Guide to Bicycle Project and Program
Funding in California
Second Edition
by Gail Payne
February 2002
This document is a combined effort of the California Bicycle
Coalition, Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit and the Planning and
Conservation League Foundation.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program
Funding in California
Second Edition
by Gail Payne
February 2002
This document is a combined effort of the California Bicycle
Coalition, Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit and the Planning and
Conservation League Foundation.
For additional copies of this report, refer to:
§   California Bicycle Coalition’s web site at www. calbike. org or phone at ( 916) 446- 7558.
§   Planning and Conservation League Foundation’s web site at www. pcl. org or phone at ( 916) 444- 8726.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... ........ 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... .................... 2
Background..................................................................................................................... ........................... 2
Federal Transportation Funding Summary ................................................................................................. 3
State Transportation Funding Summary ..................................................................................................... 6
Local/ Regional Transportation Funding Summary..................................................................................... 9
Bicycle Project Funding Example ............................................................................................................ 10
Primary Funding Sources - Federal .............................................................................................................. 11
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ( CMAQ) Improvement Program................................................ 11
Land and Water Conservation Fund ( LWCF) Program............................................................................ 14
Recreational Trails Program ( RTP) .......................................................................................................... 16
Regional Surface Transportation Program ( RSTP) .................................................................................. 19
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance ( RTCA) Program................................................................. 22
Transportation Enhancement Activities ( TEA) Program.......................................................................... 23
Primary Funding Sources - State .................................................................................................................. 28
Bicycle Transportation Account ( BTA).................................................................................................... 28
California Conservation Corps ( CCC)...................................................................................................... 31
Community Based Transportation Planning Demonstration Grant Program............................................ 32
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program ( EEMP)............................................................... 33
Habitat Conservation Fund ( HCF) Grant Program................................................................................... 34
Office of Traffic Safety ( OTS) Program................................................................................................... 36
Petroleum Violation Escrow Account ( PVEA) ........................................................................................ 38
Safe Routes to School Program ( SR2S).................................................................................................... 39
State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP)................................................................................. 41
Primary Funding Sources – Local and Regional .......................................................................................... 43
Developer Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................. 43
Local Air District Projects Funded by Vehicle Registration Fee.............................................................. 44
Local Sales Tax for Transportation .......................................................................................................... 46
Registration and Licensing of Bicycles .................................................................................................... 48
Transportation Development Act ( TDA) – Article 3................................................................................ 49
Foundation and Corporate Funding Sources ................................................................................................ 51
Bikes Belong Coalition, Ltd. .................................................................................................................... 51
Recreational Equipment, Inc. ( REI) Corporate Contribution Program..................................................... 53
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ( RWJF) ...................................................................................... 54
Secondary Funding Sources - Federal .......................................................................................................... 55
Hazard Elimination Safety ( HES) Program.............................................................................................. 55
Secondary Sources – State.......................................................................................................................... . 57
Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000
( Proposition 12) ............................................................................................................................... ........ 57
Appendix A: Local Bicycle Advocacy Groups .......................................................................................... A- 1
Appendix B: State and National Bicycle- Related Organizations and Services .......................................... B- 1
State Bicycle Organizations.................................................................................................................. . B- 1
National Bicycle- Related Organizations................................................................................................. B- 1
Appendix C: State Legislative Contacts for Transportation ....................................................................... C- 1
General Information ............................................................................................................................... C- 1
Transportation Committee of the Senate ................................................................................................ C- 1
Transportation Committee of the Assembly ........................................................................................... C- 1
Appendix D: Caltrans Contacts .................................................................................................................. D- 1
Local Programs Bicycle Facilities Unit .................................................................................................. D- 1
Local Streets and Roads.......................................................................................................................... D- 1
Appendix E: Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs) ....................................................................... E- 1
Appendix F: Regional Transportation Planning Agencies .......................................................................... F- 1
Appendix G: City and County Transportation Contact Information .......................................................... G- 1
Appendix H: Local Air Pollution Control Districts .................................................................................... H- 1
Appendix I: Congestion Management Agencies .......................................................................................... I- 1
Appendix J: Transportation Glossary .......................................................................................................... J- 1
List of Figures
Figure 1: Federal Transportation Funding ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: STIP Transportation Funding Process........................................................................................... 41
List of Tables
Table 1: Primary Federal Bicycle Program and Project Funding Sources...................................................... 4
Table 2: Primary State Bicycle Program and Project Funding Sources.......................................................... 8
Table 3: Primary Local/ Regional Bicycle Program and Project Funding Sources ......................................... 9
Table 4: Example Bicycle Project Funding Sources..................................................................................... 10
Table 5: CMAQ Statewide Distributions...................................................................................................... 11
Table 6: 1999/ 2000 CMAQ Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects....................................................................... 12
Table 7: Land and Water Conservation Fund Trail Projects ........................................................................ 15
Table 8: RTP Funded Trail Projects ( 1997 – 2001)...................................................................................... 17
Table 9: RSTP 2000/ 2001 Statewide Distribution........................................................................................ 20
Table 10: RSTP- Funded Bicycle Projects .................................................................................................... 21
Table 11: Caltrans District Local Assistance TEA Coordinators ................................................................. 25
Table 12: Regional TEA Program Bicycle Project Examples ( FY 1998/ 1999 to FY 2000/ 2001) ............... 26
Table 13: Caltrans TEA Program Bicycle Project Examples ( 1999 and 2000) ............................................ 27
Table 14: STE TEA Program Bicycle Project Examples ( Round One)........................................................ 27
Table 15: Bicycle Transportation Account Projects ..................................................................................... 29
Table 16: Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Funding ( 2000/ 2001).............................. 33
Table 17: Habitat Conservation Fund Trail Project Examples ..................................................................... 35
Table 18: Funding of Sample 1999 OTS Bicycle Safety Projects ................................................................ 37
Table 19: Safe Routes to School Project Examples...................................................................................... 40
Table 20: Participating Air Districts ............................................................................................................. 45
Table 21: County Sales Tax for Transportation............................................................................................ 47
Table 22: Bicycle and Pedestrian Project TDA Expenditures ($ 000)........................................................... 50
Table 23: 2002/ 2003 HES Program Plan – Work Type Projects.................................................................. 56
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 1 -
Acknowledgements
First Edition Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions: Deena
Sosson of the Economic Development Administration, Larry Robinson of the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Rick Blunden, Ken McGuire and Anne Zumalt of
the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit, Julie Millsap of the Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission, Doug Kimsey of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Corey Brown of the Trust for Public Lands, David Takemoto- Weerts of the University of
California at Davis Transportation and Parking Services, Gary Keill, Ken Hough, Laura Bell and
Beth Young of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and Kara Ueda and Jim Knox of
the Planning and Conservation League Foundation.
Second Edition Acknowledgements
For the second edition, the author would like to acknowledge many of the same individuals listed
above and several new ones including Stephan Vance of the San Diego Association of
Governments, Michelle Mowery of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Dr. Richard
Dowling of Dowling Associates, Inc. and Robert Raburn of the East Bay Bicycle Coalition.
Please help keep the guide current by contacting the California Bicycle Coalition via phone at
( 916) 446- 7558 or via web site at www. calbike. org or the Planning and Conservation League via
phone at ( 916) 444- 8726 or via web site at www. pcl. org.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 2 -
Introduction
Background
Bicycling is considered one of the most cost- effective ways to reduce air pollution, congestion,
wear and tear on roads, petroleum consumption and demand for additional roads. Bicycle
advocacy, planning and funding have increased steadily since the passage of the 1991 federal
transportation act called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA).
Nevertheless, the primary funding sources for bicycle projects and programs are not expected to
be sufficient for proposed bicycle facilities and programs throughout the state.
This manual is based on the popular Funding Working Paper for Bicycle and Pedestrian Related
Projects ( February 1993) by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG). This
document outlines the myriad of available bicycle project and program funding sources, and
identifies key bicycle- related contacts to help bicycle advocates and planners obtain federal, state,
local and private monies. The funding guide consists of two sections: primary and secondary
funding sources. A funding source is designated “ secondary” when it only is indirectly related to
bicycling, when it may be in jeopardy or when a minimal amount of funding is available from the
source. The following secondary funding sources were not included in this updated version yet
are listed below:
Federal ( Secondary)
·   TEA- 21 sources other than RSTP, CMAQ and TEA
·   Federal Demonstration Projects
·   Federal Transit Program
·   Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program
·   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Sustainable Development Challenge Grant ( SDCG)
·   Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention ( Small Watershed) Program
State ( Secondary)
·   Environmental License Plate Fund ( ELPF)
·   General Fund
·   Kapiloff Land Bank Funds
·   Non- point Source Implementation Grant Program
·   Railroad/ Highway Grade Separation Program
·   State Coastal Conservancy
·   State Highway Operations and Protection Program ( SHOPP)
Local/ Regional ( Secondary)
·   Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) Entitlement and States Programs
·   Community Rehabilitation District
·   Gas Tax Subventions
·   Mello- Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982
The appendices provide resources on bicycle- related contacts and transportation organizations
throughout California ( Appendices A to I) and a transportation glossary ( Appendix J). A
resource that is not shown in this document is the Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP) pertaining
to the metropolitan area of concern. RTPs prioritize road, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects
that are proposed for funding within the next 20 years. Dave Campbell of the Bicycle- Friendly
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 3 -
Berkeley Coalition compares RTPs to an individual’s budget whereas funding sources are like a
pay check. The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century ( TEA- 21), which is the
reauthorized federal transportation act called ISTEA, requires Metropolitan Planning
Organizations ( MPOs) to develop RTPs that include bicycle transportation facilities. The
successor to TEA- 21 also is expected to require RTPs.
Federal Transportation Funding Summary
The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century ( TEA- 21) was authorized in 1997 to follow its
innovative predecessor called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA). In
2003, a successor to the TEA- 21 federal transportation act is expected to be authorized. TEA- 21
requires that local jurisdictions consider bicycling and walking in transportation plans and
projects. Section 1202 states that bicycling and walking facilities “ shall be considered, where
appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation
facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use is not permitted.”
Like ISTEA, bicycle projects can be funded directly or indirectly through all of the TEA- 21
programs. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ( CMAQ) Improvement Program, the
Recreational Trails Program, the Regional Surface Transportation Program ( RSTP) and the
Transportation Enhancement Activities ( TEA) programs relate most directly to bicycle facilities
and programs. ( Figure 1) In general, the federal government has designated the metropolitan
planning organizations ( MPOs) as the lead agency in developing long- range regional
transportation plans ( RTPs) and short- range programming documents called transportation
improvement programs ( TIP). These short- and long- range planning documents list proposed
transportation projects in priority order according to the preferences of the local agencies, which
usually are the local Congestion Management Agencies ( CMAs). Appendix E lists California’s
MPOs, and Appendix I lists the CMAs. Table 1 summarizes the primary federal funding sources
for bicycle programs and projects.
Some MPOs have regional set asides for specific programs using the TEA- 21 monies. For
example, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) allocates approximately $ 9 million
annually of TEA- 21 monies towards the Transportation for Livable Communities ( TLC) program
and another $ 9 million annually for its Housing Incentive Program ( HIP). The TLC program
funds projects that encourage community input, transit, non- motorized travel and compact
development to improve a community’s quality of life. Planning grants are available for $ 50,000
per project. Capital grants range in size between $ 150,000 and $ 2 million. The HIP provides
funds for compact housing developments within one- third mile walk to/ from transit. Pedestrian
and bicycle projects qualify as eligible expenditures. Both the TLC and HIP projects are awarded
on a competitive basis. MTC also is debating a set aside for regional bikeways in the Bay Area.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 4 -
Table 1: Primary Federal Bicycle Program and Project Funding Sources
Category Description Eligible Applicants
Congestion
Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement
Program ( CMAQ)
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tr
ansprog/ reports/ Offici
al_ CMAQ_ Web_ Pag
e. htm
Federal block grant program for projects in Clean Air
Act non- attainment areas that will help attain the
national ambient air quality standards stated in the
1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
Cities, counties, transit
operators, Caltrans and
MPOs. Non- profit
organizations and private
entities if work through a
public- private
partnership.
Land and Water
Conservation Fund
( LWCF)
www. parks. ca. gov/ gr
ants/ lwcf/ lwcf. htm
LWCF grants may be used for statewide recreational
planning and for acquiring and developing
recreational parks and facilities, especially in urban
areas. The funds are limited to outdoor recreation
projects such as the acquisition of wetland habitat and
the development of recreation facilities.
Federal and state
agencies, cities, counties,
recreation and park
districts and special
districts may apply.
Recreational Trails
Program ( RTP)
www. parks. ca. gov/ gr
ants/ index. htm
RTP annually provides monies for recreational trails
and trail- related projects.
Cities, counties, districts,
state and non- profits with
responsibilities over
public lands.
Regional Surface
Transportation
Program ( RSTP) :
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tr
ansprog/ cmaqrstp. ht
m
Federal block grant program for roads, bridges, transit
capital and bicycle and pedestrian projects including
bike parking facilities at terminals, bike racks on
buses, bicycle transportation facilities, pedestrian
walkways, bike- activated traffic lights and
preservation of abandoned railway corridors for
pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Cities, counties, transit
operators, Caltrans and
Metropolitan Planning
Organizations ( MPOs).
Non- profit organizations
and private entities if
work through a public-private
partnership.
Rivers, Trails and
Conservation
Assistance ( RTCA)
www. nps. gov/ pwro/ rt
ca
The National Park Service ( NPS) program provides
technical assistance ( direct staff involvement) at the
request of citizens, community groups and
governments to establish and restore greenways,
rivers, trails, watersheds and open space.
Cities, counties, state
governments and citizen
groups. The applicant
needs a state or local
government sponsor.
Transportation
Enhancement
Activities ( TEA)
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ T
ransEnhAct
TEA funds transportation projects that help enhance
the travel experience. The 12 eligible TEA categories
include three that are bicycle- oriented: bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, bicycle and pedestrian
educational activities and preservation of abandoned
railway corridors for bicycle and pedestrian use. The
funds are dispersed to the following TEA programs:
Regional, Conservation Lands, Caltrans and Statewide
Transportation Enhancement ( STE):
Local, state and federal
agencies ( except Caltrans
for STE). Private sector
may apply if they partner
with a public entity that
can execute a master
agreement.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 5 -
Figure 1: Federal Transportation Funding
RSTP:
Regional Surface Transportation
Program
RSTP Process: Metropolitan Planning
Organizations ( MPOs) prioritize and
approve RSTP projects.
TEA:
Transportation Enhancement Activities
·   Regional Funds: Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies
( RTPAs) prioritize the projects
regionwide.
·   Caltrans Funds: Caltrans prioritizes
the projects.
·   Statewide Transportation
Enhancement Funds ( STE): State
Resources agency prioritizes the
projects.
CMAQ:
Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program
CMAQ Process: MPOs prioritize
and approve CMAQ projects.
Other Federal Programs
§   Federal Lands Highway Program
§   Federal Transit Program
§   Hazard Elimination Safety ( HES)
Program
Ø   Safe Routes to School ( SR2S)
Program
§   Job Access and Reverse Commute
Grants
§   National Highway System
§   National Scenic Byways Program
§   Recreational Trails Program
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 6 -
The United States Department of Transportation has adopted a policy to integrate bicycling and
walking into the transportation infrastructure. This policy can be found in full on the USDOT’s
web site ( http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ environment/ bikeped/ Design. htm), and a summary of it is
stated below:
“ Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach is a policy
statement adopted by the United States Department of Transportation. USDOT hopes that public
agencies, professional associations, advocacy groups, and others adopt this approach as a way of
committing themselves to integrating bicycling and walking into the transportation mainstream.
The Design Guidance incorporates three key principles:
a) a policy statement that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all
transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist;
b) an approach to achieving this policy that has already worked in State and local agencies; and
c) a series of action items that a public agency, professional association, or advocacy group can
take to achieve the overriding goal of improving conditions for bicycling and walking.
The Policy Statement was drafted by the U. S. Department of Transportation in response to
Section 1202 ( b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( TEA- 21) with the input
and assistance of public agencies, professional associations and advocacy groups.”
State Transportation Funding Summary
There are several different types of state funding sources available to bicycle projects and
programs. ( Table 2) The primary bicycle- related funding sources at the state level include the
Bicycle Transportation Account ( BTA), the Safe Routes to School ( SR2S) Program and the State
Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP), which has two funding categories: the Regional
Transportation Improvement Program ( RTIP) and the Interregional Transportation Improvement
Program ( ITIP). The BTA, which was formerly known as the Bicycle Lane Account ( BLA), has
increased from a paltry $ 360,000 annual competitive grant to over $ 7 million annually. The Safe
Routes to School funding source originated in 1999, and recently was extended for another three
years. This funding source is seen as a national model for funding bicycle projects because it
emphasizes both safety for children and local bicycle access. The STIP is apt to fund more
bicycle- related projects in the future because 75 percent of it is allocated by the regional
transportation planning agencies ( RTPAs), which tend to be more familiar with bicycling needs
compared to Caltrans.
Nevertheless, Caltrans is becoming more bicycle friendly. The agency revised the bicycle section
( Chapter 1000) of the Highway Design Manual ( HDM) in February 2001 with an introduction
that reads: “ The needs of non- motorized transportation must be considered on all highway
projects.” To review this section of the HDM, access the following web site:
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ oppd/ hdm/ hdmtoc. htm
To help interpret this improved text, Caltrans distributed a deputy directive (# DD- 64) titled
“ Accommodating Non- Motorized Travel.” The policy and definition/ background sections are as
follows:
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 7 -
“ POLICY The Department fully considers the needs of non- motorized travelers ( including
pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance,
construction, operations and project development activities and products. This includes
incorporation of the best available standards in all of the Departments practices. The Department
adopts the best practice concepts in the US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and
Walking into Transportation Infrastructure.
DEFINITION/ BACKGROUND The planning and project development process seeks to provide
the people of California with a degree of mobility that is in balance with other values. They must
ensure that economic, social and environmental effects are fully considered along with technical
issues, so that the best interest of the public is served. This includes all users of California’s
facilities and roadways.
Attention must be given to many issues including, but not limited to, the following:
§   Safe and efficient transportation for all users of the transportation system;
§   Provision of alternatives for non- motorized travel
§   Support of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA)
§   Attainment of community goals and objectives
§   Transportation needs of low- mobility, disadvantaged groups
§   Support of the State’s economic development
§   Elimination or minimization of adverse effects on the environment, natural resources, public
services, aesthetic features and the community
§   Realistic financial estimates
§   Cost effectiveness
Individual projects are selected for construction on the basis of overall multimodal system
benefits as well as community goals, plans and values. Decisions place emphasis on making
different transportation modes work together safely and effectively. Implicit in these objectives is
the need to accommodate non- motorized travelers as an important consideration in improving the
transportation system.”
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 8 -
Table 2: Primary State Bicycle Program and Project Funding Sources
Category Description Eligible Applicants
Bicycle
Transportation
Account ( BTA)
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ L
ocalPrograms/
BTA provides state funds for city and county projects
that improve the safety and convenience of bicycle
commuters. Eligible projects include new bikeways
that serve major transportation corridors, secure
bicycle parking, bicycle- carrying facilities on transit
vehicles, installation of traffic control devices,
planning, bikeway improvements, maintenance and
hazard eliminations.
Applicants must be an
incorporated city or a
county; however, a city
or county may apply for
funds on behalf of
another local agency that
is not a city or county.
California
Conservation Corps
( CCC)
www. ccc. ca. gov
The CCC program provides emergency assistance and
public service conservation work.
City, county, state,
federal and non- profit
organizations
Community Based
Transportation
Planning
Demonstration Grant
Program
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ t
pp/ grants. htm
Caltrans’ Community Based Transportation Planning
Demonstration Grant Program supports demonstration
planning projects that provide an example of livable
community concepts
MPOs, RTPAs, cities
and counties. Co-applicants
such as non-profits
agencies are
eligible.
Environmental
Enhancement and
Mitigation Program
( EEMP)
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ L
andArch/ eem/ eemfra
me. htm
The EEMP funds projects that offset environmental
impacts of modified or new public transportation
facilities such as streets, Park & Ride facilities and
transit stations.
Non- profit agencies, and
local, state and federal
governments
Habitat Conservation
Fund ( HCF) Grant
http:// parks. ca. gov/ gr
ants/ hcf/ hcf. htm
The HCF program provides a competitive grant
program. Trail projects, land acquisition and wildlife
corridor restoration qualify for the
trails/ programs/ urban access category.
Cities, counties and
eligible districts
Office of Traffic
Safety ( OTS)
Program
www. ots. ca. gov
The primary objective of the program is to reduce
motor vehicle fatalities and injuries. A bicycle and
pedestrian safety program should strive to increase
safety awareness and skills among pedestrians,
bicyclists and drivers. The program should include the
following three components: education, enforcement
and engineering.
State, cities or counties,
school districts, fire
departments, public
emergency service
providers, state colleges
and universities. Non-profit
and community
organizations through a
governmental agency.
Petroleum Violation
Escrow Account
( PVEA)
The PVEA Program funds projects that conserve
energy and that benefit, directly or indirectly,
consumers of petroleum products within the state.
Cities, counties, transit
operators and Caltrans
may approach legislators
for sponsorship.
Safe Routes to School
Program ( SR2S)
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ L
ocalPrograms/
The SR2S program funds projects that improve the
safety of pedestrian and bicycle routes to/ from
schools.
Cities or counties within
the state of California
State Transportation
Improvement
Program ( STIP)
State funding for a variety of transportation projects
such as carpool lanes, transit stations and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
Cities, counties, transit
operators, Caltrans
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 9 -
Local/ Regional Transportation Funding Summary
Local jurisdictions have a variety of local transportation sources to fund bicycle programs and
projects. The Transportation Development Act ( TDA) Article 3 and air district funds are used by
many jurisdictions. Several counties have transportation sales taxes that may be used for bicycle
programs and projects with Alameda County’s Measure B as the benchmark in that five percent
of their sales tax funds bicycle and pedestrian projects. Developer impact fees are used by the
City of Chico, and the bicycle registration fees are used by the City of Davis. These two local
fees may be used by other jurisdictions; however, they are not as pervasive as TDA or air district
funds. Table 3 provides a summary of the primary local/ regional funding sources.
Table 3: Primary Local/ Regional Bicycle Program and Project Funding Sources
Category Description Eligible Applicants
Developer Impact
Fees
Local government agencies charge developers a
developer impact fee to offset the public costs
required to accommodate new development with
public infrastructure. Developer fees generally are
used for local rather than regional improvements such
as water and sewer facilities, arterials, local roads,
parks, collector roads, sidewalks and bikeways.
Local jurisdictions
Local Air District
Funding for Vehicle
Registration Fees
Various state legislation have authorized air districts
in California to impose a two to four dollar motor
vehicle registration fee to provide funds for air
districts to meet responsibilities mandated under the
California Clean Air Act ( CCAA). The funds can be
used to support programs and projects that reduce air
pollution from motor vehicles and to implement
Transportation Control Measures ( TCMs) contained
in local Air Quality Attainment Plans.
Local jurisdictions in
participating Air
Districts
Local Sales Tax for
Transportation
Voters in the counties have approved one- half percent
to one percent sales tax increases to fund
transportation projects.
Local jurisdictions
Registration and
Licensing of Bicycles
In cities, counties or on college campuses where high
concentrations of bicyclists exist, this funding source
accumulates enough monies to fund bicycle- related
programs and projects.
Local jurisdictions
Transportation
Development Act
( TDA) - Article 3
TDA states that one quarter cent of retail sales tax is
returned to the county of origin for the purpose of
funding transportation improvements in that county
such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, safety
programs and planning projects in that county.
Local jurisdictions
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 10 -
Bicycle Project Funding Example
Bicycle projects and programs typically are funded through multiple sources. Federal sources
require local matches of 20 percent. Local matching sources have competitive bidding processes
based on population and project merit. An example of a project with funding from multiple
sources is the Coastal Rail Trail in San Diego County. The Coastal Rail Trail is a 44- mile
bikeway, which is mostly within the railroad right- of- way between Oceanside and San Diego.
( Table 4)
Table 4: Example Bicycle Project Funding Sources
Funding Source Amount
ISTEA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ( CMAQ) $ 780,000
State Transportation System Management match $ 192,000
Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st Century ( TEA- 21) CMAQ $ 5,824,389
Local transportation sales tax match $ 1,021,838
TEA- 21 Enhancement funds $ 4,513,500
Local transportation sales tax match $ 586,500
AB 2766 ( APCD) Vehicle Registration Surcharge $ 184,000
Total $ 13,543,000
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 11 -
Primary Funding Sources - Federal
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ( CMAQ) Improvement
Program
Description: The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ( CMAQ) Improvement Program funds
almost $ 400 million annually statewide for projects in Clean Air Act non- attainment areas that
will help attain the national ambient air quality standards stated in the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments. The amount of CMAQ funding received depends on the state’s population share
and on the degree of air pollution. If a state is in compliance, the CMAQ funds can be used as
STP monies. The California Transportation Commission ( CTC) may reprogram the CMAQ
funds if they are not obligated within three years of federal eligibility. Table 5 displays the
2000/ 01 estimated CMAQ apportionment for statewide distribution.
Table 5: CMAQ Statewide Distributions
County 2000/ 01 2001/ 02 ( estimated) 2002/ 03 ( estimated)
Amador NA $ 209,251 $ 190,461
Butte $ 531,424 $ 500,373 $ 455,441
Calaveras NA $ 222,897 $ 202,882
Fresno $ 10,462,097 $ 9,850,793 $ 8,966,238
Kern $ 6,634,287 $ 6,246,643 $ 5,685,724
SCAG $ 221,940,486 $ 208,972,425 $ 190,207,681
Mariposa NA $ 99,627 $ 90,681
Merced $ 1,979,806 $ 1,864,125 $ 1,696,735
Nevada NA $ 546,898 $ 497,789
AMBAG $ 4,602,386 $ 4,333,467 $ 3,944,342
MTC $ 70,365,030 $ 63,130,948 $ 57,462,085
SACOG $ 19,123,361 $ 18,005,976 $ 16,389,124
San Diego $ 30,493,573 $ 28,711,823 $ 26,133,636
San Joaquin $ 5,867,082 $ 5,524,266 $ 5,028,213
San Luis Obispo NA $ 1,512,744 $ 1,376,907
Santa Barbara $ 4,101,680 $ 3,862,017 $ 3,515,226
Shasta NA $ 1,024,248 $ 932,276
Stanislaus $ 4,523,005 $ 4,258,725 $ 3,876,311
Sutter NA $ 448,713 $ 408,421
Tulare $ 3,461,506 $ 3,259,249 $ 2,966,583
Tahoe $ 287,859 $ 271,039 $ 246,701
Tehama NA $ 345,686 $ 314,645
Tuolumne NA $ 337,543 $ 307,233
Yuba NA $ 405,615 $ 369,192
Total $ 381,057,174 $ 362,647,000 $ 330,083,000
Source: Caltrans, Transportation Programming ( 916) 654- 3271
Note: Future year estimates assume that additional counties will become non- attainment areas.
Eligible Applicant: Cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations ( MPOs). Non- profit organizations and private entities are eligible for funds when
working through a public- private partnership. The public entity has the ultimate responsibility to
oversee and to protect the investment of public sector funds.
Possible Expenditures: CMAQ projects must provide emission reductions in carbon monoxide,
ozone precursor emissions or PM- 10 pollution. Eligible bicycle- related projects include bicycle
transportation facilities ( e. g., preliminary engineering, project planning studies and construction),
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 12 -
bicycle route maps, bike activated traffic lights, bicycle safety and education programs and
bicycle promotional programs. Bicycle and pedestrian projects received 2.8 percent of the
1999/ 2000 CMAQ funds in California.
Bicycle Project Examples: Table 6 shows bicycle and pedestrian projects that were funded in
part by 1999/ 2000 CMAQ funds.
Application Procedure: Allocations are made on the basis of priorities developed in the RTP by
the Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO) in cooperation with local jurisdictions. The MPO
must include the project in the current or next Regional Transportation Improvement Program
( RTIP).
Evaluation Criteria: Depends on the MPO. MPOs are encouraged to develop procedures that
evaluate the project’s expected emission reductions. Ideally, the procedure would yield
quantitative results; however, if inadequate data exist then a qualitative assessment would be
acceptable. Public education, marketing and other outreach efforts are project examples that are
difficult to quantify their benefits to air quality.
Application Deadline: The schedule depends on the MPO. Some MPOs use an annual project
selection process while others use a multi- year process.
Contact: Cathy Gomes; Phone: ( 916) 654- 3271; Fax: ( 916) 654- 2738; Web site:
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ transprog/ reports/ Official_ CMAQ_ Web_ Page. htm ; Refer to Appendix E for a list
of Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs).
Table 6: 1999/ 2000 CMAQ Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Dist County Description Amount
04 Alameda Bicycle facility and access $ 31,100
04 Solano Bike Lane Improvement $ 26,086
04 Solano Bike Path $ 61,971
04 Solano Construct Bike Path $ 80,000
04 Alameda New Pedestrian/ Bicycle Trail Construction $ 73,479
04 Contra Costa Pedestrian and Bike Path $ 75,000
04 Alameda Pedestrian/ Bicycle Improvement, Access and Facilities $ 1,000,000
04 Solano Pedestrian/ Bike Path $ 140,035
04 Alameda Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities and Landscaping. $ 1,074,524
04 Solano Widen Road for Class II Bikeway $ 860,200
04 Various MTC ADA Pedestrian Enhancements at Transit/ Transfer Center $ 177,000
04 Contra Costa Construct New Pedestrian Plaza $ 750,000
04 Sonoma Construct Pedestrian Walkway $ 500,000
04 Contra Costa Independent Pedestrian Walkway $ 53,118
04 Contra Costa Pedestrian Walkway $ 75,000
04 San Francisco Reconstruct Paths, Curbs and ADA Compliance $ 350,000
04 Contra Costa Streetscape & Pedestrian Access $ 500,000
04 Contra Costa Streetscape/ Pedestrian Walkway $ 65,000
05 Santa Barbara Construct Class 1 Bikeway $ 189,883
05 Santa Cruz Beach St Bikeway $ 50,000
05 Santa Cruz Soquel Drive Bike Lanes, Sidewalks, and Traffic
Signal/ Intersection Improvements
$ 750,000
06 Kern Mahan Street Roadway, Curb, Sidewalk, & Gutter $ 19,639
03 Placer Construct UP Railyard Overcrossing Pedestrian/ Bicycle Bridge $ 360,000
03 Placer Antelope Creek Bike Path - Phase I $ 120,000
03 Placer Construct Nicholas Road Class I Bikeway $ 17,600
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 13 -
Table 6: 1999/ 2000 CMAQ Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Dist County Description Amount
03 Placer Safe School Route Phase II ( Sidewalk Construction) $ 500,000
03 Sacramento Construct Bike Path $ 2,477,999
03 Sacramento Construct SR 160 Bicycle/ Pedestrian Bridge $ 258,507
03 Sacramento Sacramento On- Street Bikeway Projects $ 65,415
03 Sacramento Hwy 50 Bikeway Demonstration Project – City of Sacramento $ 63,675
03 Sacramento Central City Two- way Conversion and Community Plan $ 159,354
03 Sacramento Ueda Parkway Bikeway and Recreational Trail $ 115,050
03 Sacramento Tower Bridge Pedestrian/ Bikeway Improvements $ 619,710
03 Sacramento Dry Creek Parkway Plan and Environmental Review $ 100,000
03 Sacramento Bikeway/ Visitor Center Class 1 Bikeway and Landscaping $ 63,000
03 Sacramento Bikeway Master Plan Implementation. $ 189,000
03 Sacramento CSUS Bike Master Plan & Environmental Review $ 20,000
03 Sacramento 20th Street Bike Trail – City of Sacramento $ 79,844
05 Monterey Construct Bike Path Bridge - Pine Canyon to King City $ 214,000
05 Monterey Pedestrian Crossing Heads/ Wheelchair Ramp $ 139,200
05 San Benito Bike Lane on San Juan Hwy from San Juan Bautista to SR 101 $ 111,000
05 San Benito Countywide 64 Bike Racks & 6- 8 Bike Racks for Buses $ 22,000
05 San Benito Bike & Pedestrian Plan $ 22,000
06 Fresno Construct Class II Bicycle Lanes in the City of Fresno $ 279,429
06 Fresno Construct Class II Bicycle Lanes $ 58,000
06 Fresno Install Sidewalks on Sierra Ave in the City of Kingsburg $ 9,915
06 Fresno Install Sidewalks on Stroud Ave in the City of Kingsburg $ 16,555
06 Kings Pedestrian & Bike Path $ 56,000
06 Tulare TVRR R/ W Pedestrian & Bike Path - Blackstone to Mooney $ 52,200
06 Tulare TVRR R/ W Pedestrian & Bike Path - " E" to Blackstone $ 30,000
06 Tulare San Joaquin Valley Railroad Corridor Class I Facility $ 67,690
07 Ventura Pedestrian & Bike Path $ 170,000
07 Ventura Sidewalk Safety Improvements on Thousand Oaks Boulevard $ 200,000
10 Merced Los Banos Class II Bike Lanes. Install Lockers and Racks $ 39,600
10 Merced Pedestrian/ Bikeway/ Landscaping in Planada on SR 140 $ 381,400
10 Merced Class I Bike Path over Fahrens Creek and under Yosemite Ave $ 70,236
10 San Joaquin Stanislaus River Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge $ 250,000
10 Stanislaus Streetscape $ 1,163,580
10 Stanislaus Pedestrian and Bike Path $ 238,619
10 Stanislaus Bike Path $ 107,975
10 Stanislaus Pedestrian Walkway $ 13,279
10 Stanislaus Purchase & Install Bike Racks on Modesto Transit Buses $ 27,200
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Total $ 15,851,067
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 14 -
Land and Water Conservation Fund ( LWCF) Program
For an in- depth description of the LWCF program, please refer to the Procedural Guide for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Program by the State Department of Parks and Recreation
( DPR), which is available on the DPR web site ( www. parks. ca. gov/ grants/ lwcf/ lwcf. htm).
Description: LWCF grants may be used for statewide recreational planning and for acquiring and
developing recreational parks and facilities, especially in urban areas. The funding amount varies
depending on the federal apportionment. Of the California share, 60 percent of the funds are
distributed to southern California and 40 percent to northern California. The funds are obtained
from the federal motorboat fuels tax, the Outer Continental Shelf mineral receipts, federal
recreation fees and sales of federal surplus real property. LWCF grants require a 50 percent
match. In- kind donations are acceptable for the local share. This reimbursement program is
administered by the National Park Service ( NPS) and the State DPR, and is authorized by the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. The LWCF program will continue to January
2015.
Eligible Applicant: States must adopt a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
( SCORP). California’s SCORP is dated 1994. Federal and state agencies, cities, counties,
recreation and park districts and special districts may apply. The project sponsor must be able to
acquire, develop, operate and maintain the recreation facilities.
Possible Expenditures: The funds are limited to outdoor recreation projects such as the
acquisition of wetland habitat and the development of recreation facilities. Ineligible projects
include restoration of historic structures, construction of employee residences, development of
convention facilities, community centers and gymnasiums. Grants ranges from $ 10,000 to
$ 200,000. Projects must comply with the National Environmental Protection Act ( NEPA) and
the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) requirements, and must be retained in
perpetuity for public outdoor recreation use.
Bicycle Project Examples: Table 7 provides examples of trail development projects funded by
the LWCF program.
Application Procedure: The State DPR reviews the applications and allocates the funds. The
funds are provided through an annual competitive process.
Evaluation Criteria: After an initial screening, a project will be ranked according to priority
statewide outdoor recreation needs including bicycling, local needs for the project, cost- benefit
comparisons, project accessibility to the public, urgency of acquisition, improved or expanded
recreation facility, agency reputation and application quality. The State DPR created a list of
priority outdoor recreation activities from a 1992 user survey. Bicycling is prioritized in the fifth
category out of ten; mountain biking is ranked in the ninth category.
Application Deadline: May
Contact: Mr. Odel King, Manager, Grants Administration, State Department of Parks and
Recreation, Local Services Section, 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1449- 1, P. O. Box 942896,
Sacramento, CA 94296- 0001; Phone: ( 916) 653- 8758; Fax: ( 916) 653- 9824; Web site:
www. parks. ca. gov/ grants/ lwcf/ lwcf. htm
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 15 -
Table 7: Land and Water Conservation Fund Trail Projects
Project Name Agency Grant Amount
Los Vaqueros Trails Development Contra Costa Water District $ 152,850
Centennial Park Trail Development City of Vacaville $ 101,900
Bay Area Ridge Trail Development Midpeninsula R. O. S. D. $ 30,667
Lodato Park Trail City of Scotts Valley $ 15,798
Almansor Park Trail Development City of Alhambra $ 50,013
Florida Canyon Trail Development City of San Diego, Parks $ 15,240
Point Wilson Trail East Bay Regional Park District $ 114,300
Miles Square Trail Development County of Orange $ 99,943
Lake Siskiyou Restroom Development Department of Water Resources $ 38,963
Laguna Creek Trail Development Elk Grove C. S. D. $ 24,557
Culver City Park Nature Trail City of Culver City $ 46,683
Lake Oroville Mountain Bike Trail Department of Water Resources $ 38,022
Del Valle Trail Development Department of Water Resources $ 92,054
Oak Creek Canyon Interpretive Trail City of Thousand Oaks $ 39,938
Russian Ridge Trail Midpeninsula R. O. S. D. $ 10,211
Fryer Creek Bicycle Path Development City of Sonoma $ 68,112
Skyline Ridge Trail Development Midpeninsula R. O. S. D. $ 28,380
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 16 -
Recreational Trails Program ( RTP)
Description: The Recreational Trails Program ( RTP) of about $ 3 million annually provides
monies for recreational trails and trail- related projects. Non- motorized projects ( 70 percent of the
funds) are administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation ( DPR) Office of Grants and
Local Services. Motorized projects ( 30 percent of the funds) are administered by the DPR Off-
Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Projects may spend up to five percent of the funds
on safety and environmental protection. The program requires a 20 percent match in cash or in-kind
services, and five percent of it must come from local sources such as city, county, state or
private monies.
Eligible Applicant: Cities, counties, districts, state agencies and non- profit organizations with
management responsibilities over public lands.
Possible Expenditures: For both the non- motorized and motorized categories,
development/ rehabilitation and acquisition of recreational trails and trail- related projects such as
trailside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages. Education, environmental protection, operation
and maintenance projects are eligible only under the motorized category. Projects must comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act
( NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Americans
with Disabilities Act ( ADA). Ineligible expenditures include property condemnation, motorized
usage provisions for non- motorized trails and sidewalks and paths adjacent to roads.
Bicycle Project Examples: Since 1993, California has funded almost 100 trail projects through
the RTP of which 73 are non- motorized trails. Table 8 shows previously funded trail projects.
Application Procedure: The RTP is a competitive grant. Applicants use the same application
for both the non- motorized and motorized projects. Project selection occurs in January, which is
three months after project submittal. The DPR pays the approved project applicants on a
reimbursable basis.
Evaluation Criteria: Not stated.
Application Deadline: October
Contact: Web site: www. parks. ca. gov/ grants/ index. htm
Non- motorized projects: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and
Local Services, P. O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296- 0001; Phone: ( 916) 653- 7423; Fax:
( 916) 653- 6511.
