HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 16, 2022 Technical Advisory
MEETING AGENDA
Technical Advisory Committee
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Date: May 16, 2022
This meeting is being conducted in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials recommending
measures to promote social distancing.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Jonathan Hoy, Chair / Eric Cowle, CVAG
Savat Khamphou, Vice Chair / Rosalva Ureno, City of Corona
Art Vela / Nate Smith, City of Banning
Jeff Hart / Robert Vestal, City of Beaumont
VACANT, City of Blythe
Michael Thornton / VACANT, City of Calimesa
Albert Vergel De Dios / Sean Young, Caltrans District 8
VACANT / Mike Borja, City of Canyon Lake
John A. Corella / Crystal Sandoval, Cathedral City
Andrew Simmons / Maritza Martinez, City of Coachella
Daniel Porras / Nick Haecker, City of Desert Hot Springs
Jimmy Chung / Dahi Kim, City of Eastvale
Noah Rau / Nancy Beltran, City of Hemet
Ken Seumalo / Dina Purvis, City of Indian Wells
Timothy T. Wassil / Eric Weck, City of Indio
Paul Toor / Rod Butler, City of Jurupa Valley
Bryan McKinney / Julie Mignogna, City of La Quinta
Remon Habib / Bradley Brophy, City of Lake Elsinore
Nick Fidler / Daniel Padilla, City of Menifee
Michael Lloyd / Melissa Walker, City of Moreno Valley
Bob Moehling / Jeff Hitch, City of Murrieta
Chad Blais / Sam Nelson, City of Norco
Andy Firestine / Randy Bowman, City of Palm Desert
Joel Montalvo / Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs
K. George Colangeli / Dale Reynolds, PVVTA
Stuart McKibbin / VACANT, City of Perris
Ryan Stendell / VACANT, City of Rancho Mirage
Farshid Mohammadi / Gilbert Hernandez, City of Riverside
Mark Lancaster / Mojahed Salama, County of Riverside
Kristin Warsinski / Jennifer Nguyen, RTA
Travis Randel / Stuart McKibbin, City of San Jacinto
Brittney B. Sowell / Rohan Kuruppu, SunLine
Patrick Thomas / Amer Attar, City of Temecula
Christopher Tzeng / Cameron Brown, WRCOG
Jason Farag / Cameron Luna, City of Wildomar
STAFF
Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Director
Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager
Martha Masters, Planning and Programming Senior Management Analyst
James Simpson, Planning and Programming Management Analyst
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Subject to the supervision of the Commission, the Committee shall provide technical assistance to the Commission
by reviewing and evaluating the various transportation proposals and alternatives within Riverside County.
The Committee shall review, comment upon, and make recommendations on such matters as are referred to it
by the Commission, including all matters relating to the programming of federal funds apportioned to the
Riverside County and allocated by the Commission.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
DATE: May 16, 2022
LOCATION: This meeting is being conducted in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local
officials recommending measures to promote social distancing.
Join Zoom Meeting - from PC, Laptop or Phone
https://rctc.zoom.us/j/82888102583
One tap mobile:
+16699006833,,82888102583# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Meeting ID:
828 8810 2583
Find your local number: https://rctc.zoom.us/u/kbgUYMGCj
The following commands can be used on your phone’s dial pad while in Zoom meeting:
• *6 - Toggle mute/unmute
• *9 - Raise hand
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the
Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787‐7141 if
special assistance is needed to participate in a public meeting, including accessibility and translation
services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting
time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the
meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. HOUSEKEEPING REMARKS
3. ROLL CALL
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda
May 16, 2022
Page 2
4. APPROVAL OF MARCH 21, 2022, MINUTES
Page 1
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating
to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.
6. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL DEDICATED TRANSIT
LANES STUDY UPDATE
Page 13
Overview
This item is to receive and file an update from the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) for the Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study (Study).
7. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS 2023 REGIONAL PROGRAM GUIDELINES - SELECTION CRITERIA FOR
RIVERSIDE COUNTY APPLICATIONS
Page 16
Overview
This item is for the Technical Advisory Committee to:
1) Approve the project selection criteria for inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations’ (MPO) Regional Program Guidelines for Active Transportation Program
(ATP) Cycle 6;
2) Authorize staff to award projects based on the approved selection criteria for the MPO
funding; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AUGMENTATION
Page 20
Overview
This item is to discuss and provide input on the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Augmentation Proposal.
