HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-24 City Council (10)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:APRIL 24, 2000 CMR:225:00
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL GRANT
APPLICATIONS :
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council authorize submittal of four Safe Routes to School (SR2S)
grant applications to the State of C~lifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
amount of $448,178 to establish and administer ’Safe Routes’ construction projects.
BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 1475 (Soto) was passed in 1999 to establish and administer a ’Safe Routes to
School’ construction program using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds. The
funds are to be used for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming
projects. Caltrans is the administrator of the funds, which must be used in accordance to
FHWA policies and directives and Title 23 of the United States Code. The Safe Routes to
School program is limited to construction. Costs for programs or activities related to
education, enforcement, or encouragement are not eligible for reimbursement unless those
costs are incidental to the overall cost of the project. In addition, these funds cannot be used
for planning or developing projects.
Caltrans expects to fund $20 million worth of SR2S projects each year for the next two
years. Two competitive funding cycles will take place--the first in April 2000 and the
second in November 2000. This request for. authorization is for the April 2000 deadline.
DISCUSSION
Projects were solicited from each school in the Palo Alto Unified School District. Parent
Teacher Association Traffic Safety Officers submitted project lists that were evaluated
based on project readiness and appropriateness to Safe Routes grant guidelines. The City
School Traffic Safety Committee and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee have
reviewed the April project submissions. The November project applications will be
developed from this project list.
CMR:225:00 Page 1 of 4
Staff proposes the following Safe Routes to School projects.
-o The replacement of all current yellow school zone and school crossing signs with new
yellow-green high visibility signs throughout the Palo Alto Unified School District.
Signs would be replaced in all School zones and at all school crossings. The cost for this
project is estimated to be $15,000, and the project does not require a local match.
o The removal of rolled curb and replacement, with vertical curb along East Meadow Drive
in front of JLS Middle School and Fairmeadow Elementary School, extending from
Waverley Street to Middlefield Road, and on Rorke Way along the school property line
at Palo Verde Elementary School. This project will eliminate the likelihood of vehicles
driving up onto the sidewalk in busy drop off/pick up areas surrounding schools where
there is a large number of pedestrians and bicycles during school start and end times.
The cost for this project is estimated to be $215,300 and the project would require a 10
percent local match of $21,500.
o The construction of an off-road bicycle/pedestrian path on the north side of Stanford
Avenue between El Camino Real and Escondido Road. This path would create a
pedestrian and bicycle facility where there currently is no sidewalk, and would link to
the existing sidewalk and off-road path that extends from Escondido Road to Raimundo.
The estimated cost for this project is $207,878 and the project would require a 10 percent
local match of $20,788.
o Pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the intersection of Middlefield Road and East
Meadow. Currently this intersection is not compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). This project would be implemented concurrently with an
upgrade in signalization at this intersection. The estimated cost to install ramps at the
intersection is $10,000 and the project would require a 10 percent local match of $1,000.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Three of the four projects require a 10 percent match in local funds totaling $43,378. In
addition, because SR2S funds are disbursed on a reimbursement basis, City funds in the
amount of $448,178 would need to be appropriated for these expenditures, and then
reimbursed by the grant funds. If Caltrans approves the grants, staff will return to Council
with a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $491,556 to cover both grant funds
and the City’s required match, ($448,178 of which will be reimbursed by Caltrans). Staff
time from the Transportation Division and Public Works and Utilities Departments will be
required to schedule these projects.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The City of Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element supports
measures to reduce auto use through encouragement of alternative transportation modes.
CMR:225:00 Page 2 of 4
Many Comp.rehensive plan policies and programs promote bicycling
themselves or in combination with public transport. These include:
Policy T-14: "Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to
de.stinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open
districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations."
and walking, by
and between local
space, employment
Policy T-36: "Make new and replacement curbs vertical where desired by
neighborhood residents."
Policy T-40: "Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in
street modification projects that effect school travel routes."
Policy T-42: "Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning and
implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects."
TIMELINE
Caltrans will issue an approved list of funded projects for the 1999-00 Federal Fiscal Year
on June 15, 2000. Scheduling of projects will need to be coordinated with the Public Works
and Utilities Departments. The first deadline for awarding construction contracts for projects
approved in the first round of project solicitations will be September 30, 2001.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An application for funds is not considered an action subject to the Califomia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). No environmental assessment is needed at this time. The replacement
of the yellow school zone signs, removal of rolled curbs on East Meadow Drive, and
pedestrian/bicycle improvements on Middlefield Road at Meadow Drive are each minor
alterations to existing facilities and are exempt from environmental review requirements
under Section 15301 of CEQA. The off-road bicycle/pedestrian path on Stanford Avenue
will require an environmental impact assessment, which will be prepared if the grant is
¯ approved for that project.
CMR:225:00 Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Safe Routes to. School Program Guidelines
PREPARED BY: Amanda Jones, Commute Coordinator
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Planning and Transportation Commission
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
Don Phillips, School Superintendent
PAUSD School Principals
PTA Traffic Safety Representatives
CMR:225:00 Page 4 of 4
Local Assistance Program
ATTACHMENT A
Safe Routes to School Program
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Section
I
II
III
IV
v
vI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Xl
XII
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................1
APPLICANTS ..........................r .................................1
RATING FACTORS AND CRITERIA ..................................2
PROJECT CATEGORIES ..............................." ................2
SAFETY INDEX ..............................................Z
WORK TYPE IMPROVEMENTS ............................3
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS .........................................3
DEVELOPMENT OF 9.-YEAR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ......4
LOCAL AGENCY SUBMITTALS ............................5
DISTRICT REVIEW ......................’ ...........5
PROJECT SELECTIONS .....................................6
DESIGN STANDARDS ...................................................6
STATus REPORTS ......................................................6
DEADLINES ............................................6
EVALUATIONS .........................~ ...............................6
APPROPRIATION CODES ..............................................?
REFERENCES ...........................................................7
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program
Safe Routes to School Program
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Description Pa_ggg
A
B
C.
D
E
APPLICATION FORM ...................................................8
PROJECT STATUS REPORT ..........................................12
POST CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EVALUATION SHEET ..........13
CALTRANS DISTRICT LOCAL ASSISTANCE ENGINEERS ........14
AB 1475 CHAPTEm~D VERSION .....................................15
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program
Safe Routes to School Program
Safe Routes To School (SR2S)
I. Introduction
Welcome to the Safe Routes to School program! SR2S is a new Caitrans program resulting from the 1999 passage
and signing of Assembly Bill 1475 (Soto). AB1475 calls for Caltrans "to establish and administer a ’Safe Routes to
School’ construction program ... and to use federal transportation funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian
safety and traffic calming projects." The bill goes on to say that Caltrans "shall make grants available to local
governmental agencies under the program based on the results of a statewide competition that requires submission
of proposals for funding and rates those proposals on all of the following factors:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Demonstrated needs of the applicant.
Potential of the proposal for reducing child injuries and fatalities.
Potential of the proposal for encouraging increased walking and bicycling among students.
Identification of safety hazards.
Identification of current and potential walking and bicycling routes to school.
Consultation and support for projects by school-based associations, local traffic engineers, local
elected officials, law enforcement agencies, and school officials."
These funds are federal transportation safety funds, the use of which must abide by Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) policies, directives andTitle 23, United States Code. Applicants are urged to familiarize
themselves with procedures for procuring and spending federal moneys before submitting applications. For more
information, see the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
As established by AB1475, this is a construction bill. At this time, costs for programs or activities related to
"education", "enforcement" or "encouragement" are not eligible for reimbursement unless those costs are
incidental to the overall cost of the project. Furthermore, these funds are.not intended to be used for planning or
developing projects that are hypothetical.
Caltrans expects to fund $20 million worth of SR2S projects, per year, for at least the next two years. Two
competitive funding cycles will take place in 2000. Caltrans will solicit project proposals from local agencies in
February and then again in September. The maximum federal reimbursement amount per project is $500,000.
Several individual projects may be combined into a single project proposal as long as the cumulative project c~st is
less than $500,000. The typical federal reimbursement ratio for SR2S projects will be 90%.
Throughout these guidelines, there are references to other Caltrans publications. Further information on, and links
to, these publications can be found at Caltrans’ Internet site, xvww.dot.ca.gov. For a direct link to Caltrans Office
of’ Local Programs, use www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/ and for Caltrans Traffic Operations, use
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/. For a direct link to Caltrans Bikeway Planning and Design Standards, go to
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdln/tl003toc.htm#tl003. These sites provide additional information on policies,
procedures, standards, and specifications that will be applied to, and may impact, "safe routes to school" project
designs.
A copy of AB1475 may be found in Appendix E or at www.leginfo.ca.gov/under "Bill Information".
II. Applicants
The "applicant", or project sponsor, for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) funds is the agency that assumes
responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of federal funds. The "applicant" must either be an
incorporated city or a county within the State of California. The applicant should enlist the assistance of other
participants in the development and submittal of an SR2S project.
02/10/00
1
Local Assistance Program
Safe Routes to School Program
Other participants in this program could include school boards, school districts, elected officials, and various city,
county, and state agencies. The success of a project proposal being approved for funding will depend upon the
ability of the participants, working at a local level, to develop a comprehensive and unified approach to improving
the safety of pedestrian and/or bicycle routes to and from schools within their jurisdictional areas of
responsibilities. "
Application instructions are further described in Section VI - Local Agency Submittals. Exhibit A contains the
SR2S Application Form.
III. Rating Factors and Criteria
In the development of projects, participants should structure their proposed improvements to meet as many of the
rating factors and criteria as possible. The SR2S Application Form (Exhibit A) requires participants to provide
information related to some of these factors. The following list identifies the fa6tors that will be used to rate a
project:
¯Demonstrated needs
¯Potential for reducing child injuries and fatalities
¯Potential for encouraging increased walking and bicycling among students
¯Identification of pedestrian and/or bicycle safety problems or hazards
¯Identification of current and potential walking and bicycling routes to school
¯Consultation and support for project by. school-based associations, local traffic engineers, local elected
officials, law enforcement agencies, school officiais~ and other community groups
¯Approval by California Highway Patrol, when required
¯Degree to which proposed improvement will correct or improve the problem(s)
¯Potential for timely implementation of project
¯Degree to which project will upgrade existing pedestrian/bicycle features within the project boundaries to
appropriate standards, including American With Disability Act requirements.
