Table 6-12: Lower Azusa Road Countermeasure Concept Costs

Table 6-12: Lower Azusa Road Countermeasure Concept Costs

COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTION

Concrete or Pavement Construction (low cost options use pavement markings)

Hardened Centerlines Raised rubber centerline

UNIT COST UM QUANTITY LENGTH WIDTH COST

$2,500 EA 1 $2,500

Pavement Markings

High Visibility Crosswalks Continental spaced to avoid vehicle wheels $5,500 EA 6

Bicycle Priority Lanes Bicycle lane centered in lane, filled with thermoplastic $100 LF 1 800

Signs or Signal Infrastructure

Pedestrian Signal - New Mast, power, concrete median, crosswalk Electronic Feedback Signs Speed reader board on post (solar)

Signal Timing Adjustments

Signal Changes at Intersections Adjust signal timing in Traffic Control Cabinet $198,000 EA 1 $8,000 EA 1

$1,500 INT 1

INT = Intersection, Qty = Quantity, L = Length, W = Width, EA = Each, SF = Square Feet, LF = Linear Feet $33,000 $80,000

$198,000 $8,000

$1,500 Total $323,000

Bicyclist riding on the sidewalk Intersection of Lower Azusa Road and Peck Road

6.4 Funding Sources

Federal, state, and local government agencies invest billions of dollars every year in the nation’s transportation system. Only a fraction of that funding is used to develop policies, plans, and projects to improve conditions for pedestrian, bicycle, traffic calming, and Vision Zero projects. Even though appropriate funds are available, they are limited and often hard to acquire. Desirable projects sometimes go unfunded because communities may be unaware of the existence of a funding source or may apply for the wrong type of grant. In addition, there is increasing competition between municipalities for the limited available funds.

Whenever federal funds are used for bicycle, pedestrian, traffic calming, and Vision Zero projects, a certain level of state and/or local matching funding is generally required. State funds are often available to local governments on similar terms. Almost every implemented active transportation or complete street project in the United States has had more than one funding source and it often takes a good deal of coordination to pull the various sources together.

According to the publication by the FHWA, an Analysis of Current Funding Mechanisms for Vision Zero Programs1 at the Federal, State and Local Levels, “where successful local Vision Zero programs exist, there is usually an active transportation coordinator with an extensive understanding of funding sources.” City staff are often in a position to develop a competitive project and detailed proposal that can be used to improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians within their jurisdictions. Some of the following information on federal, state, and local funding sources were derived from the previously mentioned FHWA publication. The City of El Monte should continue to pursue state level grants through programs such as Caltrans’ Active Transportation Planning (ATP) and Sustainable Transportation Planning grants, the Strategic Growth Council’s Sustainable Community Planning Grants, Urban Greening Grants and through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Projects that are not awarded funding through the Caltrans ATP cycles are sent to SCAG, the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), for consideration for funding through their programs. It will be important to coordinate future planning efforts with adjacent jurisdictions on any projects that affect and benefit both cities. Coordination and joint efforts also strengthen an application due to combined benefits for multiple jurisdictions.

The following section identifies potential federal, state, and local funding opportunities that may be used from design to maintenance phases of projects. Due to trends in Low Impact Development (LID) and stormwater retention street designs, funding sources for these improvements not only increase the chances for multi-modal improvements but can also be incorporated into streetscape and development projects.