Motorized projects: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off- Highway Motor Vehicle
Recreation Division, P. O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296- 0001; Phone: ( 916) 324- 1573;
Fax: ( 916) 324- 1610.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 17 -
Table 8: RTP Funded Trail Projects ( 1997 – 2001)
Project Name Agency Amount
2000/ 2001
Colma- Lotus Link Trail County of El Dorado $ 35,000
Middletown Nature Trail County of Lake $ 80,000
Ballona Creek Bridge City of Culver City $ 150,000
Griffith Park Hogback Trail City of Los Angeles $ 139,320
Napa River Trail City of Napa $ 165,042
Western Recreational Trail City of Norco $ 92,902
Humbug- Willow Creek Trail City of Folsom $ 139,000
Los Penasquitos Canyon Trail County of San Diego $ 75,000
Santee Lakes Observation Trail Padre Dam Municipal Water District $ 133,920
Dinosaur Caves Trail City of Pismo Beach $ 85,000
Lake Siskiyou Trail Siskiyou County Flood Control RCD $ 181,208
Bravo Lake Trail City of Woodlake $ 48,677
St. Johns River Parkway Trail City of Visalia $ 81,500
Ann Skage Trail Department of Parks and Recreation ( DPR) Angeles $ 25,537
North Fork Trail DPR Northern Buttes District $ 139,600
San Clemente Coastal Trails DPR Orange Coast District $ 135,300
1999/ 2000
Kelly Ridge Trail DPR Northern Buttes District $ 158,000
Bay Trail East Bay Regional Park District $ 80,000
Rubicon- Lighthouse Trail DPR Sierra District $ 120,000
Manila Dunes Trail Manila CSD $ 50,000
Ballona Creek Trail Baldwin Hills Regional Conservation Authority $ 200,000
Flint Wash Trail City of Pasadena $ 200,000
Calabasas/ Cold Creek Trail Mountains Restoration Trust $ 80,000
Topanga Lookout Trail Mountains Restoration Trust $ 50,000
Presidio Curve Trail Monterey City Public Works Department $ 60,000
Skyline Trail Skyline Park Citizen’s Association $ 10,000
Union Pacific Trail City of Fullerton $ 200,000
Big Rock Trail DPR Inland Empire District Lake Perri $ 110,000
Santee Lakes Observation Trail Padre Dam Municipal Water District $ 74,000
Mule Hill/ San Pasqual Trail San Dieguito River Park Joint Power District $ 62,000
Los Gatos Creek Trail City of San Jose $ 200,000
Santa Rosa Creek Trail City of Santa Rosa Community Development Dept. $ 200,000
Wildwood Regional Park Trail Conejo Regional Park District $ 46,000
1998/ 1999
North Grove Trail/ 3 Senses DPR Calaveras District $ 73,385
Iron Horse Trail East Bay Regional Park District $ 100,000
Fire Interpretive Trail DPR Bay Area District $ 236,520
Macmichael Loop Section San Joaquin River Conservancy $ 124,720
Foothill & Prairie Creek Trail DPR North Coast Redwoods District $ 166,825
Schabarum Trail County of Los Angeles, Parks $ 76,306
Walnut Creek Bridge County of Los Angeles, Parks $ 64,000
Panorama Segment of Loop Trail City of Signal Hill $ 200,000
Calabasas Trail City of Calabasas $ 150,000
Lower Cataract Trail II Marin Municipal Water District $ 75,000
Pacific Electric Bike Trail City of Santa Ana $ 30,000
Oso Creek Trail Bridge City of Mission Viejo $ 250,000
Tahoe City Lakeside Trail Tahoe City Public Utility District $ 200,000
Crestview Trail City of Norco $ 157,152
Running Springs- Village Trail Rim of the World Regional Park District $ 100,000
Conejos Trail Cuyamaca Rancho DPR Colorado Desert Cuyamaca $ 41,000
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 18 -
Table 8: RTP Funded Trail Projects ( 1997 – 2001)
Project Name Agency Amount
Volcan Mt. Trail Improvements County of San Diego $ 23,210
William Heise Park Trails County of San Diego $ 16,544
Twin Peaks Trail City & County of San Francisco $ 82,196
Bishop Peak Trail County of San Luis Obispo $ 25,000
Pilarcitos Creek Trail City of Half Moon Bay $ 200,000
Central County Bikeway City of Suisun City $ 120,000
Tulare Rails to Trails City of Tulare $ 104,000
1997/ 1998
Bay Trail Linkage City of Oakland $ 100,000
Greenbelt Trail Hayward Area Regional Park District $ 75,000
Diablo Trail System DPR Bay Area District $ 62,000
Delta de Anza Trail East Bay Regional Park District $ 100,000
Wildcat Creek Trail City of San Pablo $ 25,000
Rodeo Creek Trail County of Contra Costa $ 129,000
Freitas Road Trail Bridge Town of Danville $ 39,000
Emerald Bay Trail DPR Sierra District $ 79,000
Susanville Ranch Trails County of Lassen $ 72,000
Altadena Crest Trails County of Los Angeles, Parks $ 47,000
Indian Tree Trail Marin County Open Space District $ 65,000
Lower Cataract Trail Marin Municipal Water District $ 32,529
Meridian Blvd. Undercrossing Town of Mammoth Lakes $ 73,930
Trail Bridges Aliso & Wood Pks County of Orange $ 30,000
Pacific Electric Trail City of Santa Ana $ 50,000
Burton Creek Trail DPR Sierra District $ 59,000
Trans- County Trail County of San Diego $ 67,000
Anza Borrego All- Access Trail DPR Colorado Desert District $ 10,000
Borden Road Trail City of San Marcos $ 39,681
Torrey Pines Trail System DPR San Diego Coast District $ 35,000
Torrey Pines Discovery Trail DPR San Diego Coast District $ 18,000
Highland Valley Trail San Dieguito River Park Join Power District $ 7,000
Strawberry Hill Trail City & County of San Francisco $ 65,000
Bishop Peak Trail County of San Luis Obispo $ 10,000
El Corte de Madera Trail Midpeninsula ROSD $ 73,000
Henry Coe State Park Jackson
Trail
DPR Four Rivers, Coe Sector $ 10,000
Lagoon- Ridgecrest Trail City of Vacaville $ 30,000
West Sonoma County Trail County of Sonoma $ 90,000
Challenger Park Trail Rancho Simi Regional Park District $ 71,000
Corriganville Park Trail Rancho Simi Regional Park District $ 19,397
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 19 -
Regional Surface Transportation Program ( RSTP)
Description: The Regional Surface Transportation Program ( RSTP) is a block grant program of
approximately $ 320 million annually statewide for roads, bridges, transit capital and bicycle and
pedestrian projects. Metropolitan Transportation Organizations ( MPOs) can transfer monies from
other federal transportation funding sources to the RSTP program if they want more flexibility in
how they allocate their funds. TEA- 21 requires states to set aside ten percent for safety
construction activities and another ten percent for the Transportation Enhancement Activities
( TEA) program. The state of California distributes 62.5 percent of RSTP according to regional
population. The remaining 37.5 percent may be spent anywhere in the state. The California
Transportation Commission ( CTC) may reprogram the RSTP funds if they are not obligated
within three years of federal eligibility. Table 9 displays the 2000/ 01 estimated RSTP
apportionment for statewide distribution.
Eligible Applicant: Cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations ( MPOs). Non- profit organizations and special districts also may apply, but they
must have a city, county or transit operator sponsor and, in some cases, administer the project.
Possible Expenditures: Improvements for local roads, highways and bridges ( includes additional
modes), transit capital projects ( includes bike parking facilities at terminals and bike racks on
buses), bicycle transportation facilities, pedestrian walkways, bike- activated traffic lights and
preservation of abandoned railway corridors for pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Bicycle Project Examples: Table 10 shows bicycle projects that were funded with RSTP funds.
Application Procedure: Allocations are made on the basis of priorities developed in the RTP by
the MPO in cooperation with local jurisdictions. The MPO must include the project in the current
or next Regional Transportation Improvement Program ( RTIP).
Evaluation Criteria: Depends on the MPO.
Application Deadline: The schedule depends on the MPO. Some MPOs use an annual project
selection process while others use a multi- year process.
Contact: www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ transprog/ cmaqrstp. htm
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 20 -
Table 9: RSTP 2000/ 2001 Statewide Distribution
MPO/ RTPA/ County Distribution Distribution %
MTC Region $ 66,286,289 20.2%
SACOG $ 15,177,767 4.6%
TRPA $ 428,173 0.1%
SCAG Region $ 161,114,628 49.0%
AMBAG Region $ 6,441,952 2.0%
Alpine $ 131,208 0.0%
Amador $ 330,563 0.1%
Butte $ 2,004,134 0.6%
Calaveras $ 352,121 0.1%
Colusa $ 179,098 0.1%
Del Norte $ 258,165 0.1%
El Dorado $ 1,060,204 0.3%
Fresno $ 7,345,374 2.2%
Glenn $ 272,889 0.1%
Humboldt $ 1,310,831 0.4%
Inyo $ 673,353 0.2%
Kern $ 5,980,677 1.8%
Kings $ 1,116,613 0.3%
Lake $ 557,167 0.2%
Lassen $ 404,187 0.1%
Madera $ 969,384 0.3%
Mariposa $ 157,715 0.0%
Mendocino $ 884,154 0.3%
Merced $ 1,963,231 0.6%
Modoc $ 296,407 0.1%
Mono $ 229,725 0.1%
Nevada $ 863,961 0.3%
Placer $ 982,226 0.3%
Plumas $ 238,395 0.1%
San Benito $ 403,831 0.1%
San Diego $ 27,489,349 8.4%
San Joaquin $ 5,289,058 1.6%
San Luis Obispo $ 2,389,753 0.7%
Santa Barbara $ 4,067,340 1.2%
Shasta $ 1,618,054 0.5%
Sierra $ 131,208 0.0%
Siskiyou $ 654,879 0.2%
Stanislaus $ 4,077,399 1.2%
Tehama $ 546,097 0.2%
Trinity $ 251,912 0.1%
Tulare $ 3,432,526 1.0%
Tuolumne $ 533,232 0.2%
Statewide Totals $ 328,895,229 100.0%
Source: Caltrans, Transportation Programming ( 916) 653- 3058
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 21 -
Table 10: RSTP- Funded Bicycle Projects
Jurisdiction
Project Description
RSTP
Funds
Davis Davis Bike Path and R/ W Surfacing ( 1994) $ 150,709
Davis Russell Blvd. Bike Path Improvements ( 1998) $ 397,591
Davis Various City Bike Paths – Asphalt Concrete Overlays ( 2000) $ 51,347
Sacramento County Sacramento County Bikeway Project ( 1993) $ 220,732
Sacramento County Laguna Creek Area Bike Paths ( 2000) $ 364,082
Oakland Bancroft Avenue Bike Lane Reconstruction ( 2001) $ 318,708
Alameda Fernside Blvd. – Bay Farm Island Bridge ( 1994) $ 1,221,801
Alameda Fruitvale Avenue Bike Lane Stripe and Lockers ( 1995) $ 74,000
Petaluma Bicycle Actuated Signals - Various Locations ( 1993) $ 200,000
Martinez Pacheco Blvd. Bike Lane/ Roadway Rehabilitation ( 1997) $ 1,593,540
Antioch Bicycle/ Pedestrian Trail ( 1993) $ 386,000
Napa Downtown Napa Streetscape Area ( 2000) $ 328,000
Larkspur Doherty Drive Bicycle/ Pedestrian Improvements ( 1999) $ 300,000
Albany Codornices Creek Bike Path ( 2000) $ 97,000
Newark Sycamore St. Widen Two- way Left Turn and Bike Lane ( 1995) $ 698,999
Novato South Novato Blvd. Bikeway ( 1997) $ 362,333
Rohnert Park Commerce Blvd. Bike Path ( 2000) $ 205,390
Clayton Marsh Creek Road Bike Lanes ( 1993) $ 667,000
Tiburon Bike Parking at the Ferry Terminal ( 1993) $ 14,164
Marin County Atherton Avenue Pedestrian/ Bicycle Path ( 1994) $ 922,956
San Francisco County Geneva Street Bike Lanes ( 1999) $ 1,026,000
Santa Clara County San Tomas Expressway Bike Path and Signals ( 1993) $ 292,000
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 22 -
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance ( RTCA) Program
Description: The National Park Service ( NPS) program provides technical assistance ( direct staff
involvement) at the request of citizens, community groups and governments to establish and
restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds and open space.
Eligible Applicant: Cities, counties, state governments and citizen groups. The applicant needs a
state or local government sponsor.
Possible Expenditures: Possible expenditures include:
§   Corridor Conservation Plans: Facilitates community- based conservation action to establish
networks of rivers, trails and greenways.
§   Statewide Rivers or Trails Assistance: Helps identify and establish protection strategies for
rivers or the planning of statewide trail systems for public use and recreation.
§   Conservation Consultations: Identifies organizational mechanisms and participatory
processes for local conservation approaches and initiatives.
§   Information Exchange: Serves as conduit of information on river, trail, greenway and
watershed planning.
Bicycle Project Examples: This program assists with the following trail projects: the Santa Ana
River Trail, the Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, the Whittier Greenway Rail- to- Trail
Conversion, the Shasta- Trinity Trails Connection, the San Gabriel River Master Plan, the
Santiago Creek Master Plan, the Santa Cruz Sanctuary Trail and the Red Bluff Trail.
Application Procedure: Contact the RTCA to discuss possible assistance then submit a brief
letter of request.
Evaluation Criteria: Due to limited resources, the RTCA is not able to provide assistance to all
applicants. Projects that rank the highest focus on conservation and community partnerships.
The evaluation criteria include:
§   Conserve a significant resource within the community;
§   Foster cooperation among agencies;
§   Serve a large number of users;
§   Encourage public involvement in planning and implementation;
§   Use innovative techniques; and
§   Focus on lasting accomplishments.
Application Deadline: August for the fiscal year that begins October 1.
Contact: Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program, National Park Service; Web site:
www. nps. gov/ pwro/ rtca
San Francisco Regional Office: 600 Harrison Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94107- 1372;
Phone: ( 415) 427- 1446; Fax: ( 415) 744- 4043.
Southern California Field Office: 570 W. Avenue 26, Suite 175, Los Angeles, CA 90065;
Phone: ( 323) 441- 2117/ 9307; Fax: ( 323) 226- 9235.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 23 -
Transportation Enhancement Activities ( TEA) Program
Description: The TEA program funds transportation projects that help enhance the travel
experience. The 12 eligible TEA categories include three that are bicycle- oriented: bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, bicycle and pedestrian educational activities and preservation of abandoned
railway corridors for bicycle and pedestrian use. Other eligible projects are scenic acquisitions,
landscaping, historic preservation, outdoor advertising removal and control, archaeological
planning and research, water pollution run- off from highways and the establishment of
transportation museums.
States must set aside ten percent of their annual RSTP apportionment to fund the TEA program.
California is receiving about $ 60 million annually for six years starting in 1997. Except for the
Caltrans share, these reimbursable federal- aid monies are split such that 60 percent are allocated
to the south and 40 percent to the north. The funds are dispersed to the following TEA programs:
§   Regional: Regional transportation planning agencies ( RTPAs) receive and allocate 75 percent
of the TEA monies, which totals about $ 45 million annually. Most regions have two funding
cycles for the TEA- 21 funds.
§   Conservation Lands: This funding source is used for scenic lands acquisition, and
administered through the Environmental Enhancement & Mitigation ( EEM) program
umbrella. The initial allocation, failed TEA projects programmed before 1998 and rural
county exchanges are combined to total $ 50 million in program funds.
§   Caltrans: Caltrans controls about 11 percent of the funds, which totals $ 40 million over TEA-
21’ s six- year period or about $ 6.6 million annually.
§   Statewide Transportation Enhancement ( STE): The State Resources Agency controls about
11 percent of the funds, which totals $ 40 million over TEA- 21’ s six- year period or about $ 20
million for the two funding cycles. The STE program is administered through the EEM
program umbrella.
The required local match is 11.47 percent. Proposed projects must total a minimum of $ 100,000
in federal funds.
Eligible Applicant: Private organizations may apply; however, they must partner with a public
entity that is capable of executing a master agreement.
§   Regional: The agency can be local, state or federal depending on the TEA category.
§   Caltrans: RTPAs, counties, cities and non- profit organizations or citizen groups with a
Caltrans District partner.
§   STE: State ( except Caltrans), federal and regional. Local or private/ non- profit agencies with
a state or federal agency partner.
Possible Expenditures: TEA funding is intended for capital improvement projects except for
research and education. The projects must relate to the surface transportation system through
function, proximity or impact. For example, a bikeway project relates to the system by function.
The following bicycle facility projects are eligible: bicycle lockers, bike paths, bike lanes, bike
racks on buses, and the preservation of abandoned railway corridors for bicycling. The primary
purpose of the proposed project should be for transportation uses yet recreation travel can be a
component of the project. Bicycle and pedestrian safety and education activities also are eligible
as long as they are accessible to the general public. The TEA program does not cover on- going
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 24 -
maintenance and operating expenses, feasibility studies, program planning or improvements to
private property. Restrooms, parking lots and drainage lots are eligible only as an incidental part
of an enhancement project.
Bicycle Project Examples: The following tables list bicycle project examples for the TEA
programs: Regional ( Table 12), Caltrans ( Table 13) and STE ( Table 14).
Application Procedure: Refer to the Local Assistance Procedures Manual at
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LocalPrograms/ public. htm
§   Regional: The project sponsors submit applications to the applicable RTPA and to Caltrans
Local Assistance for an eligibility check. The estimated time between project submittal and
start date is three to six months.
§   Caltrans: The Headquarters TEA Branch Chief approves the projects for eligibility, and
sends the recommended list to the District Directors for their consent. Caltrans TEA projects
will be shown in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program ( SHOPP) list. The
California Transportation Commission adopts the SHOPP list.
§   STE: The project sponsor submits the three- part application to Caltrans. Caltrans receives
and screens the applications for program eligibility. The State Resources Agency’s
prioritization panel ranks the projects, and recommends projects to the California
Transportation Commission ( CTC). The CTC approves the funding program’s amount and
schedule, selects projects from among those recommended, and allocates the funding to the
project sponsors.
Evaluation Criteria: The Resources Agency and the RTPAs may use their own scoring criteria
or Caltrans’ model criteria, which states that each project can receive a maximum of 100 points
with 60 points for general scoring and 40 points for activity- specific scoring. The general merit
criteria have the following components:
1. Regional and Community Enhancement ( 50 points)
a) Benefits quality- of- life, community and environment. ( 0- 10 points)
b) Increases access to activity centers. ( 0- 8 points)
c) Implements goals in the regional transportation plan or other adopted federal, state or
local plans. ( 0- 8 points)
d) Increases availability, awareness or protection of historic, community, visual or natural
resources. ( 0- 8 points)
e) Degree of regional or community support. ( 0- 8 points)
f) Encompasses more than one of the four activity- specific divisions. ( 0- 8 points)
2. Cost- effectiveness/ Reasonable Cost ( 10 points)
The activity- specific criteria differ for the four divisions. The bicycle- related division has two
main components:
1. Need for the proposed facility
2. Degree proposed project meets the need or addresses opportunities for bicycle/ pedestrian
facilities.
Application Deadline:
§   Regional: Depends on the RTPA.
§   Caltrans: Same as for SHOPP projects. Refer to the TEA web site.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 25 -
§   STE: Depends on the next STE funding cycles. Refer to the TEA web site.
Contact: Howard Reynolds, TEA Program Coordinator, Caltrans, HQ Local Programs, Mail
Station 1, 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: ( 916) 654- 2477; Fax: ( 916) 654- 3770;
E- mail: Howard_ Reynolds@ dot. ca. gov; Web site: www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ TransEnhAct
§   Regional: Refer to Appendix F for the applicable RTPA contact information.
§   Caltrans: Table 11 lists the Caltrans District Local Assistance TEA coordinators.
§   STE: State Resources Agency, Don Wallace, Assistant Secretary.
Table 11: Caltrans District Local Assistance TEA Coordinators
District Town Name Phone Number
1 Eureka Jan Bulinski ( 707) 445- 6399
2 Redding Mark Fawver ( 530) 225- 3489
3 Marysville Roger Brown ( 530) 741- 5452
4 Oakland Rich Monroe ( 510) 286- 5226
5 San Luis Obispo John Smida ( 805) 549- 4605
6 Fresno Marvin Johnson ( 209) 422- 4105
7 Los Angeles Morris Zarbi ( 213) 620- 6519
8 San Bernardino Ernie Rogers ( 909) 383- 4578
9 Bishop Mark Reistetter ( 760) 872- 0681
10 Stockton Frank Safaie ( 209) 948- 8737
11 San Diego Don Pope ( 619) 688- 6790
12 Santa Ana Alan Williams ( 949) 724- 7805
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 26 -
Table 12: Regional TEA Program Bicycle Project Examples ( FY 1998/ 1999 to FY 2000/ 2001)
County ( Caltrans District): Sponsor Project Description Regional TEA
Funding
Lake ( 1): Lakeport Lakeshore Blvd. Pedestrian and Bike Path $ 201,000
Lake ( 1): Clearlake Old Highway 53 Bikeway $ 171,000
Plumas ( 2): U. S. Forest Service Lake Almanor Bike Path $ 160,000
Shasta ( 2): Redding Redding Bike Trail $ 120,000
Butte ( 3): Feather River Park District Feather River Bikeway ( Phase 2 of 3) $ 160,000
El Dorado ( 3): El Dorado County El Dorado Trail Bikeway $ 200,000
Sacramento ( 3): Folsom Humbug- Willow Creek Parkway Class I
Bike Trail
$ 180,000
Sacramento ( 3): State Parks and
Recreation
Alder Creek Pedestrian- Bicycle Bridge
Crossing
$ 547,000
Alameda ( 4): Berkeley Route 80 Bicycle Underpass $ 1,000,000
Contra Costa ( 4): East Bay Regional
Park District
Iron Horse Trail, Walnut Creek Extension $ 770,000
Contra Costa ( 4): East Bay Regional
Park District
Miller- Knox Ferry Point Bike Path $ 376,000
Contra Costa ( 4): East Bay Regional
Park District
Point Isabel to Marina Bay Trail $ 69,000
Contra Costa ( 4): El Cerrito/ BART BART Bike Garage at El Cerrito Plaza $ 117,000
Marin ( 4): Novato South Novato Blvd. Bikeway $ 696,000
Napa ( 4): Napa Napa River Trail Bicycle/ Ped Path $ 261,000
Santa Clara ( 4): Mountain View Stevens Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail $ 950,000
San Luis Obispo ( 5): Cambria
Community Services District
Santa Rosa Creek Multi- Use Trail $ 199,000
San Luis Obispo ( 5): Pismo Beach Pismo Beach Boardwalk and Bikeway $ 240,000
Santa Barbara ( 5): Lompoc Santa Ynez River Bridge Bike Lane $ 497,000
Santa Barbara ( 5): Santa Barbara
County
El Capitan Ranch Bikeway $ 360,000
Santa Cruz ( 5): Santa Cruz County East Cliff Drive Ped/ Bike Project $ 195,000
Santa Cruz ( 5): Scotts Valley Glenwood Drive Pedestrian and Bikeway
Enhancement
$ 99,000
Fresno ( 6): Firebaugh Firebaugh Gateway Landscaping and Bike
Trails
$ 248,000
Fresno ( 6): San Joaquin River
Conservancy
Friant Cove Bicycle and Pedestrian Rest
Stop
$ 369,000
Kern ( 6): Kern County Fairfax Rd. to Hart Park Bikepath $ 542,000
Kern ( 6): Kern County Metropolitan Bakersfield Bike Lanes $ 415,000
Kern ( 6): Taft Taft Rails to Trails $ 432,000
Los Angeles ( 7): Avalon Mt. Ada Bike Trail $ 930,000
Los Angeles ( 7): LA County MTA/ City
of Los Angeles
Exposition Regional Bikeway Phase I East
Segment
$ 2,275,000
Los Angeles ( 7): LA County MTA/ City
of Los Angeles
Exposition Regional Bikeway Phase I West
Segment
$ 2,372,000
Ventura ( 7): State Parks and Recreation California Coastal Bicycle Route $ 157,000
Riverside ( 7): Riverside County Santa Ana River Bikeway $ 410,000
Mariposa ( 10): Mariposa County Mariposa Creek Bike Trail $ 100,000
Merced ( 10): Merced County Planada Landscaping and Bike Lanes $ 350,000
Tuolumne ( 10): Tuolumne County Tuolumne City Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facility $ 160,000
Orange ( 12): San Clemente San Clemente Multi- Use Trail $ 1,000,000
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 27 -
Table 13: Caltrans TEA Program Bicycle Project Examples ( 1999 and 2000)
County ( Caltrans District): Sponsor Project Description
Caltrans TEA
Funding
Various ( 3) Bicycle/ Pedestrian Design Education $ 528,000
Alameda ( 4) New Baumberg Tract Bay Trail $ 398,000
Alameda ( 4) Union City Bay Trail $ 885,000
San Luis Obispo ( 5) Questa Grade Bicycle Access Connector –
Under Highway 101
$ 82,000
Los Angeles ( 7): City of La Canada
Flintridge
Foothill Blvd. Pedestrian & Bicycle
Facilities
$ 200,000
Ventura ( 7): City of San Buenaventura Figueroa Pedestrian & Bicycle Way under
SR 101
$ 443,000
Various ( 10) Stanislaus River Bridge and Regional Trail
( alternative bicycle route for SR 99 in
Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties)
$ 154,000
San Diego ( 11) Lake Hodges Bicycle/ Pedestrian Bridge $ 2,706,000
Sonoma ( 4) Sonoma Route 116 Bikeway $ 1,365,000
Santa Cruz ( 5) Wilder Ranch Bike Path $ 150,000
San Luis Obispo ( 5) SLO Highway 1 Bike Lanes $ 390,000
Santa Barbara ( 5) Ellwood Bicycle/ Ped Overcrossing $ 500,000
Los Angeles ( 7) SR 101 Freeway Pedestrian Bridge $ 1,220,000
Santa Barbara ( 8) Chino Bicycle Path on State Route 71 $ 435,000
Table 14: STE TEA Program Bicycle Project Examples ( Round One)
County ( Caltrans District):
Sponsor Project Description
STE TEA
Funding
San Diego ( 11) San Dieguito Lagoon, Coast to Crest Trail $ 1,361,000
Santa Barbara ( 5) Goleta, Route 101 Bike Bridge $ 500,000
San Diego ( 11) San Pascual Valley, Santa Maria Bike Bridge $ 174,000
San Diego ( 11) Livable Communities Bike Education Project $ 992,000
Yolo ( 3) UC Davis Bicycle Collection for Museum $ 440,000
Yolo ( 3) UC Davis Bike Lanes and Streetscapes $ 1,253,000
Marin ( 4) Sausalito, Bay Trail, Bridgeway North $ 447,000
Solano ( 4) Vallejo, Bay Trail, Carquinez Connection $ 100,000
El Dorado ( 3) Humbug- Willow Creek $ 351,000
Humboldt ( 1) Redwood NP, Berry Glen- Lost Man Bike Trail $ 400,000
Alameda ( 4) Oakland, Bay Trail, Mandela Parkway $ 902,000
El Dorado ( 3) Echo Summit, Pony Express Trail Extension $ 220,000
Sacramento ( 3) Livable Communities Bike Education Project $ 424,000
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 28 -
Primary Funding Sources - State
Bicycle Transportation Account ( BTA)
Description: BTA provides state funds for city and county projects that improve the safety and
convenience of bicycle commuters. The required local match is ten percent of the total project
cost. A single applicant may not receive more than 25 percent of the total amount transferred to
the BTA in a single fiscal year. According to the Streets and Highways Code Section 2106, in the
2001/ 2002 through 2005/ 2006 fiscal years, $ 7.2 million of BTA funds will be available annually.
In the 2006/ 2007 fiscal year and beyond, $ 5.0 million will be available annually.
Eligible Applicant: Applicants must be an incorporated city or a county; however, a city or
county may apply for funds on behalf of another local agency that is not a city or county. The
agency must have an adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan that has been approved by the agency’s
county transportation commission or transportation planning agency and Caltrans. The plan must
comply with the Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2 as shown below:
a. Estimated number of existing and proposed bicycle commuters.
b. Land use and population density ( map and description).
c. Existing and proposed bikeways ( map and description).
d. Existing and proposed end- of- trip bicycle parking facilities ( map and description).
e. Existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for transportation connections
( map and description).
f. Existing and proposed shower facilities ( map and description).
g. Bicycle safety and education programs ( description).
h. Citizen and community participation.
i. Consistency with long- range transportation, air quality and energy plans.
j. Project descriptions and priority listings.
k. Past expenditures and future financial needs description.
Possible Expenditures: Eligible projects include new bikeways that serve major transportation
corridors, secure bicycle parking, bicycle- carrying facilities on transit vehicles, installation of
traffic control devices, planning, bikeway improvements, maintenance and hazard eliminations.
Proposed bikeway projects must have environmental clearance, and must comply with Caltrans’
minimum design standards for bikeways listed in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual.
Bicycle Project Examples: See Table 15 for BTA project examples. The annual allocations
gradually have increased from about $ 360,000 in fiscal year 1994/ 1995 to $ 1.5 million in fiscal
year 1999/ 2000 and to $ 7.2 million currently.
Application Procedure: Caltrans District offices send BTA application information to local
agencies. Local agencies submit BTA applications to their Caltrans District Office. Caltrans
District offices submit local agencies’ applications to the Bicycle Facilities Unit ( BFU) in the
Caltrans Office of Local Program Management. The BTA Evaluation Committee evaluates
project applications. Caltrans management reviews application evaluations, and develops an
approved list of projects to be funded. BFU and each local agency sign a Local Agency/ State
Agreement. The local agency is awarded the contract.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 29 -
Evaluation Criteria:
1) Used primarily by bicycle commuters.
2) Potential to increase bicycle commuting.
3) Best alternative for the situation.
4) Improves the continuity of the existing bikeway system.
5) Provides a direct route to activity centers such as schools, employment centers and
shopping.
6) Is consistent with the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Application Deadline: To be announced.
Contact: Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineers ( refer to Appendix D for the appropriate
district representative). Website information: www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LocalPrograms/
Table 15: Bicycle Transportation Account Projects
Local Agency BTA Grant
2000/ 2001 Grants
County of Del Norte - Hamilton Avenue Bike Lanes $ 69,930
City of Eureka – Bicycle Racks / Wabash Avenue Bike Lanes $ 57,420
City of Roseville – I- 80 to Royer Park Bike Path $ 135,900
City of Winters – Class II Bikeways on Main Street / Valley Oak Drive $ 14,736
City of Oakland – Class II Bikeways on Foothill Blvd. / Bancroft Avenue $ 232,200
City of Chowchilla – Class II Bikeways on Avenue 26 $ 76,500
City of Hanford – Class II and III Bikeways, Signing and Striping $ 12,600
County of Kings – Bus Bike Racks $ 11,927
County of Madera – Class II Bikeway on Road 427 in Oakhurst $ 99,630
City of San Buenaventura – Class II Bikeway on Santa Clara Street $ 45,000
City of San Dimas – Class I, II and III Bikeways $ 210,942
City of La Quinta – Class II Bikeways – Various Segments $ 30,600
City of Murrieta – Class II and III Bikeways – Various Segments $ 135,225
City of Los Banos – Class II Bikeways – Various Segments $ 45,000
County of Imperial – Class II Bikeway – La Brucherie Road $ 65,340
City of Stanton – Class II Bikeways – Various Segments $ 247,050
Total $ 1,490,000
1999/ 2000 Grants
City of Cupertino – Miller Avenue Bicycle lanes $ 157,500
City of Hayward – Soto Road Bike Lane Improvements $ 202,500
City of Sonoma - Nathanson Creek Bicycle Path $ 10,000
City of Santa Barbara – Los Banos del Mar Multipurpose Path $ 229,000
City of Clovis – Clovis Avenue Railroad Corridor and Bikeway $ 175,170
City of Ojai – Ojai Valley Trail Bikeway Extension $ 50,000
City of Moreno Valley – Class II & III var. $ 156,000
County of Merced ( Transit) – Regional Bikeway Plan Phase I $ 9,830
Total $ 990,000
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 30 -
Table 15: Bicycle Transportation Account Projects ( cont.)
Local Agency BTA Grant
1998/ 1999 Grants
City of Arcata – Bike Lanes Improvements – Phase III $ 29,520
City of Redding – Class II and III Bikeway Improvements ( Phase I) $ 63,395
City of Folsom – Oak Ave. Parkway / Humbug Willow Creek Bikeway Crossing $ 46,800
City of Galt – Bike Lane Signage and Striping Project $ 34,105
City of Alameda – Bicycle Sensitive Loop Detectors $ 90,000
County of San Luis Obispo – Vineyard Dr and 9th St Bicycle Lanes $ 130,860
County of Santa Cruz – Holohan Road Bike Lane Project ( Phase II) $ 90,000
Corcoran – Bikeway Implementation Plan $ 14,092
County of Kings – Class III: Hanford Armona Rd, 12th Ave, 14th Ave, 18th Ave. $ 73,000
County of Madera – Class II Madera Ranchos $ 121,140
City of Grand Terrace – Class II Main St. $ 82,350
County of Merced ( Transit) – Regional Bikeway Plan Phase I $ 3,670
Total $ 778,932
1997/ 1998 Grants
County of Mendocino - Class II Bikeway $ 145,000
San Francisco – Bike Station $ 79,632
San Leandro – Class II Bikeway $ 146,000
Lemoore – Class II & III Bikeways $ 15,150
Mammoth Lakes - Class II & III Bikeways $ 143,418
Solano County - Class II Bikeway $ 144,000
Total $ 673,200
1996/ 1997 Grants
City of Shasta Lake - Class II Bikeway $ 63,554
City of Santa Rosa - Class I Bikeway Overlay $ 90,000
County of Monterey - Class I Bikeway and Bridge $ 32,000
County of San Luis Obispo - Tefft Street Bike Lanes $ 85,500
County of Kings - Class III Bikeway and Parking Facilities $ 9,000
City of Chowchilla - Class II and III Bikeways $ 14,409
City of San Dimas - Class II and III Bikeways $ 47,745
City of La Quinta - Class II Bikeway $ 26,965
City of Solana Beach - Class I Bikeway $ 90,000
Total $ 459,173
1995/ 1996 Grants
Arcata – Bikeway Improvements $ 72,400
Chico – Manzanita Avenue Bike Lane $ 90,000
Brentwood – McClaren Road Bike Lane $ 40,000
Salinas – Laurel Park Bike Path $ 58,500
County of Santa Cruz – San Andreas Road Bike Lane $ 90,000
City of Avenal – City Bikeway Improvements $ 17,820
City of Lathrop – Bikeway Improvements $ 90,000
Total $ 458,720
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 31 -
California Conservation Corps ( CCC)
Description: The California Conservation Corps ( CCC) program engages young men and women
in meaningful work, public service and educational activities that assist them in becoming more
responsible citizens while protecting and enhancing California’s environment, human resources
and communities. While best known for their work in emergency situations, the CCC also works
in urban and rural areas on a wide range of projects.
Eligible Applicant: Local, state and federal agencies, and non- profit organizations.
Possible Expenditures: Project sites must be public land or public accessible. The CCC does
not perform regular maintenance.
Bicycle Project Examples: In San Diego, the CCC installs bike lockers for Caltrans. In South
Lake Tahoe, the CCC regularly cleans and repairs the bike path each year. The Butte Fire Center
has been involved with the Memorial Bike Trail that runs through the town of Paradise. The Fire
Center works to cut back brush and open up right- of- ways. They also maintain drainage ditches
and water intake on a different stretch of the trail every month.
Application Procedure: Not applicable. The CCC is interested in being a project partner and
being written into grants as the labor component. The CCC can assist with grant writing.
Additionally, many grants offer extra points for using a youth service corps such as the CCC.
Application Deadline: Not applicable.
Contact: Margaret Behan, California Conservation Corps, 1719 24th Street, Sacramento, CA
95816; Phone: ( 916) 341- 3155; Fax: ( 916) 445- 1007; Web site: www. ccc. ca. gov
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 32 -
Community Based Transportation Planning Demonstration
Grant Program
Description: Caltrans’ Community Based Transportation Planning Demonstration Grant Program
supports demonstration planning projects that provide an example of livable community concepts,
have local support, incorporate broad participation from community stakeholders, induce
additional community benefits, provide a more multi- modal transportation system, coordinate
land uses and transportation, compliment Caltrans projects within the study area, provide regional
or interregional benefits, demonstrate cost effectiveness and provide benefits to disadvantaged
areas. The annual funds total about $ 3 million. Each project may not exceed $ 300,000. A 20
percent local match or in- kind contribution is required.
Eligible Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies, Cities and Counties. Co- applicants may be universities, Native American Tribal
Governments, transit agencies, private sector entities, non- profit organizations, community- based
organizations or Caltrans Districts.
Possible Expenditures: Long- term sustainable economic growth, mobility and transportation
choices, transit- oriented development, mixed use development, pedestrian/ bicycle/ transit
linkages, jobs and housing balance, re- use or infill, compact development. Projects must have a
transportation component or objective.
Bicycle Project Examples: Corridor studies that include bicycle transportation such as the El
Camino Real Corridor Study for the City of Palo Alto ($ 240,000). Neighborhood studies also
have included bicycle transportation such as the City of Red Bluff’s Southside Neighborhood
Revitalization Area ( SSNRA) Transportation Improvement Study.
Application Procedure: Applicants must submit application ( electronic, original and five copies)
to the appropriate Caltrans District Transportation Planning Office. Grant- specific selection
committees will use the project screening criteria shown under “ Evaluation Criteria” to rank the
submitted projects.
Evaluation Criteria: Applications should have complete answers to required questions, detailed
project description, discussion on emphasis areas and priorities, project products and outcomes,
schedule, cost estimates and funding documentation.
Application Deadline: November
Contact: Caltrans Community Planning Branch, Department of Transportation, 1120 N Street,
MS- 32, Sacramento, CA 95814. http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ grants. htm
Leigh Levine at ( 916) 651- 6012 or at leigh_ levine@ dot. ca. gov
Ken Baxter at ( 916) 654- 2719 or at ken_ baxter@ dot. ca. gov
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 33 -
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program ( EEMP)
Description: The EEMP funds projects that offset environmental impacts of modified or new
public transportation facilities such as streets, Park & Ride facilities and transit stations. The
Resources Agency allocates the $ 10 million annual funds according to population ( 40 percent to
northern California and 60 percent to southern California). Individual construction grants should
not exceed $ 250,000. The EEMP funds originate from state gasoline tax monies, and were
established in 1989 by the state legislature.
Eligible Applicant: Non- profit agencies, and local, state and federal governments. Joint projects
between two or more agencies are acceptable, but only one agency will assume the lead.
Possible Expenditures: The projects must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental
impact. The eligible categories include “ Highway Landscape and Urban Forestry,” “ Resource
Lands” and “ Roadside Recreational” ( acquisition or development of roadside recreational
facilities such as roadside rest stops, bicycle facilities, scenic overlooks, parks and trailheads).
Transportation mitigation projects are ineligible.
Bicycle Project Examples: Table 16 lists the EEMP funded projects for fiscal year 2000/ 2001.