¯Number of pedestrians and bicyclists currently using the route(s)
¯Number of pedestrians and bicyclists anticipated to use the route(s) .
¯Degree to which project reduces the "exposure" of pedestrians to. vehicular traffic
¯Benefit to Cost ratio of the project (if possible to calculate)
¯Demonstration of coordinating SR2S funds with other funding sources for related improvements
¯Demonstration of a coordinated SR2S plan within the applicant’s jurisdiction
¯Demonstration of leveraging other funding sources (ex. Office of Traffic Safety) for Education, Enforcement,
and Encouragement activities to complement SR2S funds "
¯Comprehensiveness,.completeness and accuracy of project application
The general "weights" associated with each factor are similar. Projects that fully embrace the intent of the
legislation will be responsive to a majority of these facto~.
IV. Project Categories
The SR2S program contains two separate funding categories. They are the "Safety Index" category and the "Work
Type" category. Safety Index projects will receive approximately 25% of the available funding ($5 million) and
Work Type projects will receive the remaining 75% ($15 million).
Safety Index
Projects may qualify for SR2S funding based on a calculated Safety Index (SI). If historical accident data is
available for the project location, and the participants wish to pursue Safety Index funding, the Safety Index
Calculation on the Application Form (Exhibit A) must be completed.
02/10/00
2
Local Assistance Program
Safe Routes to School Program
Safety Index projects competing for funds will be prioritized, statewide, by descending safety indexesl
Safety Index projects which fail to qualify for the safety Index funding will be re-categorized as a Work Type
project and will compete for Work Type funds.
Work Type Improvement
A Work Type Improvement category is used to fund projects with safety needs that cannot be quantified by a
Safety Index due to a lack of accident data.
The Work Type Improvement project categories listed below are by no means an inclusive list and appear in no
particular order. They are based upon substantial input from agencies and stakeholders and represent program areas
that are broad in nature and are typical of the range of approaches used to address pedestrian and bicyclist safety
issues. Project applicants with an interest in the emerging field of traffic calming are also encouraged to consult
with the Institute for Transportation Engineers at 202-554-8050 or http://www.ite.org for the latest design
guidance. For further clarification on any Work Type category, consult with the Caltrans District Local Assistance
Office. See Exhibit D for names and telephone numbers.
Sidewalk improvements: Includes new sidewalks, widened sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, curb cuts, etc.
Traffic calming & speed reduction: Includes roundabouts, traffic circles, neck downs, sidewalk bulb outs, speed
humps, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, narrowing lanes, full or half-street closures, and other speed
reduction techniques.
Pedestrian/bicycle crossing improvements: Includes crosswalks, medians, refuges, pavement markings, lighted
crosswalks, flashing beacons, traffic signal phasing extensions, and sight distance improvements.
On-street bicycle facilities: Includes new or upgraded bikeways, widening outside traffic lanes and/or roadway
shoulders, geometric improvements, curve corrections, turning lanes, channelization and roadway realignment.
Off-street bicycle/pedestrian facilities: Includes exclusive bicycle and/or pedestrian trails and pathways, bicycle
parking facilities, bicycle racks and lockers, and pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings and undercrossings.
Traffic control devices: Includes new or upgraded traffic signals, pedestrian-activated signal upgrades, traffic
signs, traffic stripes and bicycle-sensitive signal actuation devices.
Traffic diversion improvements: Includes safer pick-up/drop,off area’s, separation of pedestrians and bicycles
from vehicular traffic adjacent to school facilities, and traffic diversion away from school zones or designated
routes to school.
V. Funding Considerations
The SR2S Program will receive approximately $20 million in the 1999/2000 Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) and $20
million in the 2000/2001 FFY. A Federal Fiscal Year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. Projects
that are not approved for funding in the 1999/2000 FFY can be resubmitted to compete for funding in the
2000/2001 FFY.
The maximum federal reimbursement amount, per project, is $500,000. For most projects, the federal
reimbursement ratio will be 90 percent: The applicant must fund the remaining 10% of the project cost. The
applicant may execute separate funding agreements with participants of the project to share these costs. Title 23,
United State Code Section 120(c), allows 100% federal reimbursement for projects that construct or install traffic
signals, traffic signs, or pavement markings.
02/10/00
3
Local Assistance Program
Safe Routes to School Program
Eligible project costs that the local agency is entitled to federal reimbursement include:
¯Preliminary engineering, which includes
cl Environmental
Cl Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)
¯Right-of-way
¯Construction, which includes
Cl Construction Costs
rn Construction Engineering
All of the project elemenis and construction improvements must be eligible to obtain federal reimbursement.
Construction improvements must be made on public property. Improvements can be made on public school
grounds providing the costs of these improvements are incidental to the overall cost of the project. Also, costs for
programs or activities related to "education", "enforcement" or "encouragement" are not eligible for
reimbursement unless those costs are incidental to the overall cost of the project.
