. Applications must be received by the last working day of February each year. Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Grant Funds The Arizona Game and Fish Commission administer the state supported Heritage Fund Grant Program including the Public Access sub-program. The Public Access program is a competitive grant program intended for relatively small projects. Funds are intended to increase entry to public lands for recreational purposes when entry is consistent with the provisions establishing those lands. The annual public access grant fund budget is $160,000. Eligible applicants include any federal agency, Indian tribe, state agency, state board or commission and any local agency including county, city, town, municipal corporation, school district or other political subdivision. A description of the project prioritization process is provided at the Department' web site: s http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/heritage_apply. html. The web site offers downloadable versions of the Heritage Grant Application manual, forms and instructions. Applicants should check the web site annually because instructions, forms, and information on prioritization scoring periodically change. A prospective applicant requiring assistance may attend an agency sponsored Heritage Grant Application workshop; schedule/locations are posted on the web site. Applications must be received prior to 5 p.m. on the last working day of November each year. Arizona Office of Tourism Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) Tourism Development Division administers two competitive matching grant programs, one eligible for statewide applicants and the Proposition 302 Maricopa County grant program. The statewide program was specifically designed to assist rural communities in marketing their tourismrelated products and services with dedicated funding and resources. The matching grant program is offered to destination marketing organizations including tourism-oriented non-profit organizations, city, county and chambers of commerce. The statewide program, referred to as Teamwork for Effective Arizona Marketing (TEAM), awards matching grant funds totaling approximately $1 million per year. Grants are awarded both as individual and regional, a single applicant is eligible for an individual matching grant of $20,000 and a regional grant of an additional $10,000, total $30,000. Grants require a 50 percent match. The TEAM application guidelines can be found at http://azot.com/tourism/grants/data/ TEAM%20FY05%20Booklet.pdf. The AOT web site requires users to register. TEAM funds are available annually based on AOT's fiscal year. New Guidelines are available in early January, applicants are required to attend a mandatory workshop starting in late January and held in various locations. Applications are due in late March, and awards are announced in May. TEAM funding can be used for advertising, internet website development, printed material and Grant and Funding Plan
brochur es, media communications and public relations, strategic planning and research, and other tourism-related promotional activities. Small Project Grants The Bikes Belong Coalition and the American Greenways Kodak Awards both provide grant funds for bicycle pedestrian facilities and programs. The maximum project amount for the Bikes Belong Coalition is $10,000, with the maximum project amount for the American Greenways Coalition being $2,500. Based on the maximum project funding amount, these grants are appropriate for projects or programs with small budgets that are typically not eligible for the major funding sources.
Funding Strategies �Other Agencies
This section includes information on how other State Departments of Transportation currently fund their bicycle/pedestrian programs. The information collected included funding sources utilized to fund staff positions, safety and educational programs and new or the rehabilitation of existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities. The information demonstrates funding source similarities for the three core operational areas. Included is additional information for those states who have implemented unique and/or innovative funding sources to construct new or rehabilitate existing facilities. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) The NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation funds staff positions with state and federal STP funds. Positions prior to the passage of ISTEA are state funded all new positions primarily engineering are federally funded. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources supports a state funded Trails Coordinator position responsible for non-transportation related recreational/hiking trails. The program administers the federal RTP funds and occasionally request TE funds for projects that are transportation related. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Division uses state operating funds to support development, reproduction, and distribution of safety and education brochures, and state bicycle maps. State funds also support the safety education and enforcement programs. To a lesser extent, a specific project request for funds from the Governor' Highway Safety Program (GHSP) provides funding to a variety of pedestrian and s bicycle safety initiatives. The Division includes in the STIP, $200,000 in TE funds for support of training workshops, pedestrian safety and research projects, and other pedestrian needs. Eligible exp ens es include hiring of instructors, payment for the host venue and related expenses. The State characterizes bicycle facility projects into two categories, which determines the types of funds that may be available. The first, "ndependent Projects"are not part of a scheduled highway project. I "ncidenta l Projects"are part of a scheduled highway project. I Annually, NCDOT programs $6 million in federal TE funds for statewide bicycle improvements and $1.4 million for pedestrian hazard elimination independent of scheduled highway projects. In 2004 the State Legislature as part of an Economic Stimulus package programmed an additional $5 million is state funds for bike lanes, pedestrian facilities and shoulder widening to accommodate bicycle use. State funds are an eligible funding source for either independent or incidental projects Bike lanes, bicycle-safe drainage grates, widened paved shoulders, pedestrian safety improvements, and bicycle-safe bridge projects are included as incidental features on highway projects. These scheduled improvements receive funding from a combination of federal and state construction funds including NHS, STP, and CMAQ within the non-attainment areas. Grant and Funding Plan
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) ODOT uses state revenues to fund the Bicycling/Pedestrian Coordinator position. State funds cover operating expenses including the production/reproduction and distribution of safety materials. For larger safety campaigns, Safe Streets brochure, the Program Coordinator has used Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds for the development and reproduction of brochures, etc. Bicycle/pedestrian facilities proposed at the state level will request TE funds for construction. Normally the Districts will utilize NHS and STP funds constructing bicycle and pedestrian where required as part of a construction/reconstruction project. Districts are encouraged and occasionally request TE funds. State policy encourages the inclusion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities as part of a roadway construction project. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources administers the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and the " lean Ohio"recreational trails grant program. Statewide MPO' will utilize CMAQ funds for C s bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Legislation passed by the State of Oregon, ORS 366.514, referred to as the "Bike Bill" requires the construction of bikeways and walkways as part of the initial road project or as part of a "modernization" project. The " ill"requires ODOT and the cities and counties to expend reasonable amounts of B highwa y fund to provide facilities with three exemptions: � wher e there is no need or probable use; � where safety would be jeopardized; or � wher e the cost is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. The State of Oregon supports the following funding programs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities: � The state funded Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Improvement Grant Program provides $2.5 million annually for projects including completion of short missing sections of sidewalks, ADA upgrades, crossing improvements, intersection improvements, and minor widening for bike lanes or shoulders. The maximum grant amount is $200,000; � CMAQ funds projects and programs that reduce transportation related emissions including bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and � Transportation Enhancement, funds are used to fund transportation related bicycle and pedestrian projects that may also serve recreational. Washington State Department of Transportation (WsDOT) The State of Washington and/or WSDOT support several state funded grant programs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, programs include: � Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, acquisition and development of local and state parks including trails; � Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Program, supports facility development including nonmotorized trail activities for bicyclists, and hikers; � Traffic Safety Near Schools Grants, WSDOT, traffic and pedestrian safety improvements near schools, includes sidewalks, signing and signals, pedestrian crossings, pavement warning lights, flashing beacons, turning lanes, and bus pullouts; and � Traffic Safety Grants, safety and education programs, and projects.
Grant and Funding Plan
Federal funded programs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities include: � Transportation Enhancement Grants, transportation-related activities including bike and pedestrian facilities; � Recreational Trails Program, construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of recreational trails and facilities including environmental education and trail safety programs; � Hazard Elimination Safety Grants, WSDOT, safety improvement projects to correct hazardous locations, and/or elements; � National Scenic Byways Grants, WSDOT, consistent with the corridor management plan bicycle and pedestrian facilities and signing are eligible; � Public Lands Highways Program, WSDOT, transportation related project providing and/or improving access to and within federal lands are eligible including bicycle and pedestrian projects; � Surface Transportation Program, MPO regional and state rural funds are used for modifications to existing public sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and � Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, MPO, fund projects and programs that reduce transportation relat ed emissions including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (Wisconsin DOT) Wisconsin DOT Bicycling and Pedestrian Coordinator staff position is 100 percent funded through the federal State Planning and Research (SP&R) program. The Coordinator position is primarily responsible for facilities and statewide planning. A Safety Coordinator position is located with the Office of Traffic Safety. The safety position is state funded; however, the statewide safety, education, and enforcement program utilizes federal 402 Safety Funds. Funding for the Safety Program has historically averaged $200,000 per year. The State utilizes bridge replacement, NHS, and STP funds for facility construction and reconstruction. Facilities not directly connected to the roadway, referred to as "reestanding"use TE funds. f Freestanding projects include multi-use paths, support facilities, and trails. The Department of Natural Resources administers the state trails program utilizing TE and RTP program funds. CMAQ funds are available to the eleven southeast counties included within the non-attainment. Historically, the MPO' s have programmed approximately 50 percent of the funds available for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
Grant and Funding Plan
Table 5-4 �Funding Source Summary
Funding Programs Transportation Enhancements Program (TE) Modes All Trip Types Transportation Project Types (Const., NonConstruction) Both Required Matching Funds 5.7% (hard cash min.) Deadlines Variable Total Available Annual Funding (All Modes) Approx. $13M annually /2 ($500,000 max. for local projects, $1.5M for State projects) Approx. $40.9M (2002) /1 ($31.4M to MAG) Contact and Website Cheryl Banta, Transportation Enhancements Manager (602) 712-7906 http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/ EEG/enhancement_scenic_roads/ enhancement/index.html MPOs, http://tpd.az.gov/air/index.htm Federal Apportionment at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environ ment/cmaqpgs/index.htm Governor's Office of Highway Safety http://www.azgohs.state.az.us/ dloadpdf/ProposalGuide.pdf http://www.fta.dot.gov/office/pro gram/2003/5307g.html http://www.fta.dot.gov/office/pro gram/2003/5307l.html www.dot.state.az.us/ABOUT/ fms/hurflink.htm http://www.dot.state.az.us/ABO UT/fms/fndsorce.htm
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
Highway Safety Program
April 1, annually
Approx. $12M /2
Transit Enhancements Program (Section 5307) pop. >200,000 Transit Enhancements Program (Section 5307) pop. 50,000 �200,000 Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF)
Phoenix = $26.9M Tucson = $8.9M (2003 est.) /3 $1.5M (2003 est.) for Flagstaff and Yuma /4 N/A N/A $536.4 M ADOT (2003) $23M (funding currently on hold)
Bike/Ped All
Transportation Transportation (bike/ped improvements directly related to transit)
Construction Construction
Grant and Funding Plan
Funding Programs Growing Smarter Planning Grant Program
Modes All
Trip Types Transportation
Project Types (Const., NonConstruction) Nonconstruction
Required Matching Funds 50%
Deadlines October
Total Available Annual Funding (All Modes) $60,000 annually
Contact and Website Marty Lynch, (602) 280-8144, www.commerce.state.az.us/ CommunityPlanning/GSGrants.h tm Annie McVay, Recreational Trails Coordinator, (602) 542-7116, http://www.pr.state.az.us/ partnerships/grants/grants.html Robert Baldwin (602) 542-7130 www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/ grants/grants.html Robyn Beck (602) 789-3530 www.gf.state.az.us/frames/other/ h_grant.htm Local Jurisdiction
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
Currently N/A
Approx. $1.1M annually /5
Arizona State Parks Heritage Funds
Last working day of February Last working day of November March
$500,000 annually
Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Funds Arizona Office of Tourism
$160,000 (Public Access) ($1,000 min.) $1 M, each project not to exceed $20K individual or $30K regional Each project not to exceed $10,000 Each project not to exceed $2,500
Bikes Belong Coalition American Greenways Kodak Awards
Bicycle Bike/Ped
Both Both
Both Both
On-going Early June
www.bikesbelong.org www.conservationfund.org
/1 Source: http://www.fhaw.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510479/n4510479a15.htm /2 Source: http://http://www.azdot.gov/ABOUT/fms/fndsorce.htm (FY 2001) /3 Source: http://www.fta.dot.gov/office/program/2003/5307g.html /4 Source: http://www.fta.dot.gov/office/program/2003/5307l.html /5 Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/refunds.htm
Grant and Funding Plan
6. Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program Plan
The education of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists is a key component to reduce vehicle and bicycle/pedestrian conflicts. In order for bicyclists to safely travel with motorists, bicyclists need to develop good cycling skills that include knowledge of the "ules of the road." Like drivers, bicyclists r must understand and obey the rules and laws that apply. Likewise, pedestrians must also understand and obey rules and laws if they are to coexist safely with vehicles. Drivers also can be made to be more aware and careful around bicyclists and pedestrians through safety and education campaigns and through spot enforcement programs. Educating the public through training, published materials, workshops, and " ow to"guides can provide h the bicyclist, pedestrian and motorist the knowledge and skills necessary for each to more safely coexist. An educational plan must be broad based, comprehensive, and understandable in its approach. Participants should include public facility administrators, facility designers, and users from each age group. Training sessions and materials include all age groups, present statutory laws in an understandable manner and offer training that teaches good bicycling skills and other practical exercises aimed at the pedestrian and motorists. Section 6.1 contains a review of publications and existing programs offered by state and local agencies. The review focused on areas recommended for implementation identified in the Phase I Plan. Section 6.2 contains descriptions for five recommended ADOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program areas. � Safety Education Program; � Safe Routes to School Program; � Bicycle/P edestrian Facility Design Training Program; � Safety Awareness Campaign; and � Data Archive.