Table 16: Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Funding ( 2000/ 2001)
Project Applicant
EEMP
Funds
Hoyt’s Crossing Trail State Department of Parks and Recreation $ 227,930
Humbug- Willow Creek- Lake Natoma Class I City of Folsom $ 245,350
Solano Bikeway – Multi- Use Paved Trail Solano Transportation Authority $ 250,000
San Tomas Aquino- Saratoga Creek Paved
Multi- Use Trail
City of San Jose $ 250,000
Cathedral Oaks Class I Bike Path County of Santa Barbara $ 250,000
Corral Canyon Coastal Trail Mountain Recreation and Conservation $ 145,000
Los Angeles River Center Park and River
Access Pathway
Mountain Recreation and Conservation $ 230,000
Piru- Camulos Recreation Trail County of Ventura $ 250,000
Visitor Center Connector Paths Town of Mammoth Lakes $ 132,000
Total $ 1,980,280
Application Procedure: Project sponsors must submit applications to the State Resources
Agency. In April of each year, the Resources Agency notifies the applicants of their project
status, and forwards a list of recommended projects to the California Transportation Commission
( CTC). The CTC approves the projects in July. Caltrans administers the approved grants.
Evaluation Criteria: The general criteria include increased mitigation and enhancement, other
contributions and project readiness. The project category criteria include cost effectiveness,
project need, sustainability, suitability and other benefits.
Application Deadline: November
Contact: State Resources Agency, 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento, CA 95814; Attn:
Carolyn Dudley; Phone: ( 916) 653- 5656; Fax: ( 916) 653- 8102; Web site:
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LandArch/ eem/ eemframe. htm.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 34 -
Habitat Conservation Fund ( HCF) Grant Program
For an in- depth description of the HCF program, please refer to the Procedural Guide for the
Habitat Conservation Fund Program by the California Department of Parks and Recreation
( DPR), which is available on DPR’s HCF web site ( http:// parks. ca. gov/ grants/ hcf/ hcf. htm).
Description: The HCF program originates from the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990
( Proposition 117), and will be available until July 1, 2020. The California DPR administers the
$ 2 million competitive grant program. The following six funding categories are each funded at
$ 500,000 for two consecutive years in a three- year cycle: wetlands, riparian,
rare/ threatened/ endangered species, trails/ programs/ urban access, anadromous/ trout and deer/ lion.
Trail projects, land acquisition and wildlife corridor restoration qualify for the
trails/ programs/ urban access category. This category is not funded in 2001/ 02, 2004/ 05, 2007/ 08,
2010/ 11, 2013/ 14, 2016/ 17 and 2019/ 20.
HCF is a 50 percent state / 50 percent non- state matching program. Projects must comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), demonstrate ownership of the property, and
employ, when feasible, the California Conservation Corps or a local conservation corps.
Development projects must comply with applicable contract, access and health and safety
requirements.
Eligible Applicant: Cities, counties and eligible districts.
Possible Expenditures: Eligible projects include the acquisition of various types of wildlife
habitats including wildlife corridors and urban trails, the enhancement and restoration of
wetlands, riparian and aquatic habitats, trails that attract urban residents to park and wildlife areas
and programs that educate them about the State’s wildlife resources. Non- construction costs such
as plans, specifications and directly related administrative costs are eligible for up to 20 percent
of the grant amount or construction costs whichever is less. Projects that are required for
mitigation by a regulatory organization are ineligible.
Bicycle Project Examples: Table 17 shows trail projects that were funded by the Habitat
Conservation Fund Program between fiscal years 1994/ 95 and 2000/ 01.
Application Procedure: Submitted applications will be assigned to a project officer according to
county. DPR selects applications, and then presents the qualified ones to the State Legislature for
approval and for inclusion in the State budget. The selected projects must be started within three
years of the state budget appropriation.
Evaluation Criteria: Trails, programs and urban access projects will be scored together using the
following criteria: benefit, corridor, long- term commitment of applicant, coordination with a
larger project, existing adopted plans or programs and matching funds that already are budgeted.
Application Deadline: October ( application submittal); January ( final selections)
Contact: Mr. Odel King, Manager, Grants Administration, California Department of Parks and
Recreation ( DPR), Planning and Local Services Section, 1416 Ninth Street, Room 940, P. O. Box
942896, Sacramento, CA 94296- 0001; Phone: ( 916) 653- 8758; Fax: ( 916) 653- 6511; E- mail:
localservices@ parks. ca. gov; Web site: http:// parks. ca. gov/ grants/ hcf/ hcf. htm
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 35 -
Table 17: Habitat Conservation Fund Trail Project Examples
Jurisdiction Project Description Grant Amount
1994/ 95
Santa Barbara County Gaviota Creek Crossing $ 102,000
City of Davis Northstar Nature Trail $ 23,800
City of Eureka Sequoia Park HC Access Trail $ 50,000
Sonoma County Stillwater Cove Trail $ 30,000
1995/ 96
City of San Diego Mission Trails $ 49,700
1996/ 97
Midpeninsula R. O. S. D. Old Page Mill Road Trail $ 49,000
City of Lafayette Sessions Road Trail $ 10,000
City of San Pablo Wildcat Creek Trail $ 43,000
1997/ 98
County of Los Angeles Cold Creek Trail $ 187,500
City of Fresno Lewis S. Eaton Trail $ 78,000
City of San Diego Trans- County Trail Penasquitos $ 52,000
City of Sacramento Ueda Parkway Trail $ 73,000
1998/ 99
City of Roseville Mahany Park Trail $ 54,280
1999/ 00
Sonoma County Atascadero Marsh Trail $ 90,000
City of Sanger Kings River Nature Trail $ 27,225
City of Half Moon Bay Pilarcitos Creek Trail $ 67,000
City of Santa Ana Santiago Park Bike Trail $ 50,000
City of Roseville City- wide Trails $ 93,000
City of Watsonville Struve Slough Trail $ 85,000
2000/ 01
City of Folsom Humbug- Willow Creek Trail $ 157,000
City of Covina Kahler Russell Park Trail $ 175,000
City of San Jose Los Gatos Creek Trail $ 100,000
City of San Diego Minor’s Ridge Trail $ 20,000
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 36 -
Office of Traffic Safety ( OTS) Program
Description: The primary objective of the program is to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and
injuries through a national highway safety program. Priority areas include police traffic services,
alcohol and other drugs, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency medical
services, traffic records, roadway safety and community- based organizations. The Office of
Traffic Safety ( OTS) provides grants for one to two years. The California Vehicle Code
( Sections 2908 and 2909) authorizes the apportionment of federal highway safety funds to the
OTS program.
Eligible Applicant: State, city and county governmental agencies, school districts, fire
departments, public emergency service providers, state colleges and universities. Non- profit and
community- based organizations are eligible through a “ host” governmental agency.
Possible Expenditures: A bicycle and pedestrian safety program should strive to increase safety
awareness and skills among pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. The program should include the
following three components: education, enforcement and engineering. Educational efforts may
address specific target groups or the entire community. Enforcement efforts may include speed
enforcement, bicycle helmet and pedestrian violations and the display of radar trailers near
schools and areas of high bicycle and pedestrian usage. Engineering includes developing a “ Safe
Routes to School” component to complement educational efforts.
Bicycle Project Examples: Table 18 provides a list of bicycle- related projects that have been
funded by OTS monies.
Application Procedure: Concept papers must follow the required format as shown on the OTS
web site ( www. ots. ca. gov). A cover letter is required, and must be signed by the proper agency
authority. Support letters are encouraged. Sample concept papers and blueprints are provided on
the OTS web site. The cover letter, concept paper, support letters and budget must not exceed
four pages in length. OTS makes the funding decisions in May each year, and distributes the
funds to successful applicants on October 1.
Evaluation Criteria: The criteria are as follows: potential traffic safety impact, collision
statistics and rankings, seriousness of identified problems and performance on previous grants.
Application Deadline: January 31 of each year.
Contact: Office of Traffic Safety, 7000 Franklin Blvd., Suite 440, Sacramento, CA 95823- 1899;
Phone: ( 916) 262- 0990; Fax: ( 916) 262- 2960; Web site address: www. ots. ca. gov. Please visit the
OTS web site to find the OTS Regional Coordinator for your area.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 37 -
Table 18: Funding of Sample 1999 OTS Bicycle Safety Projects
Jurisdiction Program Name
City of Brisbane Passenger Restraint and Bicycle Safety
Caltrans New Technology for Bicycle Detection
Del Norte Unified School District Comprehensive School- based Traffic Safety Program
City of Garden Grove Comprehensive Bicycle, Pedestrian & Vehicle Occupant Safety
Program
Merced County Association of
Governments
Bicycle Safety Education Program
Newman Police Department Bicycle Safety Program
City of Oakland Children’s Bicycle Safety Program
City of Ojai Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program
Palm Springs Palm Springs Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Palmdale Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program
City of Paramount Bike Rite Program
City of Santa Rosa Bicycle Safety and Education Program
Visalia Police Department Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program
King City Police Department King City Bicycle Safety and Enforcement Program
City of Cupertino Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program
City of Oxnard Oxnard Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program
City of Santa Paula Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program and DUI Enforcement
California Science Center Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program
Los Angeles Unified School District Bike LA Safety Training
UC Davis Transportation and Parking
Services
U. C. Davis Bicycle Safety Education Program
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 38 -
Petroleum Violation Escrow Account ( PVEA)
Description: The Petroleum Violation Escrow Account ( PVEA) Program funds projects that
conserve energy and that benefit, directly or indirectly, consumers of petroleum products within
the state. The monies originate from 1970s federal oil overcharge settlements against a number
of oil companies. PVEA also is known as the Stripper Well Settlement Program. The PVEA
funds are estimated to total about $ 5 million for fiscal year 2002, and the amount is expected to
steadily decline as the years progress due.
Eligible Applicant: Cities, counties, transit operators and Caltrans may approach legislators for
sponsorship. Legislators sponsor projects, and play the lead role in the project selection process.
Possible Expenditures: Under the transportation section, there are three categories:
§   General Driving Public ( fuel efficient traffic signal programs, public transportation projects,
bicycle facilities, highway and bridge maintenance and repair, etc.);
§   Consumers ( energy education for drivers training, ridesharing programs, bicycle promotion
programs); and
§   Commercial, Industrial, Government ( transportation systems management assistance, etc.).
Ineligible projects include those that do not directly effect petroleum consumers, are too remote
to be considered appropriate, have benefits that occur too far in the future, offer insignificant
energy savings potential or have a primary focus on health and environmental concerns rather
than energy savings. The PVEA also does not fund studies, administrative expenses that exceed
five percent and supplant already available funds.
Bicycle Project Examples: The City of Vallejo funded bicycle lanes to the ferry terminal for
$ 100,000. The City of Buenaventura acquired right- of- way totaling $ 100,000 for the Ventura
River Bike Trail.
Application Procedure: Project applicants need to find a legislator( s) willing to sponsor the
project. The project proposal must be submitted to the California Energy Commission and
approved by the U. S. Department of Energy ( DOE). Each year, the state legislature and the
governor enact legislation that designates the projects to be funded by PVEA.
Evaluation Criteria: Not applicable.
Application Deadline: Ongoing.
Contact: California Legislature ( refer to Appendix C) and Caltrans Federal Resources Office,
Budgets Program at ( 916) 654- 7287.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 39 -
Safe Routes to School Program ( SR2S)
Description: The Safe Routes to School ( SR2S) program funds projects that improve the safety
of pedestrian and bicycle routes to/ from schools. SR2S monies come from federal transportation
safety funding, and are a subset of the Hazard Elimination Safety ( HES) program. The SR2S
program originated in 1999 when Governor Davis signed AB 1475 ( Soto). The bill allocates $ 40
million or $ 20 million annually for Safe Routes to School projects until January 2002. Senate
Bill ( Soto) extends the SR2S monies for another three years. In the first round, applicants
submitted $ 130 million for the $ 20 million available.
The SR2S Program Guidelines are available on the Internet at www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LocalProgram/.
On that page, click on the SR2S link, and it will bring you to a page that has the guidelines, the
application form and the list of projects selected for funding. The following are key SR2S
program requirements:
§   The required local match is 10 percent.
§   The maximum grant shall not exceed $ 450,000 of federal funds per project.
Eligible Applicant: Cities or counties within the state of California. Exceptions to this rule are
considered on a case- by- case basis.
Possible Expenditures: SR2S has six project categories including sidewalk improvements,
traffic calming & speed reductions, pedestrian/ bicycle crossing improvements, on- street bicycle
facilities, off- street bicycle/ pedestrian facilities and traffic diversion improvements. The SR2S
program will pay for the following costs: preliminary engineering, right- of- way, construction,
construction engineering and public education and outreach. The public education and outreach
elements are eligible when the activities are related to the construction improvement project. The
construction improvements must be on public property, and improvements on school property
must be incidental to the overall project.
Bicycle Project Examples: Table 19 lists the funded projects from the first SR2S cycle.
Application Procedure: SR2S monies originate from federal funds so project sponsors must
follow all Federal and State policies, directives and laws. Project sponsors must complete the
application form, and submit it to the applicable Caltrans District Office ( refer to Appendix D).
Evaluation Criteria: SR2S funds are available based on a statewide competition that follows the
below criteria:
( 1) Identification and demonstration of needs.