Projects that exceed the maximum federal reimbursement amount can be submitted for review and approval, but
the federal reimbursement amount will not exceed $500,000. The project reimbursement ratio will be determined
at the "Authorization to Proceed" phase. The "total project cost" shown on the original application form will be
used to determine the project’s reimbursement amount and ratio. Requests for increases to the "total project cost"
Shown on the application form will not be granted except in unusual circumstances and subject to the availability of
funds. Any increase in project costs for a Safety Index project will require a recalculation of the Safety Index.
Federal funds are considered ’.’allocated" to each project phase when the Caltrans Office of Local Programs (OLP)
Area Engineer authorizes the work through the FHWA delegated authorization process (See. Chapter 3
"Authorization" in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual). These funds are reserved for the project, but the
local agency will not be reimbursed for any phase until afte.___r the contract award. The OLP Area Engineer, upon
receiving the contract award data will process the documentation to allow reimbursement of local agency invoices.
VI. Development of 2 Year Demonstration Plan
Caltrans will program approximately $20 million/year, for two years, of federal safety funds for SR2S Projects.
Caltrans District staff will solici[ candidate SR2S projects from local agencies within their District boundaries. The
following schedule identifies milestones and dates for the next two years of the program:
Feb. 10,2000
Apr. 27,2000
May ll, 2000
June 1, 2000
June 15, 2000
Caltrans District Offices solicit candidate SR2S projects from local agencies.
. Local agencies submit candidate projects to Caltrans District Offices.
District Offices prioritize local agencies’ candidate projects.
Project Review Committee submits a statewide, prioritized list of projects to the Director of
Caltrans and the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) with recommendations
of projects to approve for funding.
Caltrans HQ and CHP HQ issue an approved list of funded projects for the 99/00 FFY.
Sept. 14,2000
Nov. 9,2000
Nov. 23,2000
Dec. 14,2000
Dec. 28,2000
Caltrans District Offices solicit candidate SR2S projects from local agencies.
Local agencies submit candidate projects to Caitrans District Offices.
District Offices prioritize local agencies’ candidate projects.
Project Review Committee submits a statewide, prioritized list of projects to the Director of
Caltrans and the Commissioner of the CHP with recommendations of projects to approve for
funding.
Caltrans HQ and CHP HQ issue an approved list of funded projects for the 00/01 FFY.
02/10/00
4
Local Assistance Program
Safe Routes to School Program
Local Agency Submittals
An Application Form is included as Exhibit A. This form must be completed and accompany .all projecl~
submittals. Most of the requirement~ listed below are also included in the application form itself.
A local agency must submit candidate projects to its respective Caltrans District Office, directed to the attention of
the District Local Assistance Engineer (see Exhibit D for names and addresses). An original plus 2 copies is
preferred. Any maps, schematics or letters of support that are attached to the application should be made on 8 ½" x
11" paper.
Candidate projects can be submitted as either a Safety Index Project Or a Work Type Improvement Project.
Candidate projects must include, at a minimum, cost estimates for Construction, Preliminary Engineering and
Construction Engineering. If the project requires the acquisition of right of way or includes environmental studies
and mitigation, these costs should also be included in the estimate.
Candidate projects must include an estimated "award’ date" for the construction of the project.
Candidate projects should contain information on accident histories or narration on the potential for accidents.
Photographs and video tapes may be submitted to better illustrate the problem. Also, schematic plans showing the
general nature of the proposed improvement should be submitted for all projects.
If a local agency is submitting multiple candidate projects, the local agency should prioritize the projects prior to
submitting them to the Caltrans District Office.
Any SR2S project encompassing a freeway, state highway or county road must be approved by the Department of
California Highway Patrol (CHP) to ensure that the project complements their "Pedestrian Corridor Safety
Program" and is consistent with its statewide pedestrian safety statistical analysis. The local agency should obtain
the CHP’s approval prior to submitting the project to Caltrans.
Caltrans District Review
Caltraffs District staff and CHP Division staff will review all projects for eligibility, completeness and accuracy.
They will identify and document the strengths and weaknesses of all projects and develop a prioritized list of
projects for the District. They may form a District Review Committee, comprised of regional stakeholders, to
assist in the prioritization of the projects.
Safety Index projects willbe prioritized, in descending order, by the Safety Index calculation. Work Type projects
will be prioritized using the factors identified in Section III: Rating Factors and Criteria.
The District will submit a prioritized list of all eligible candidate projects to Caltrans Headquarters, Office of Local
Programs, with the following project information compiled and tabulated on a cover sheet:
¯Local agency name
¯School name
¯Project location
¯Project description
¯Safety Index calculation, if applicable
¯Total Project Cost
¯Proposed award date
02/10/00
5
Local Assistance Program
Safe Routes to School Program
Project Selections
Caltrans, the CHP, the FHWA, local agency personnel and stakeholders will be representatives on a Project Review
Committee. This committee will prioritize all projects, statewide, and submit a recommended list of projects to be
funded to the Director of Caltrans and the Commissioner of the CHP..The final list of approved projects will be
determined by Caltrans and the CHP. The list will be posted on the Internet, by the dates specifiedin Section VI
above, at the following URL: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograins!.
VII. Design Standards
All bikeway projects shall be designed in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the Caltrans
Traffic Manual. Exceptions to using these standards will be handled in accordance with each Manual’s exception
approval process. All other projects shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate design standards
applicable to the type and location of the improvement.
Chapter 11, Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual - Design Standards for Non-National Highway System
Projects - describes statewide design standards, specifications, procedures, guides and references that are
acceptable for application in the geometric, drainage, and structural design of local assistance projects. The chapter
also describes design exception approval procedures. These standards and procedures shall be used in the design of
SR2S projects offthe National Highway System (NHS).
. Projects should be considered as subject to meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
VIII. Status Reports
Local agencies are .required to provide an update of project schedules and costs on July 1 of each year for all
projects that have not been awarded a construction contract by that date. Local agencies that fail to provide these
annual status reports may have their projects dropped from the program. A sample Project Status Report form is
included as Exhibit B.
IX. Deadlines
It is the intent of the SR2S Program that Federal funds be expended as soon as possible for eligible safety projects
that can be designed and constructed in short time frames. Since this is new demonstration program and local
agencies will not know if a project is approved for funding until late in the Federal Fiscal Year, the first deadline
for awarding a construction contract for projects approved in the first round of project solicitations will be
September 30, 2001. For projects approved in the second round, the first deadline for awarding a construction
contract will be September 30, 2002. Projects unable to meet these initial delivery deadlines will be allowed a
maximum of one time extension for a maximum of one year, subject to written approval by OLP. Projects unable
to meet the second delivery deadline will be dropped from the program.
X.. Evaluations
Federal directives require that the results of Safety Improvements be evaluated three years after the project is
completed. Each project approved for construction must prepare a before-and-after evaluation. Safety deficiencies
corrected by this program largely justify the prioritizing methods and future funding. A sample Project Evaluation
form is included as Exhibit C.
AB 1475 requires Caltrans to evaluate the effectiveness of this program and report its findings to the Legislature on
or before December 31, 2001. A representative sample of SR2S projects that have been constructed will be
evaluated for their effectiveness. Previously constructed projects that contained similar objectives may need to be
included in the evaluation. Also, the number of qualified and "quality" candidate projects that could not be funded
due to funding limitations will be documented and included in the evaluation.
02/10/00
6
Local Assistance Program
Safe Routes to School Program
XI. Appropriation Codes
There are four federal apportionment codes available for SR2S projects:
STPLH Hazard Elimination 90%Q28
STPLHG Hazard Elimination 100%Q43
STPLH Safety (Optional) ’90%Q21
STPLHG Safety (Optional)100%Q33
These codes are assigned by the FHWA and used by Caltrans for obligating and encumbering funds. Title 23,
United State Code Section 120(c), allows 100% federal reimbursement for projects that install traffic signals, traffic
signs, or pavement markings. All other project categories will be eligible for a 90% federal reimbursement.
Projects that have a mixture of 90% and 100% reimbursable wo’rk will be reimbursed at 90%.
XII. References
Title 23, United States Code, Section 120, 130, and 152
Streets and Highways Code, Sections 890-894 and 2330-2334
AB 1475 - Chaptered Version
Caltrans Local Assistance Program Guidelines
Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Caltrans Traffic Manual
AASHTO: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program
APPLICATION FORM
FOR
EXHIBIT A
Application Form
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM FUNDS
APPLICANT: (City of: or County of:)
SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SCHOOL NAME(S):
CALTRANS DISTRICT:CHP DIVISION:
SHORT DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS:
GENERAL LOCATION OF PROJECT:
PROJECT COSTS:Preliminary Engineering
Environmental ........................$
PS&E ...................................$
Right-of-Way ....................................$
Construction
Construction ...........................$,
Construction Engineering ..........$
Other (please list) ...............................$
$
Total Project Cost .........................-_ ....$
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD DATE:
The following parts of this Application Form request specific project related information. Some of the sections
request the applicant to prepare maps or other documents that contain specific information. Other sections contain
questions that the applicant can simply answer in the space provided. If a section does not apply to the proposed
project or if data is not available, simply write "not applicable (N/A)" or "data not available (DNA)", respectively,
beneath or near the question heading or subheading.
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program
SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS
EXHIBIT A
Application Form
The following information may be acquired by a student survey taken on a typical school day. Attach the survey,
the data, and its summary, if available.
’Number of students at the school ....................................
Age range of students at the school ..................................
Number of students that walk to school ............................
Number of students that bike to school ..............................
Number of students that take a bus tO school .......................
Number of students driven to school with parents or others .....
Number of cars used to drive students to schoolI ..................
Percentage of students living within 2 miles of school ............
The survey might also be written to answer questions 2, 3, and 5 below:
1.Does your project involve the improvement to an "existing" walking or bicycling route?
Yes __No __(If no, skip to Question # 4)
2.If yes; how many students currently use this route to walk or bicycle to school?
3.How many students will use this. route after the improvements are made?
4.Does your project involve the creation of a "new" walking or bicycling route?
Yes __No.(If no, go to next Section)
5. If yes, how many students will use this route upon its completion?
Note: This survey is a suggestion, not a requirement. Some projects may not require a student trip survey to
justify an improvement. For other projects, a survey will help demonstrate the need for a project and assist
participants in prioritizing a host of other proposed improvements. The survey will also help the Project Review
Committee prioritize projects on a statewide basis. Be assured that a large school will not be automatically ranked
higher than a small school simply due to the "gross" number of students attending the school or using a specific
route to school.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
Provide a detailed, narrative description of the problem. Describe the breadthJscope of the population at risk and
the population to be served by the project. Include primary population (students) and secondary population
(parents, school employees, neighbors, community, etc.). Discuss resources, financial and otherwise, that have
been identified to correct the problem, but were not secured, or were insufficient.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SOLUTION
Provide a detailed, narrative description of the proposed solution. Describe options or alternatives that were
considered. Discuss how the proposed alternative is the best, most cost effective solution to the problem.
~ The number of cars used gives an indication of traffic at the school. As well, it provides an indication of air
pollution reduction potential with the improvement of walking and biking conditions.
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program EXHIBIT A
Application Form
SAFETY INDEX CALCULATION
As stated in Section IV - Project Categories, 25% of the SR2S funding will be targeted specifically for locations
that have a poor accident history. Projects that have documented accident reports can calculate a Safety Index
using the following formula: .
Safety Index = [(A’B) + (C*D)]/E where
A = Number of pedestrian or bicycle fatalities in the past 3 years
B = Total comprehensive value of a fatality ($2,710,000)
C= Number of pedestrian and bicycle injuries in the past 3 years
D= Total comprehensive value of an average injury, ($51,656)
E = Total Project Cost
Projects submitted for Safety Index funding must attach a listing of pedestrian and bicycle injuries sustained by
students of the school on their trips to and from school during the past three years. Diagrams indicating the
approximate location and date of each accident is desirable. Accident information beyond three years may also be
attached, if it provides more compelling evidence of a problem. However, only the last three years of accident
history may be used in the formula.
Remember, even if the project does not "make the cut" for Safety Index funding, it will automatically be moved to
the Work Type Improvement funding category. Hence, all applicants are encouraged to continue to complete this
application in its entirety.
SAFETY INDEX =
WORK TYPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
All applicants should prepare an application that contains the following project information. This information will
assist the Project Review Committee in prioritizing Work Type Improvement projects.
Describe how the project might reduce the potential for child injuries and fatalities. Include information on:
Potential safety hazards that are being corrected, removed or replaced as part of the project
Measures taken to reduce motor vehicle speeds, congestion, and traffic violations
Measures
Measures
Measures
Measures
Measures
taken to reduce the exposure of pedestrians or bicyclists to. vehicles
taken to provide more protection for pedestrians and bicyclists
taken to attract pedestrians and bicyclists
taken to redirect motor vehicles to alternate routes
taken to remove barriers along the route that inhibit pedestrian and bicyclist travel
Attach a map of the school and nearby surrounding area that identifies the route(s) being proposed for
improvement. Please identify any existing and potential safety hazards along the route(s). Safety hazards to look
for are:
¯Lack of, or unsafe sidewalks
¯Lack of, or unsafe bikeways
¯Lack of street lighting
¯Lack of pedestrian-activated crosswalks and signals
¯Non standard sidewalks, bikeways, crosswalks, traffic signals, traffic signs and traffic stripes, etc.
¯Excessive speeding by vehicles
¯Continuous encroachment of vehicles into a walkway or bikeways
¯Poor separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic
10
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program EXHIBIT A
Application Form
¯Locations with a history of actual, or perceived, conflicts and/or accidents
¯Locations that pose a "barrier" to pedestrian/bicycle travel
¯Other
Identify the participants that were involved with the development of the project. Also; provide a list of
organizations that were contacted and support the project. Attach letters of support, if available.Groups,associations or organizations to contact include, but are not limited to:
School based associations (such as PTA, student associations)
Traffic engineers (city, county, state, and federal)
Elected officials
Law enforcement agencies
School officials
Other community groups (walking and bicycling groups)
Other neighborhood groups
Others
California Highway Patrol Approval (if required):
(Signature)
(Signing Officer’s Name and Division)
Project participants may also want to provide comments on a variety of other factors not identified above. The
following are general considerations that may warrant additional explanation by project participants:
¯Existing groups that have convened in the past to address this or similar problems.
¯Existing Pedestrian or Bicycle Master Plans that have been prepared.
¯Discussions on the opportunities to partner or leverage existing resources with SR2S funds
¯Preferences and practices that have emerged from existing transportation plans or community/school surveys
¯Checklists or surveys from "Walk a Child to School Day" events
¯Petitions submitted by students, parents or community groups
Agency:School Name:
Agency Official:School Official:
Name Name
Signature Signature
Title:. Title:
Phone Number:Phone Number:
Email:Email:
11
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program EXHIBIT B
Proiect Status Report
Project Status Report
Due July 1 each year
(for projects that have not "awarded" a construction contract by July 1)
Date:
City or County of:
Project Number:
Description of Project:
Original Projected Award Date:
Current Projected Award Date:
If "current" award date is not the same as "original" award date, explain reason for delay:
Original Cost Estimate:
Cost Estimate as of this Report:
Reason for difference (increase OR decrease):
Other comments:
Prepared By:.