9. FUTURE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LOCATIONS
Page 37
Overview
This item is for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to concur on the two concurrent
meeting locations for future in-person TAC meetings.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda
May 16, 2022
Page 3
10. CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE
Page 40
Overview
This item is to receive and file an update from Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance.
11. COMMITTEE MEMBER / STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the committee members and staff to report on attended
and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to committee activities.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the TAC is scheduled to be held July 18, 2022, 10:00 a.m.
MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, March 21, 2022
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) was called to order by Vice Chair Savat Khamphou at 10:03 a.m., in accordance
with AB 361 due to state or local officials recommending measures to promote social distancing
2.VICE CHAIR SAVAT KHAMPHOU READ THE HOUSEKEEPING NOTES.
3.ROLL CALL
Members Present by Teleconference:
Nate Smith, City of Banning
Robert Vestal, City of Beaumont
Michael Thornton, City of Calimesa
Albert Vergel De Dios, Caltrans
Andrew Simmons, City of Coachella
Savat Khamphou, City of Corona
Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells
Paul Toor, City of Jurupa Valley
Bryan McKinney, City of La Quinta
Remon Habib, City of Lake Elsinore
Michael Lloyd, City of Moreno Valley
Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta
Randy Bowman, City of Palm Desert
Joel Montalvo, City of Palm Springs
Stuart McKibbin, City of Perris
Ryan Stendell, City of Rancho Mirage
Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside
Mojahed Salama, Riverside County
Jennifer Nguyen, Riverside Transit Agency
Travis Randel, City of San Jacinto
Rohan Kuruppu, Sunline Transit Agency
Patrick Thomas, City of Temecula
Jason Farag, City of Wildomar
4.APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 15, 2021, MINUTES
B/C/A (Mohammadi/Habib) to approve the Minutes as submitted. There were no objections
to this motion.
Abstain: 1 (Montalvo)
1
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 2
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
6. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM GRANT PURSUITS
Jenny Chan, RCTC, announced that the call for projects for the Active Transportation Program
(ATP) Cycle 6 opened last week. To kick off the ATP discussion, Riverside County Health was
invited to share their past success with the program and talk about potential partners hips for
Cycle 6.
Miguel Vasquez, Health Equity Urban and Regional Planner, Riverside University Health System
(RUHS) Public Health, clarified that RUHS was the Public Health Department for the County of
Riverside serving all jurisdictions and 2.5 million people for anything relating to improving the
health of communities. This is accomplished in several ways, in terms of transportation, the
Injury Prevention Services has managed a transportation program, formerly the Safe Routes to
School. This program is mostly related to known infrastructure interventions, working with
families, schools, and community groups to educate about pedestrian and bike safety. Goals of
the program include increased biking and walking, increased active transportation safety,
development of new or improved bike and walkways, and improved public health.
The goals are accomplished by many strategies and are referred to in several schools as the 5
Es - Education, Encouragement, Engagement, to some extent Engineering, Evaluation and
Equity. Activities provided include theme-based walk to school days, bike training, walk-ability
workshops, on campus safety campaigns, health and safety fairs, and bike rodeos.
Presently, Public Health is working with the Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Corona.
Beginning in July, the Cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and Coachella will also start working with
Public Health.
The ATP grants have allowed Public Health to expand their services. In 2020, Public Health was
part of two teams that had contracts that provided community engagement services for the City
of Menifee as they were working on their active transportation plan. Public Health also worked
with the City of Moreno Valley as they were engaged in developing their Dracaea Avenue
Greenway Corridor. Public Health is currently planning to apply for Cycle 6, but the location and
community is yet to be determined.
Of note, Public Health was recently awarded $2 million from the Clean California Local Grant
Program to conduct known infrastructure and interventions in the unincorporated community
of Oasis. Public Health is available to provide services to any Riverside County city through
either joint ATP grant applications or via contracts for ATP projects that involve community
engagement.