Literature Review
The literature search included review of publicly offered educational and safety related programs sponsor ed by federal agencies, state departments of transportation and other state agencies, national bicycling organizations and agencies within Arizona. Chapter 11 of the Phase I Plan list ed several Arizona agency guides developed to teach safe bicycling and walking, present "ules of the road"and r laws and tips for bicycle commuters. In addition, Chapter 11 offered a number of recommendations that ADOT and agencies around the state could implement to improve bicycling and walking conditions. The principal needs identified included improvements in the following program areas. � Safety Education Program; � Safe Routes to School Program; � Bicycle/P edestrian Facility Design Training Program; � Safety Awareness Campaign; and � Data Archive. Safety Education Program The Safety Education Program review looked at the following list of publications and existing programs offer ed by organizations, federal, state, and local agencies:
Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program Plan
Bike Sense, British Columbia Bicycle Operator' Manual �sponsored by Greater Victoria s Cycling Coalition. The manual developed for distribution contains numerous photos and situational graphics. The manual focuses on five basic principles: o ma intain your bicycle in good working order; o be as visible as possible to others; o learn the skills needed to control your bike; o cycle in traffic safely and predictably; and o know and obey the rules of the road. Bicycling Street Smarts: Riding Confidently, Legally, and Safely �produced by the Florida Bicycle Association through permission granted by author John S. Allen was funded by the Florida " hare the Road"license plate program and State Safety Office of FDOT. The manual includes S State Statutes classifying a bicycle as a vehicle and a bicyclist as a driver. A driver must follow all traffic rules common to all drivers and as a bicyclist you must also obey all rules developed specifica lly for bicycles. The manual intended for a non-classroom environment teaches safe bicycling techniques on public roads and streets. Michiga n DOT provides the latest edition of Bicycling Street Smarts: Riding Confidently, Legally and Safely through the DOT web site.
� �
Safe Bicycling in Chicago �sponsored by City of Chicago and Chicagoland Bicycle Federation is an eleven-page quick reference guide with photos and graphics. The guide includes descriptions on equipment and fit, traffic basics, lane positions and turning, and off-street bicycling. Share the Road: A guide for bicyclists and motorists �produced by the Pima County Department of Transportation. The 39-page " ocket guide"includes illustrations, tips for motorists and p bicyclists, and relevant statutes to promote safer roadway travel. The pocket guide is distributed through bike shops, libraries, motor vehicle division offices, health clubs, at special events, and through numerous other outlets to encourage greater understanding of traffic laws and sharing of the road. The guide, also available in Spanish, is presented in a Power Point program to drivers' education classes, traffic safety educators for traffic diversion classes, public bus providers, school bus drivers, middle school classes, bike clubs, and other venues to promote greater roadway safety. Good Practices Guide �[Publication number: FHWA-SA-02-001 HSA-4/30-02 (5M)QE] is available at the Bicycle Safety Education Resource Center sponsored by the Federal Highway Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program Plan
Administration. The Guide provides a good reference tool for developing a bicycle education program or selecting the most effective program for your needs. The Guide summarizes 16 existing safety education programs including both successful and unsuccessful features, provides strategies, and discusses issues in developing a program. Features discussed are program funding, presenting safety education in schools, developing partnerships, and gaining publicity for the project. � National Bicycle Education Program Course Descriptions �developed by the League of Amer ica n Bicyclists offers a number of different courses designed to meet the needs of any group from information to on-bike skills: o Road I �is an introductory course covering safe operation of a bicycle in a variety of situations. Road I is recommended for adults and children above 14 years of age. A similar course, Kids II, designed for 5th and 6th graders, covers on-bike skills, as well as choosing safe routes for riding; o Kids I �instructs parents on how to teach a young child to ride a bike. Parents learn how to perfor m a bicycle safety check, helmet fitting, and bike sizing; o Road II �offers advanced cycling principles including fitness, training for longer rides, advanced mechanics, pace line skills, advanced traffic negotiation, foul weather riding, and night riding; and o Commuting �covers topics including route selection, bicycle choice, dealing with cargo and clothing, bike parking, lighting, reflection, and foul weather riding. Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program �sponsored by Florida DOT, it offers training workshops and certificate programs through the University of Florida. Trainers are selected from elementary and middle schoolteachers, community volunteers, law enforcement officers, and recr eation leaders. The FDOT Safety Office provides program development and continued training. Courses at the elementary school level focus on pedestrian safety, safety on school buses, bicycle safety, and bike-handling skills. At the middle school level, the focus is on bicycle knowledge and skills including on-bike practice and classroom instruction. The third training session focuses on law enforcement officials, youth group leaders, community safety specialists, and school officials covering bicycle safety, rules of the road, how to implement successful bicycle safety programs, and how to present bicycle safety information to the public. The fourth session trains driver education instructors on information for teaching bicycle and pedestrian laws, common crash types and responsible sharing of the road. Basics of Bicycling Curriculum �North Carolina DOT and the Center for Bicycling and Walking developed an elementary school-level program for fourth and fifth graders. The Guide offers systematic instructions so that instructors of differing cycling abilities can teach the course. The curriculum includes classroom instruction, and students learning on their bikes in an outside setting. The step-by-step guide provides all handouts including a parent letter and permission slip. Interactive Games and Activities �geared for kids focusing on bike safety sponsored by the Pennsylvania DOT web site. The interactive graphics cover such topics as how to check the parts of your bike for safety, proper fitting of your bike to make it safer to ride, using hand signals for road riding, fitting your helmet properly, and understanding the meaning of traffic signs. Interactive ga mes and activities cover topics including: Have a Safe Ride, equipping your bike and yourself for a safe ride; Safe Road Riding, a game to test your knowledge; Trail Riding, which checks your knowledge of safe and responsible riding on trails, and Take a Bike Driver' Test. s Bicycle Safety Education Program �organized by the Bicycle Coalition of Maine (BCM). Initial funding support was through the State Office of Traffic Safety. The BCM Education Committee developed training program guidelines and materials. Maine DOT sends out applications to all schools and contracts with BCM to provide the Bicycle Safety Education Program statewide. Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program Plan
� �
Instructors come equipped with a bicycle, helmet, and handouts spending approximately one-hour in each classroom. The approach is to make the student think as a " river"with all the rules and d responsibilities instead of as a "ider" The training covers proper helmet fit, dressing for safety, r . doing the ABC Bike Check, and rules of the road. BIPED �bicycle/pedestrian safety education program is offered statewide by the White Clay Bicycle Club, Wilmington, Delaware in partnership and with funding support from the University of Dela ware, and the 4-H Cooperative Extension Service. BIPED is a one-hour classroom introduction on the basics of bicycle safety. Volunteer instructors, generally certified by the League of American Bicyclists, come equipped with a teaching kit (course outline, videotape, handouts). Instruction focuses on the concept of " riving"a bicycle as opposed to "iding"and that driving a d r bicycle carries the same responsibility as driving a car. T.E.A.M. (Traffic Education and Management) �sponsored by the City of Mesa provides traffic safety education. Part of the program includes interactive presentations on pedestrian and bike safety. Bicycle Awareness and Safety Program �presented by the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Portland, Oregon is a comprehensive classroom and on-bike ten-hour curriculum that teaches middle school students the fundamentals of bike safety. Instruction includes obeying traffic laws and signs, ride with traffic, use hand turn signals, road positioning, right-of-way rules, hazard identification, defensive cycling, proper helmet fitting, and bicycle maintenance. The goal is to ma intain an on-bike focus spending six of the ten hours riding and culminating with an on-street community ride. Certified instructors complete a twelve-hour teacher-training class. The program is supported through funds provided by a Section 402 grant. Effective Cycling Training and Effective Cycling Instructors �developed by John Forester, fou nder of the Effective Cycling League. Effective Cycling is a handbook for cyclists. It contains what a road cyclist needs to know to use a bicycle every day, for any purpose, under different conditions of road, traffic and topography, and under different conditions of weather. Effective Cycling Instructors covers the full adult course and the full intermediate and elementary children' s courses. While this manual is not an instructor's workbook for the new multi-step courses (Road 1, Road 2, etc.), it discusses understanding the difficulties of cycling instruction in modern America, the teaching techniques for different levels of students, and the preparation that is required.
Safe Routes to School Program The Safe Routes to School Program review looked at the following list of publications and existing programs offered by organizations, federal, state, and local agencies. � School Administrators Guide to School Walk Routes and Student Pedestrian Safety -sponsored by the State of Washington. This program discusses key steps in walk route development and provides guidelines for decision-making. Washington requires all school districts to have suggested route plans for every elementary school (WAC 392-151-025). The Guide provides information on laws and liabilities, background on student safety education, direction on how to develop and ma intain school walk routes, how to identify pedestrian safety deficiencies, and when to consider enhancements, and makes recommendations on how school administrators can work with local public works agencies. Consulting Traffic Engineers recommended as appropriate throughout the process. School districts provide recommended walking route maps to parents, students, and host workshops on safe walking and biking. � School Safety Program �sponsored by the City of Phoenix. This program created a School Safety Task Force with responsibility to educate the public on transportation safety topics, evaluate safety conditions at all schools including school-related crosswalks, and to improve pedestrian/student safety. The Task Force studied school safety at all crosswalks recommending a list of 26 Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program Plan
engineering, enforcement, and educational countermeasures, as well as experimenting with new traffic control technology. One of the recommendations was to establish a two-person school safety tea m to work exclusively with schools on traffic safety concerns and provide improved service to school principals and transportation directors. Other recommendations included: development of a new school crossing guard training video, development of a ` afest Route to School'walking plan, S introduction of automated enforcement of speed limits at schools, installation of fluorescent yellowgr een school warning signs, introduction of staggered crosswalks, revised student drop-off/pick-up procedures and school safety summit meetings. Pima County-Tucson Safe Routes to School and Pedestrian/Bicycle Education Program � sponsor ed by the Pima County and Tucson Departments of Transportation and funded by a federal Transportation Enhancement grant. This program will work with seven elementary schools in a two-year pilot program to assess bicycle and pedestrian safety needs around the schools, provide a comprehensive pedestrian education program for second graders and bicycle education program for fourth graders, and work with area motorists and parents to improve safety around the schools. The program, beginning with the fall school year of 2004, will provide near-term and lower cost improvement projects at the schools and will plan for longer-term projects for which additional funding will be pursued. Getting to School Safely �sponsored by the USDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This guide offers help in developing a school transportation safety program. The program considers students whether traveling by passenger car, on foot, bicycle, public transportation, or school bus. The guide offers design assistance whether it is a one-time event or for the school year. California' Safe Routes to School Program �is principally a public relations and awareness s program, but also provides grants for physical improvement projects. The program encourages safe routes through better enforcement of traffic laws, engineering projects to help slow down residential traffic, and educational programs. Funding sources for enforcement and education are offered through the California Office of Traffic Safety and engineering projects are eligible for federal, state and local funds. Program implementation is at the local jurisdiction level. Marin County Safe Routes to School Program �is funded by a the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and administered by the County of Marin on behalf of the Marin County Congestion Management Agency and the county, Cities and towns of Marin . Thirty-five schools have participated in Safe Routes to Schools activities since the spring of 2000. Marin Safe Routes to Schools offers the following assistance to local schools in starting up and maintaining a Safe Routes to Schools program: o Training and materials in organizing events for International Walk to School Day; o Instructors offering In-class lessons on safety, health, and the environment; o Bicycle Rodeos; o Guidance on developing Safe Kid Zones with the assistance of engineering consulting provided by David Parisi and Associates; o Cooperation with local law enforcement in providing added protection; o Guidance on forming carpools, Walking School Buses Kids Walk to School, Centers for Disease Control, and Bike Trains; o Materials and prizes for the annual Frequent Rider Mile Contest; and o Promotional and educational materials to encourage Walking and Biking to school. WalkBoston Safe Routes to School Program �started as an initiative to get elementary students to walk to school. The program includes walking and/or riding a bike in groups with parent escorts, provides safety training, and working with local governments to ensure that there are sidewalks, crosswalks, and safer streets. A key feature of the WalkBoston program is the use of a parent escort Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program Plan
