Date:November 26, 1980
W.I.:51410
Referred By:GR&AC
Revised:11/24/82-C
11/26/86-C
09/23/87-C
03/24/88-C
12/18/91-C
11/25/92-C
01/28/98-C

ABSTRACT

Resolution No. 875, Revised

This resolution adopts the "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects" delineating procedures for submission of claims for Article 3 funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and stating criteria by which the claims will be evaluated as required by the Transportation Development Act (Public Utilities Code Section 99401a).

This resolution was revised November 24, 1982, to incorporate changes to the procedures and criteria recommended in the Regional Bicycle Plan, adopted September 22, 1982 and other changes.

This resolution was revised November 26, 1986 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by SB 949 (Chapter 988, Statutes of 1986).

This resolution was revised September 23, 1987 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by SB100 (Chapter 313, Statutes of 1987).

This resolution was revised March 24, 1988 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by SB100 (Chapter 313, Statutes of 1987).

This resolution was revised on December 18, 1991 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by State Transportation Control Measure 9 (adopted by MTC on November 28, 1990.

This resolution was revised on November 25, 1992 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by AB 3090 (Chapter 1243, Statues of 1992).

This resolution was revised on January 28, 1998 to incorporate changes in procedures and criteria required by SB 506, the Senate Transportation Committees annual Omnibus Bill Of Noncontroversial And Technical Provisions (Chapter 619, Statues of 1997), as well as to make modifications to the procedures that reduce the amount of paperwork and processing for MTC and claimants, yet still meet state requirements and MTCs overall coordination, planning and funding objectives.

Further discussion of these procedures and criteria are contained in the MTC "Staff Evaluations" dated November 20, 1986, March 10, 1988, December 6,1991, October 30, 1992, and January 14, 1998.

Date:November 26, 1980
W.I.:1002.30.01
W.A.:1293R
Referred By:GR&AC

 

 

RE: Transportation Development Act. Article 3. Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects.

 

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

RESOLUTION NO. 875, REVISED

 

WHEREAS, the Transportation Development ACT, Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., requires the Transportation Planning Agency to adopt rules and regulations delineating procedures for the submission of claims for funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities (Article 3, PUC Section 99233.3); state criteria by which the claims will be analyzed and evaluated (PUC Section 99401(a); and to prepare a priority list for funding the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities (PUC Section 99234(b)); and

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the Transportation Planning Agency for the San Francisco Bay Region, adopted MTC Resolution No. 875 entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects", that delineates procedures and criteria for submission of claims for Article 3 funding for pedestrian bicycle facilities; and

WHEREAS, MTC desires to update said procedures to allow the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to receive a one-time payment of Article 3 funds from each county to prepare a plan for a bicycle and hiking trail around San Francisco Bay and mandated by Senate Bill 100 (Chapter 313, Statutes of 1987).

RESOLVED, that the attached Attachment A shall supersede the procedure previously adopted by MTC; and be it further

RESOLVED, that MTC Resolution No. 762 is rescinded and is superseded by this resolution.

 

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

 

William R. "Bill" Lucius, Chairman

 

The above resolution was entered into by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a regular meeting of the Commission held in Oakland, CA, on November 26, 1980

 

Date:November 26, 1980
W.I.:51410
Referred By:GR&AC
Revised:11/24/82-C
11/26/86-C
09/23/87-C
03/24/88-C
12/18/91-C
11/25/92-C
01/28/98-C

Attachment A

Resolution No. 875, Revised

 

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3,

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PROJECTS

Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria

 

PROCEDURES

Eligible Claimants

The Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code Sections 99233.3 and 99234, makes funds available in the nine-county Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Region for pedestrian/bicycle purposes. MTC makes annual allocations of TDA Article 3 funds to eligible claimants after review of applications submitted by claimants.

All cities and counties in each of the nine MTC region counties are eligible to claim funds under TDA Article 3.