2
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 3
7. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS 2023 REGIONAL PROGRAM GUIDELINES – SELECTION CRITERIA FOR
RIVERSIDE COUNTY APPLICATIONS
Ms. Chan provided a presentation on the California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) ATP
Cycle 6 Regional Program Guidelines. The goals of the ATP are to increase biking and walking,
increase safety, advance active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve
greenhouse gas reductions, enhance public health, and ensure that at least 25% of funds benefit
disadvantaged communities. Pursuant to legislation, the CTC is responsible for developing the
guidelines and administering the program.
The CTC distributes 50% of the funds at the statewide competitive level, 10% to small urban and
rural regions, and 40% at the large MPO level. The ATP process allows applicants in Riverside
County two opportunities for award at the statewide level and large MPO level. Projects are
first evaluated statewide and those not ranked high enough for funding are automatically
provided a second opportunity for funding through the large MPO share. SCAG works with the
county transportation commissions to develop the regional program guidelines.
This year, Cycle 6 has a total of $650 million available for award, which is $200 million more
than the last cycle thanks to an infusion of federal funding. SCAG is expected to receive $137.68
million. In past cycles, the SCAG share was split 95% to implementation projects and 5% to non-
infrastructure and planning projects. However, for this cycle, SCAG will not be utilizing the 5%
share to supplement the sustainable communities program but it will instead be distributed to
county transportation commissions based on population. In total, RCTC will have approximately
$17.69 million to award for Cycle 6, $16.89 million for implementation projects, and $884,000
for non-infrastructure planning projects.
Like past cycles, SCAG allows each county transportation commission to establish a 20-point
methodology as part of the project selection criteria. The methodology used in Cycle 5 allowed
RCTC to meet its goal of awarding projects that were construction ready and rewarding agencies
that invested in pre-construction activities. For Cycle 6, RCTC staff is suggesting minor revisions
to the point distribution methodology. With additional federal funds in the program, it may lead
to more projects being federalized, prolonging the delivery timeline. To manage this program
change, RCTC staff is proposing to award 4 points for projects with construction funding in the
first three years of the program cycle, 7 points for projects with CEQA or NEPA approval (PA/ED
completion), and 3 points for projects identified in WRCOG’s Sub-Regional Active
Transportation Plan, CVAG’s Non-Motorized Plan, or an adopted local active transportation
plan. This revised point methodology continues to ref lect RCTC’s goal of funding projects that
are construction ready and reward agencies that invested or will invest in pre -construction
activities.
During the last cycle, a copy of the CEQA or NEPA signature page had to be included for RCTC
to award points for PA/ED completion. RCTC staff provided applicants an additional six months
from the application deadline to submit the CEQA and/or NEPA clearance. This was beneficial
3
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 4
in the last cycle as it was a main criterion for award and lead to Riverside County receiving state
funding because projects had cleared CEQA.
For this cycle, there are two potential deadlines to receive the CEQA and/or NEPA clearance .
With project recommendations being due to SCAG on January 30, 2023, staff would bring an
agenda item to the January 2023 Commission Meeting for approval, requiring all CEQA/NEPA
clearances to be due by November 1, 2022. An alternative approach is to request that RCTC
staff be given authority to award projects first, presenting the award list as an informat ional
item at the next available Commission Meeting. This alternative approach would give agencies
an extra two months to provide the CEQA/NEPA documentation with the final deadline being
January 3, 2023.
The 5% share of the SCAG portion that will not be going to supplement the Sustainable
Communities Program will be distributed to RCTC based on population. RCTC will have
$884,000 to award to non-infrastructure and planning projects. Staff is suggesting t o award
projects with a minimum score of 80 points for the statewide score, with a maximum award
amount of $442,000. Any remaining funds would be programmed for infrastructure projects.
Vice Chair Savat Khamphou, Corona, wanted clarification on when the application would be due
for the ATP grant. Ms. Chan noted that the application would be due in June.
Patrick Thomas, Temecula, asked if a project was not currently federalized and it was awarded
funds in this cycle, would the project then need to become federalized. Ms. Chan respond that
the project would not need to be federalized. It the project had already completed CEQA, then
that would be used as a justification for receiving state-only funding and the project would not
be federalized. