The California Transportation Commission presented draft guidelines for the 2015 Active Transportation Program (ATP) and received public comment from a wide range of local agencies, advocacy groups and regional planning organizations.

Major proposed guideline changes

- Remove mandatory match and replace it with scoring incentives to reward projects that leverage other funds. Staff said very few projects used or required a match under the prior rules and that the change is intended to broaden access, while still incentivizing leveraged funding.

- Clarify and align the definition of "disadvantaged community" with cap-and-trade and offer a "define-your-own" option for regions that have an established metric (for example, the Bay Areas communities-of-concern measure).

- Add a requirement that an infrastructure project have a Project Study Report (PSR) or a PID completed prior to programming.

- Add flexibility to move funds between components and maintain a contingency list for large MPO allocations.

- Retain and clarify a planning set-aside: staff proposed to keep up to 5 percent of ATP funds for planning (with an emphasis on disadvantaged communities) but said the percentage will be reassessed in future cycles as communities develop plans.

Public comment and concerns

More than a dozen public speakers — representing regional transportation agencies, counties, advocacy groups and rural jurisdictions — praised the program and offered detailed suggestions. Common themes in public comment included:

- Continued funding for planning: numerous jurisdictions and nonprofit groups urged continued planning funds, saying many disadvantaged and smaller jurisdictions lack pedestrian or bicycle plans and need planning help to prepare deliverable projects.

- Clarifying how projects "benefit" disadvantaged communities: nonprofits and advocates asked for clearer criteria to ensure projects that claim benefits for disadvantaged communities provide direct, measurable improvements to those communities rather than distant or nominal benefits.

- Streamlining allocations and earlier identification of state-only versus federal funds: several regional agencies and counties urged process changes to speed delivery, noting that projects awarded ATP funds faced delays if sponsors did not know whether funds would be state or federal at allocation time.

- Rural and small-agency concern: rural speakers noted that only a small share of the statewide pot went to rural agencies in the first cycle and urged protections or simplified rules for smaller jurisdictions.

CTC staff response and next steps

Staff said many of the suggestions are under active consideration. The draft guidelines add language asking applicants to provide copies of applications to regional agencies and staff said a posted list of received applications will help RTPAs and MPOs verify regional submissions. Staff also said the draft guidelines remain open for comment and the commission may hold an additional workshop in February if needed. Final guidelines are scheduled to come back for adoption at the March commission meeting.

Why this matters: ATP is one of the primary state programs for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Changes in match rules, disadvantaged-community scoring, planning set-asides and allocation processes will affect which projects receive funding and how quickly projects are delivered.

Ending

Staff will accept additional comments, consider targeted refinements in response to the public input, and return the final guidelines for adoption at the March meeting.