( 2) Potential for proposed improvement to correct or improve the problem.
( 3) Potential for encouraging increased walking and bicycling among students.
( 4) Consultation and support for projects by school- based associations, local traffic engineers,
local elected officials, law enforcement agencies, and school officials.
( 5) Potential for timely implementation.
( 6) Demonstrated relationship with a Safe Routes to School plan.
( 7) Demonstrated coordination of SR2S funds with other activities.
Application Deadline: May 2001 ( second cycle). Future cycles still are to be determined.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 40 -
Contact: Randy Ronning ( Randy_ Ronning@ dot. ca. gov)
Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineers ( refer to Appendix D for the appropriate district
representative); Web site: www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LocalPrograms/
Table 19: Safe Routes to School Project Examples
Location Project Description Project Cost
Program
Funds
Sacramento County:
Carnegie MS, Roberts
ES ( District 3)
Install Class II bike lanes and walkways;
install an advance warning system at
crosswalk; add bicycle parking.
$ 324,000 $ 291,600
City of Antioch:
Antioch HS, Antioch
MS, Fremont ES
( District 4)
Install sidewalks and bikeways; install traffic
signal, signs, pavement markings; construct
bus stop; traffic calming and traffic diversion
measures.
$ 236,000 $ 212,400
City of Petaluma:
McDowell ES,
McKinley ES ( District
4)
Install on- street bicycle facility. $ 3,416,000 $ 500,000
City of Belmont: Nesbit
ES ( District 4)
Install new or upgrade existing Class I, II and
III bikeways.
$ 350,000 $ 315,000
City of Norwalk: eight
schools ( District 7)
Install sidewalks and curb ramps; upgrading
signage and markings for bike lanes and
vehicles; bicycle racks.
$ 555,554 $ 499,999
City of Ojai: Matilija Jr.
HS ( District 7)
Improve bicycle and pedestrian path; install
sidewalks and crosswalks
$ 25,000 $ 22,500
City of Murrieta:
Murrieta ES ( District 8)
Add bike lanes; install sidewalks, curbs and
gutters.
$ 455,000 $ 409,500
City of Lathrop: Lathrop
ES & Annex ( District
10)
Install bike lanes; widen bike lanes; install
sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
$ 126,000 $ 113,400
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 41 -
State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP)
Description: In 1997, California Senate Bill 45 streamlined the State Transportation
Improvement Program ( STIP), which is the program that determines the state funding for
transportation projects. Senate Bill 45 gives metropolitan regions more control over how the state
transportation funds are invested. Regional Transportation Planning Agencies ( RTPAs) are
responsible for preparing and allocating 75 percent of the STIP funds. The remaining 25 percent
of the STIP comes from the Caltrans’ controlled Interregional Transportation Improvement
Program ( ITIP), which funds interregional road and intercity rail projects.
Eligible Applicant: Cities, counties, transit operators and Caltrans.
Possible Expenditures: For each of the four project components: permits and environmental
studies, design, right- of- way acquisition and construction.
RTIP: The RTIP projects are “ needed to improve transportation within the region,” and may
include state highways, local roads, rail and other transit capital improvements, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, grade separations, transportation system management projects, transportation
demand management, soundwall projects, intermodal facilities and safety projects. Project
planning , programming and monitoring may be funded up to 0.5 percent of RIP funds in
urbanized regions and 2.0 percent in nonurbanized regions.
ITIP: The ITIP projects are “ needed to facilitate interregional movement of people and goods,
and include projects on the intercity rail passenger system, the interregional road system, state
highways, mass transit guideway projects or grade separation projects. Caltrans is required to
prepare a 10- year State Rehabilitation Plan to be used as the basis of its budget requests. All
Caltrans highway projects require a project study report ( PSR) if they are to receive ITIP monies.
Bicycle Project Examples: The San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG)
programmed $ 8.15 million for phase one of the Escondido- Oceanside Rail Trail and $ 1 million
for the Bayshore Bikeway between Imperial Beach and Chula Vista.
Application Procedure: Figure 2 shows the STIP funding process for the two STIP categories:
RTIP and ITIP.
Figure 2: STIP Transportation Funding Process
RTPAs prepare RTIP Caltrans nominates ITIP
CTC approves RTIPs and ITIP
STIP ( list of state funded transportation projects)
State funding categories
RIP ( 75% of STIP) IIP ( 25% of STIP)
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 42 -
RTIP: Each RTPA prepares a Regional Transportation Improvement Program ( RTIP). The RTIP
consists of transportation projects within each region that are recommended to be funded using
state resources through the STIP process. Each region’s long- term transportation plan called the
regional transportation plan helps RTPAs prioritize projects for inclusion in the RTIP. The
California Transportation Commission ( CTC) must approve the RTIP in its entirety, and could
reject it if it is inconsistent with CTC guidelines or if it is not cost effective. The CTC approval
allows RTPAs to allocate funds to their projects that are listed in the RTIP through the state-funding
category called the Regional Improvement Program ( RIP).
ITIP: Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program ( ITIP), which is a
prioritized list of Caltrans projects, and forwards it to the CTC. The CTC must approve the ITIP
in its entirety. Once the CTC approves the interregional project listing, Caltrans may allocate the
funds from the state- funding category called the Interregional Improvement Program ( IIP).
Evaluation Criteria: Depends on the Congestion Management Agency and the Regional
Transportation Planning Agency in the specific area.
Application Deadline: The STIP process is adopted biennially in the even- numbered years, and
has a time horizon of four years meaning that four years worth of transportation projects are
approved for funding. Rural regions may submit their STIP every four years as opposed to every
two years.
Contact: Congestion Management Agencies ( Appendix I) or the Regional Transportation
Planning Agencies ( Appendix F).
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 43 -
Primary Funding Sources – Local and Regional
Developer Impact Fees
Description: Local government agencies charge developers a developer impact fee to offset the
public costs required to accommodate new development with public infrastructure. The fee
varies based on local government assessments. There must be a direct relationship between the
need for the facilities and the growth from new development ( called a “ nexus”). Developer fees
generally are used for local rather than regional improvements, and are used with debt financing
and not for general revenue. The amount of the fee must equal the cost of the proposed project or
service. Sometimes these fees are known as traffic mitigation fees.
Eligible Applicant: Local jurisdictions.
Possible Expenditures: Water and sewer facilities, arterials, local roads, parks, collector roads,
sidewalks and bikeways.
Bicycle Project Examples: The City of Chico adopted Class I bike path developer fees. The
Chico Urban Area 20- Year Transportation Improvement Plan states that:
“ The projected residential, commercial and industrial development, which is
anticipated to occur during the planning period, will generate significant
additional bicycle traffic and the need to improve and expand the City’s
bikeways system. This fee will be used to finance such improvements and
additions. The additional miles of this type of bikeway will be needed in order to
maintain existing levels of service.”
Application Procedure: NA
Evaluation Criteria: NA
Application Deadline: NA
Contact: Local jurisdiction. Ed McLaughlin, Chico Velo Cycling Club, P. O. Box 2285, Chico,
CA 95927; Phone: ( 530) 343- VELO or ( 800) 482- 2453; Fax: ( 530) 342- 4646.
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 44 -
Local Air District Projects Funded by Vehicle Registration Fee
Description: Various state legislation have authorized air districts in California to impose a two
to four dollar motor vehicle registration fee to provide funds for air districts to meet
responsibilities mandated under the California Clean Air Act ( CCAA). The bills include:
§   Assembly Bill 4355 ( 1988): Sacramento County
§   Assembly Bill 2766 ( 1990): Air Districts in California, except for San Francisco Bay Area
§   Assembly Bill 434 ( 1991): San Francisco Bay Area
§   Assembly Bill 1183 ( 1993): South Coast Area revisions
The funds can be used to support programs and projects that reduce air pollution from motor
vehicles and to implement Transportation Control Measures ( TCMs) contained in local Air
Quality Attainment Plans. The air districts act somewhat autonomously in choosing which air
quality improvement projects to fund. For example, this funding source is titled “ Transportation
Fund for Clean Air” in the San Francisco Bay Area and “ Mobile Source Review Committee” in
the Los Angeles area.
Eligible Applicant: Local jurisdictions in the participating air districts. Table 20 lists the air
districts that participate in the vehicle registration fee programs. Lake County Air Pollution
Control District ( APCD) is the only air district that is ineligible to participate in the vehicle
registration fee programs. The following districts are eligible, but have opted not to participate:
Amador County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Great Basin AQMD, Lassen County APCD,
Mariposa County APCD, Modoc County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD and Tuolumne County
APCD. The following public agencies are eligible to apply when they are within TFCA air
districts: transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, cities, counties, school districts
and Caltrans.
Possible Expenditures: Air quality related studies, bicycle- facility improvements, bicycle- safety
enforcement, ridesharing, clean fuel buses, alternative fuel vehicle demonstrations, shuttles,
traffic management, rail/ bus integration, regional transit information and implementation of
smoking vehicle program. Proposals need to show the project’s anticipated air- quality benefits
through vehicle trip reduction predictions and other data.
Bicycle Project Examples: Since 1991, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
( BAAQMD) has funded over 100 bicycle facility improvement projects. BAAQMD focuses on
projects that promote bicycle use for commute and other utilitarian trips. From most to least
common, BAAQMD has funded: on- street Class II bike lanes, bike racks and lockers at train
stations, bike racks on transit buses, Class I bike paths, Class III bike routes, attended bike
parking services at transit stations ( e. g., bike stations at Berkeley BART and Palo Alto Caltrain)
and the provision of regular or electric bikes to police forces. Bicycle safety education programs
or marketing campaigns are not eligible.
Application Procedure: Contact the local air district. The funding decisions usually are shared
between the air district and the County Congestion Management Agencies.
Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation process depends on the air districts in that they operate
independently. Nevertheless, the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) developed a guidance
document for local air districts titled “ Methods to Find the Cost- Effectiveness of Funding Air
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 45 -
Quality Projects.” This document highlights methods to estimate and quantify the air quality
benefit of various proposed projects.
Application Deadline: Contact the local air district.
Contact: Local Air Pollution Control District ( APCD) or local Air Quality Management District
( AQMD). Refer to Appendix H for the APCD and AQMD listings.
Table 20: Participating Air Districts
Districts Office Locations
Bay Area AQMD San Francisco
Butte County APCD Durham
Colusa County APCD Colusa
El Dorado County APCD Placerville
Feather River AQMD Yuba City
Glenn County APCD Willows
Imperial County APCD El Centro
Kern County APCD Bakersfield
Mendocino County APCD Ukiah
Mojave Desert AQMD Victorville
Monterey Bay Unified AQMD Monterey
North Coast Unified AQMD Eureka
Northern Sierra AQMD Grass Valley
Northern Sonoma APCD Healdsburg
Placer County APCD Auburn
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Sacramento
San Diego County APCD San Diego
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Fresno
San Luis Obispo County APCD San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara County APCD Goleta
Shasta County APCD Redding
South Coast AQMD Diamond Bar
Tehama County APCD Red Bluff
Ventura County APCD Ventura
Yolo- Solano County APCD Davis
Guide to Bicycle Project and Program Funding in California, Second Edition, February 2002
- 46 -
Local Sales Tax for Transportation
Description: Voters in the following seventeen counties in California have approved one- half
percent to one percent sales tax increases to fund transportation projects for up to 20 years:
Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Imperial, Los Angeles, Madera, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento,
San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara
and Santa Clara. Residents in counties throughout California have the opportunity to increase the
bicycle facilities and program share of local transportation sales tax funds upon their renewal.
Eligible Applicant: Local county jurisdictions.
Possible Expenditures: Each county sales tax measure must include a specific expenditure plan
that sets forth how the new funds will be spent. Counties that direct a portion of their sales tax
revenue to bicycle projects are shown in Table 21 under the “ Bikes Eligible” column.
§   In Alameda County, voters approved a reauthorized Measure B in 2000. Measure B provides
a benchmark for non- motorized transportation in that it allocates about five percent to non-motorized
transportation projects and programs. According to the Alameda County CMA,
Measure B is expected to fund over $ 80 million in bicycle and pedestrian safety projects
during its 20- year duration.
§   In Contra Costa County, voters approved a one- half cent sales tax ( Measure C) in November
1988, which earmarks $ 3 million for regional bicycle and pedestrian trails through 2009.
§   In Los Angeles County, the Neighborhood Parks Proposition of 1992 ( Proposition A) funds
recreational and park programs, and is administered by the Los Angeles County Regional
Park and Open Space District. A one- half cent sales tax for gasoline ( Proposition C) provides
funds for the Regional Bikeway program through the discretionary program, and allocates
monies to local jurisdictions, which can choose to fund bikeway projects.
§   In San Diego County, a one- half cent sales tax ( Proposition A/ Transnet) was passed in
November 1987, and provides $ 1 million for bicycle transportation projects until 2007.
§   In San Joaquin County, voters approved a one- half cent sales tax ( Proposition K) in
November 1990, which earmarks $ 5 million for bicycle facilities over its 20- year span.
§   In Santa Clara County, Measure B is expected to produce annual revenues of about $ 110
million. Bicycle and pedestrian safety projects receive five percent of these funds at about
$ 5.5 million per year or an estimated $ 110 million over 20 years.
Bicycle Project Examples: Measure B plans to extend the Iron