Telephone:
12
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program EXHIBIT C
Post-Construction Project Evaluation
"POST-CONSTR UCTION "
PROJECT EVALUATION
Agency
Project Location:
Type of Work:
Fede~’al Project Number
Accident Data Fatal + Injury_Prope~y Damage Only ADT
Before: Total last 3 yrs.
After: Total last 2 yrs.
Note: Caltrans, the CHP, the FHWA, local agencies, stakeholders and participants are revising this form. The
final "Post Construction Project Evaluation" form will be sent to each successful project applicant when they are
notified that their SR2S project was approved for funding.
13
02/10/00
Local Assistance Program EXHIBIT D
District Local Assistance Engineers
Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineers
District 1
Jan Bulinski
Local Assistance Engineer
1656 Union St.
Eureka, CA 95501
(707) 445-6399
District 2
Gary Otremba
Local Assistance Engineer
1657 Riverside Drive
Redding, CA 96049
(530) 225-3484
District 3
Ben Bramer
Local Assistance Engineer
703 "B" St.
Marysville, CA 95901
(530) 741-5450
District 4
Rich Monroe
Local Assistance Engineer
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
(510) 286-5226
District 5
Jerald Gibbs
Local Assistance Engineer
50 Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo,. CA 93401
(805) 549-4606
District 6
Marvin Johnson
Local Assistance Engineer
826 "L" St.
Fresno, CA 93.721
(559) 488-4105
District 7
Satish Chander
Local Assistance Engineer
120 S. Spring St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 897-0658
District 8
Louis Flores
Local Assistance Engineer
464 West Fourth St.
San Bemardino, CA 92401
(909) 383-4030
District 9
Richard Kizer
Local Assistance Engineer
500 S. Main St.
Bishop, CA 92401
(760) 872-0681
District 10
Laurie Barton
Local Assistance Engineer
1976 E. Charter Way
Stockton, CA 95205
(209) 948-3689
District 11
Gary Vettese
Local Assistance Engineer
2829 Juan St.
San Diego, CA 92186
(619) 688-6778
District 12
Alan Williams
Local Assistance Engineer
3347 Michelson Dr. Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92186
(949) 756-7805
14
02/10/00
Assembly Bill No. 1475
CHAPTER 663
An act to amend, repeal, and add Sections 2331 and 2333 of, and to
add and repeal Section 2333.5 of, the Streets and Highways Code,
relating to highways.
[Approved by Governor October 6, 1999. Filed
with Secretary of State October 10, 1999.]
-LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1475, Soto. Highways: Safe Routes to School construction
program.
Existing law requires that certain federal transportation funds
received by the state be spent on specified’ transportation programs
authorized under federal .law. The funds are required to be made
available for use in approximately equal amounts on state highways
and on local roads.
This bill would require the Department of Transportation, in
consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol,
to establish and administer a "Safe Routes to School" construction
program pursuant to authority granted under specified federal law
and to use federal transportation funds for construction of bicycle and
pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects.
The bill would require the department to make grants available to
local governmental agencies under the program based on the results
of a statewide competition that requires submission of proposals for
funding and rates those proposals on specified factors.
The bill would require the specified federal transportation funds
to be made available so that not less than $1,000,000 be used for
construction grants and the remaining funds for use in approximately
equal amounts on state highways, local roads, and the program that
the bill would create.
The bill would require the department to undertake a specified
study and to report to the Legislature on or before December 31,
2001.
The provisions of the bill would remain in effect only until January
1, 2002, and as of that date would be repealed unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before that date deletes or extends that date.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.Section 2331 of the Streets and Highways Code is
amended to read:
EXHIBIT E
15
Ch. 663
2331. (a) The Highway Safety Act of 1973 (Title II of P.L. 93-87,
87 Stat. 250) has authorized appropriations for a number of programs
relating to projects for the improvement of highway safety and the
reduction of traffic congestion. These programs consist of the
rail-highway crossings program (Section 203 of the Highway Safety
Act of 1973), the pavement marking demonstration program (Sec.
151, Title 23, U.S.C.); projects for high-hazard locations, including,
.but not limited to, projects for bicycle and pedestrian safety and
traffic calming measures in those locations (Sec. 152, Title 23, U~S.C.);
program for the elimination of roadside obstacles (Sec. 153, Title 23,
U.S.C.); and the federal-aid safer roads demonstration program (Sec.
405, Title 23, U.S.C.). The purpose of this chapter is to implement
these programs in this state. The commission, the department, boards
of supervisors, and city councils are authorized to do all things
necessary in their respective jurisdictions to secure and expend
federal funds in accordance with the intent of the federal act .and of
this chapter.
(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2002,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is
enacted before January 1, 2002, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 2. Section 2331 is added to the Streets and Highways Code,
to read:
2331. (a) The Highway Safety Act of 1973 (Title II of P.L. 93-87,
87 Stat. 250) has authorized appropriations for a number of programs
relating to projects for the improvement of highway safety and the
reduction of traffic congestion. These programs consist of the
rail-highway crossings program (Section 203 of the Highway Safety
Act of 1973), the pavement marking demonstration program (Sec.