coordinator. The coordinators are part-time paid parents, one per school, who implement the program including coordination of the volunteer parent escorts. Safe Routes to School in Texas Program �resulted from the enactment of State legislation directing the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to establish the Safe Routes to School Program. The local jurisdiction submits an application for safety improvements around school areas. Projects must be within the public right-of-way, within a two-mile radius of a school and ma y include multiple sites if similar work is performed at each site. The projects are limited to $500,000 in federal funds and require a 20 percent local match unless the project is located on the state highway system in which case TxDOT will provide the match. Six categories of work are eligible for funding: o Sidewa lk improvements; o Pedestrian/Bicycle crossing improvements; o On-street bicycle facilities; o Traffic diversion improvements; o Off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and o Traffic calming measures for off-system roads.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Design Training Program The Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Design Training Program review looked at the following list of publications and existing programs offered by organizations, federal, state, and local agencies. � A Walkable Community, Common Characteristics of Pedestrian Friendly Communities �is a program sponsored by the USDOT-FHWA. The program focuses on the design of safe and successful pedestrian facilities through effective planning, education, and law enforcement. The program provides solutions to vehicle/pedestrian problem areas through engineering cou nt er measures. � Getting People Walking: Municipal Strategies to Increase Pedestrian Travel �the report sponsor ed by the State of Washington focused on developing a more walkable environment. Included in the report were the benefits on making walking easier, design recommendations for mor e pedestrian-friendly streets and a discussion on land-use policies benefiting walkable communities. � Pedestrian and Streetscape Guide �sponsored by the Georgia DOT provides direction to design professionals, developers, municipalities and others regarding the design, construction, and ma intenance of pedestrian facilities. GDOT updates the Guide as required offering the revisions in an electronic downloadable format. The Guide is not intended as standards, regulations, requir ements, or specifications, but rather as " esirable"or " inimum"recommendations. d m Chapters include general design guidelines, accessibility issues, children and school zones, trails and paths, sidewalks and walkways, intersections, street crossings, traffic calming measures, pedestrian access to transit, site design for pedestrians, and safety in work zones. � National Center for Bicycling and Walking (NCBW) �sponsors Walkable Communities. Workshops designed to foster community-based initiatives related to walking and bicycling. The four-hour workshop brings together elected officials, public agency staff, public health practitioners, planners, engineers, and advocates to focus attention on making communities more walkable, including how land use and transportation decisions affect walking. One aspect of the training involves taking participants on an interpretive walking tour, a " ed audit"of a pre-determined study p area emphasizing seeing the community from the perspective of a pedestrian. Workshop arrangements are through applications submitted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Bicycle/Pedestrian Education Program Plan
NCBW provides bicycle facility design guidelines covering street crossings, overcoming bicycle barriers, trail networks, transit connections, roadway bridge modifications, traffic signals, drainage grates and utility covers, rural road shoulders, facility maintenance, liability aspects of bikeway designation, and the economic benefits of a bicycle- and pedestrian-based tourism. Training through the National Highway Institute (NHI) and FHWA �routinely provides a wide array of training seminars and workshops upon request. Training includes facility planning, engineering techniques, increasing bicycling and walking through land use practices, and a variety of other urban and rural design procedures. The NHI charges a fee for each participant while the FHWA provides most course offerings at no cost. The following bicycle and pedestrian offering is currently available: o Pedestrian Safety Roadshow workshop is designed to educate and inspire a community to develop an advocacy group supporting facilities and programs to improve walkability and safety for pedestrians.
Safety Awareness Campaign The Safety Awareness Campaign review looked at the following list of publications and existing programs offered by organizations, federal, state, and local agencies. � Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety and Education Program �sponsored by Pima County and Tucson Departments of Transportation. The project will provide for education and promotion of safety programs for bicyclist and pedestrians. Project includes cycling safety instruction, development of enforcement training and educational videos, public service announcements for both broadcast and print media, posters and purchase of safety equipment, helmets, and safety lights for distribution. The project also includes a major awareness and enforcement element with motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians in order to improve overall traffic safety. � School Crossing Guard Training Program �sponsored by the State of Florida. The statewide program certifies all trainers who train the school crossing guards in their jurisdiction based on guidelines developed by FDOT. � School Crossing Guard Training Program �within North Carolina, school crossing guards are considered traffic control officers requiring the same training as other traffic control officers. The NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation developed a train-the-trainer program to train local law enforcement officers responsible for training school crossing guards. A practical application session uses students at a simulated intersection. Education, Encouragement and Enforcement (3-E Program) �sponsored by the Virginia DOT. The program focuses on teaching effective riding principles and use of safety equipment. The guideb ook Bike Smart Virginia equips educators and others with the resources necessary to encourage helmet use. Other educational activities include BikeWalk Conferences, sponsorship of Bicycle Safety Rodeos, and public service announcements. Encouragement focuses on providing assistance in the form of maps, brochures and/or travel guides making bicycling more enjoyable for novice and advance bicyclists alike. Additional programs include supporting bikes with transit, website information, bike to work weeks, bike tours, and program funding. The third E, Enforcement, focuses on educating the bicyclist and motorist, ticketing of bicyclists and
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

subset: commoncrawl