Application

1. MTC will notify the counties or congestion management agencies by letter at the beginning of the TDA Article 3 process in October. Counties or congestion management agencies will be responsible for contacting the county and all cities within their jurisdiction and encouraging submission of project applications.

2. Claimants will send two copies of each application to MTC, and one or more copies to the county or congestion management agency (see "Priority Setting" below). The application should be received by MTC by January 1.

3. MTC will notify the county or congestion management agency and the claimants within 30 days of any remaining conditions to be met for the projects to be eligible for funding. A project is eligible for funding if:

a. the application is complete and all project documentation has been received by MTC. Project documentation includes these four items: project map; environmental document which is stamped for filing by the County Clerk; legal counsels opinion that addresses three points, (a ) That the claimant is authorized to perform the project for which the funds are claimed, (b ) That the claimant is eligible to claim under Public Utilities Code section 99234, and (c ) That there is no legal impediment to the claimant applying for funds or there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or the ability of the claimant to carry out the project; governing body resolution approving the project and authorizing the submittal of a claim listed under "G" (Additional materials required) on the application form. Claimants will have until April 1 to complete the documentation.

b. the project is construction and/or engineering of a capital project; is to maintain a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; is for a bicycle safety education program; or is to develop comprehensive bicycle or pedestrian facilities plans (an allocation to a claimant for this purpose may not be made more than once every five years); or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes.

c. the claimant is eligible to claim TDA Article 3 funds under Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code;

d. the bicycle project meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Section 7-1000 of the California Highway Design Manual. (Applies to Class I bikeway projects only.);

e. the project is ready to implement within the next fiscal year;

f. the project meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Projects for which CEQA documentation is not completed will be considered if the documentation can be completed before allocation is made.

g. a jurisdiction agrees to maintain the facility.

h. the bicycle project is included in one or more of the following: a detailed bicycle circulation element or plan included in a general plan or an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code 2370 et seq.).

Priority Setting

1. The county or congestion management agency shall establish a process for establishing project priorities. Each county and city is required to have a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) to review and/or prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle projects and to participate in the development and review of comprehensive bicycle plans. (BACs are mandated by State Transportation Control Measure [STCM #9], adopted by MTC on November 28, 1990, MTC Resolution No. 2178, Revised).

A city BAC shall be composed of at least 3 members who live or work in the city. More members may be added as desired. They will be appointed by the City Council. The City Manager will designate staff to provide administrative and technical support to the Committee.

Cities under 10,000 population who have difficulty in locating a sufficient number of qualified members, may apply to MTC for exemption from these requirements. Cities over 10,000 population may also apply to MTC for exemption from the city BAC requirement if they can demonstrate that the countywide BAC provides for expanded city representation.

A county BAC shall be composed of at least 5 members who live or work in the county. More members may be added as desired. Members will be appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and/or Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The county or congestion management agency executive/administrator will designate staff to provide administration and technical support to the Committee.

(Note: The intent is that BACs be composed of bicyclists/pedestrians.)

2. The project lists developed by the City BACs shall be recommended to its City Council. All city project lists will be forwarded to the County Public Works Department or congestion management agency for evaluation/prioritization by the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee. County Committees will, at a minimum, be responsible for evaluating projects within the unincorporated portions of the county and setting a countywide prioritization list (based on city and county project lists) for annual TDA Article 3 allocations. Either the Board of Supervisors or the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) will adopt the annual countywide list and forward it to MTC for approval.

The county or congestion management agency will forward to MTC by April l a copy of the following:

a) a cover letter stating the total amount of money being claimed;

b) the complete priority list of projects with an indication of the cut-off point following which projects are recommended for funding in the next fiscal year. In addition to a conventional printed copy of the list, MTC now also requires the county or congestion management agency to submit an electronic version to facilitate grant processing. The projects may be categorized as Group 1 (those expected to be funded) and Group 2 (those considered high priority but for which funding is not available).

c) an indication of how the projects were reviewed by city and county committees and representatives and what methods were used to contact interested members of the public; and

d) a Board of Supervisors' or CMA resolution approving the priority list and authorizing the claim.