151, Title 23, U.S.C.); projects, for high-hazard locations (Sec. 152,
Title 23, U.S.C.); program for the elimination of roadside obstacles
(Sec. 153, Title 23, U.S.C.); and the federal-aid safer roads
demonstration program (Sec. 405, Title 23, U.S.C.). The purpose of
this chapter is to implement these programs in this state. The
commission, the department, boards of supervisors, and city councils
are authorized to do all things necessary in their respective
jurisdictions to secure and expend federal funds in accordance with
the intent of the federal act and of this chapter.
(b) This Section shall become operative on January 1, 2002.
SEC. 3. Section 2333 of the Streets and Highways Code is
amended to read:
2333. (a) In each annual proposed budget prepared pursuant to
Section 165, there shall be included an amount equal to the estimated
apportionment available from the federal government for the
programs’ described in Sections 2331 and 2333.5. The commission may
allocate a portion of those funds each year for use on city streets and
county roads. It is the intent of the Legislature that the commission
allocate the total amount received from the federal government for
EXHIBIT E
16
all of the programs described in Sections 2331 and 2333.5 in a manner
that, over a period of five years, makes not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000) of those funds available for use pursuant to
Section 2333.5 and the remaining funds available for use in
approximately equal amounts on state highways, local roads, and the
program established under Section 2333.5. In addition, it is the intent
of the Legislature that the commission shall apportion for use, in
financing the railroad grade separation program described in Section
190, a substantial portion of the funds received pursuant to the federal
rail-highway crossings program. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the share of any .railroad of the cost of maintaining
railroad crossing protection facilities funded, in whole or in part, by
funds described in Section 2331 shall be the same share it would be
if no federal funds were involved and the crossing protection facilities
were funded pursuant to an order of the Public Utilities Commission
pursuant to Section 1202 of the Public Utilities Code; and in case of
.dispute, the Public Utilities Commission shall determine that share
pursuant to this section.
(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2002,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is
enacted before January 1, 2002, deletes or extends that date.
SEC..4. Section 2333 is added to the Streets and Highways Code,
to read:
2333. (a) In each annual proposed budget prepared pursuant to
Section 165, there shall be included an amount equal to the estimated
apportionment available from the federal government for the
programs described in Section 2331. The commission may allocate a
portion of those funds each year for use on city streets and county
roads. It is the intent of the Legislature that the commission allocate
the total amount received from the federal government for all of the
programs described .in Section 2331 in a manner that, over a period
of five years, those funds are made available for use in approximately
equal amounts on state highways and on local roads. In addition, it is
the intent of the Legislature that the commission shall apportion for
use, in financing the railroad grade separation program described in
Section 190, a substantial portion of the funds received pursuant to
the federal rail-highway crossings program. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the share of any railroad of the cost of
maintaining railroad crossing protection facilities funded, in whole or
in part, by funds described in Section 2331 shall be the same share it
would be if no federal funds were involved and the crossing
. protection facilities were fuhded pursuant to an order of the Public
Utilities Commission pursuant to Section 1202 of the Public Utilities
Code; and in case of dispute, the Public Utilities Commission shall
determine that share pursuant to this section.
(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2002. ¯
EXHIBIT E
17
Ch. 663
SEC. 5. Section 2333.5 is added to the Streets and Highways Code,
to read:
2333.5. (a) The department, in consultation with the
Department of the California Highway Patrol, shall establish and
administer a "Safe Routes to School" construction program pursuant
to the authority granted under Section 152 of Title 23 of the United
States Code and shall use federal transportation funds for
construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming
projects.
(b) The department shall make grants available to local
governmental agencies under the program based on the results of a
statewide competition that requires submission of proposals for
funding and rates those proposals on all of the following factors:
(1) Demonstrated needs of the applicant.
(2) Potential of the proposal for reducing Child injuries and
fatalities.
(3) Potential of the proposal for encouraging increased walking
and bicycling among students.
(4) Identification of safety hazards.
(5) Identification of current and potential walking and bicycling
routes to school.
(6) Consultation and support for pro.jects by school-based
associations, local traffic engineers, local elected officials, law
enforcement agencies, and school officials.
(c) With respect to the use of funds provided in subdivision (a),
prior tO the award of any construction grant or the department’s use
of those funds for a "Safe Routes to School" construction project
encompassing a freeway, state highway or county road,the
department shall consult with, and obtain approval from,the
Department of the California Highway Patrol, ensuring that the
"Safe Routes to School" proposal compliments the California
Highway Patrol’s. Pedestrian Corridor Safety Program and is
consistent with its statewide pedestrian safety statistical analysis.
(d) The department shall study the effectiveness of the program
established under this section with particular emphasis on the
program’s effectiveness in reducing traffic accidents and its
contribution to improving safety and reducing the number of child
injuries and fatalities in the vicinity of the projects. Notwithstanding
Section 7550.5 of the Government Code, the department shall submit
a report to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2001, regarding
the results of that study.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2002,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is
enacted before January 1, 2002, deletes or extends that date.
EXHIBIT E
18