MTC Staff Evaluation

If a recommended project is eligible for funding, staff will recommend to the Commission that the project be approved. MTC staff will complete its evaluation for Commission action in May or June and will send copies of the staff evaluations to the county and claimants prior to the Commission meeting.

Allocation

The Commission will act by resolution to approve the priority list and allocation of funds for the recommended projects. The County Auditor will be notified by allocation instructions to reserve funds for the approved projects. Claimants will be sent copies of the allocation instructions and instructions for claiming disbursement.

Disbursement

1. When costs are incurred, the claimant shall submit to MTC:

a) a cover letter referring to the project by name, dollar amount and allocation instruction number and requesting disbursement of funds;

b) a document showing that costs have been incurred.

2. MTC will approve the disbursement and if the allocation instruction has not expired, been totally drawn down nor been rescinded, issue an authorization to the County Auditor to disburse funds to the claimant.

Amendment and Rescissions

Funds will be allocated to claimants for specific projects, so transfers of funds to other projects sponsored by the same claimant may not be made. If a claimant has to abandon a project during the fiscal year, it should ask the county or congestion management agency to request that MTC rescind the allocation. The public should have an opportunity to review such a request. The county or congestion management agency may choose to either:

1. request that the funds be allocated to the next another project on the approved priority list, or

2. request that the funds be allocated to complete another previously approved project, or

3. allow the funds to return to the local transportation fund (LTF) unallocated balance;

for use in the next fiscal year.

Requests for additional funds needed to complete approved projects will be handled on a case-by-case basis. These requests should be made to MTC and the county before additional costs are incurred. At MTC's discretion, additional funds may be allocated to a previously approved project to cover cost overruns after the fact if: a) the funds are claimed in the same fiscal year the project is built; and b) the claim is made before the end of the fiscal year.

Fiscal Audit

All claimants that have received an allocation of TDA funds are required to submit an annual certified fiscal audit to MTC and to the Secretary of Business and Transportation Agency within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, in accordance with PUC Section 99245. Article 3 applicants need not file a fiscal audit if TDA funds were not expended (that is, costs incurred) during a given fiscal year. However, the applicant should file a statement for MTCs records certifying that no TDA funds were expended during the fiscal year. Please see the appropriate Appendix in the TDA Section of the MTC FUND APPLICATION MANUAL for a discussion of this requirement. Failure to submit the required audit for any TDA article will preclude MTC from making a new Article 3 allocation. For example, a delinquent Article 4.5 fiscal audit will delay any other TDA allocation to the city/county with an outstanding audit. Until the audit requirement is met, no new Article 3 allocations or disbursements will be made.

For Further Information

Claimants are strongly encouraged to develop their claims with the MTC staff at an early date so that the formal claim process can be expedited. If you have any questions regarding the application forms or related matters, please contact the MTC offices and refer to the MTC staff liaison person who is responsible for Article 3 claims for your county. Copies of the Transportation Development Act and the related regulations in the California Administrative Code are available from MTC upon request.

SUGGESTED CRITERIA

The counties or congestion management agencies should consider the following criteria along with any explicit criteria the county or congestion management agency deems necessary when evaluating projects for the countywide priority list.

The basic objectives of the MTC suggested criteria are to give priority to projects which increase the safety, security, and efficiency of bicycle and pedestrian travel, and to the extent practicable provide for a coordinated system.

Consideration should be given to projects which can demonstrate one or more of the following objectives: (Not listed in priority order.)

1. Elimination or improvement of an identified problem area (specific safety hazards such as high-traffic narrow roadways or barriers to travel) on routes that would otherwise provide relatively safe and direct bicycle or pedestrian travel use, given the character of the users. For example, roadway widening, shoulder paving, restriping or parking removal to provide space for bicycles; a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across a stream or railroad tracks on an otherwise useful route; a segment of Class I bicycle path to divert young bicyclists from a high traffic arterial; a pedestrian path to provide safe access to a school or other activity center; replacement of substandard grates or culverts; adjustment of traffic-actuated signals to make them bicycle sensitive. Projects to improve safety should be based on current traffic safety engineering knowledge.

2. Roadway improvements or construction of a continuous interconnected route to provide reasonably direct access to activity centers (employment, educational, cultural, recreational) where access did not previously exist or was hazardous. For example, development of Class I paths on continuous rights-of-way with few intersections (such as abandoned railroad rights-of-way) which lead to activity centers; an appropriate combination of Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways on routes identified as high demand access routes; bicycle route signs or bike lanes on selected routes which receive priority maintenance and cleaning.

3. Secure bicycle parking facilities, especially in high use activity areas, at transit terminals, and at park-and-ride lots. Desirable facilities include lockers, sheltered and guarded check-in areas, self-locking sheltered racks which eliminate the need to carry a chain, and racks which accept U-shaped locks.

4. Other provisions that facilitate bicycle/transit trips. For example, bike racks on buses, paratransit/trailer combinations, bicycle loan or check-in facilities at transit terminals.

5. Maintenance of Class I bikeways which are closed to motorized traffic or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes (provided that the total amount for Class II bicycle lane restriping does not exceed twenty percent of the countys total TDA Article 3 allocation) where county policy supports the use of Article 3 funds for this purpose.

6. Projects identified in a recent (within five years) comprehensive local bicycle or pedestrian plan. We encourage counties to establish a five-year plan for bicycle projects.

7. Projects which enhance or encourage bicycle or pedestrian commutes.

8. Projects in jurisdictions which have bicycle safety education and law enforcement, distribution of bicycle route information, a bicycle parking plan, and priority maintenance of bikeways.

9. Projects which have documented local support in terms of requests for improvement from bicyclists, employers, employees, or residents in the area; or local effort in terms of funding or preliminary studies.

10. Projects which provide connection to and continuity with longer routes provided by other means or by other jurisdictions to improve regional continuity.

11. Bicycle Safety Education Programs. Up to five percent of a county's Article 3 fund may be expended to supplement monies from other sources to fund a bicycle safety education program and staffing. For a given bicycle safety education project, no more than 50 percent shall be funded with Article 3 funds.

12. Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan. Funds may be allocated for these plans (emphasis should be for accommodation of bicycle commuters rather than recreational bicycle uses). A city or county would be eligible to receive an allocation for these plans not more than once every five years.

 

MTC Memorandum

TO:

Grant Review and Allocations Committee

DATE:

January 14, 1998

FR:

Executive Director

    

RE:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Project (TDA Article 3) Funding Procedures
(MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised)

SB 506, which is the Senate Transportation Committees annual omnibus bill of noncontroversial and technical provisions, has recently become law. Among many other things, this law expands the authorized use of local transportation funds that have been set aside for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles (TDA Article 3). Under this bill, up to 20 percent of the monies are now available for allocation to cities and counties for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes.

Previously, restriping of bicycle lanes was considered an operating or maintenance expense and therefore ineligible for TDA Article 3, which is primarily for construction. Now, it is an eligible expense, provided that the total amount for Class II bicycle lane restriping does not exceed twenty percent of the countys total TDA Article 3 allocation.

Staff proposes revisions to MTCs Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria (MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised) for TDA Article 3 funded pedestrian and bicycle projects in order to reflect the new eligibility requirements under SB 506. We have also proposed some modifications to the procedures that reduce the amount of paperwork and processing for MTC and claimants, yet still meet state requirements and our overall coordination, planning and funding objectives. In the resolution text, additions are shown in italics and deletions are shown in strike-out type styles.

Staff recommends that GR&AC refer MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised to the Commission for approval.

 

 

Lawrence D. Dahms

LDD:MR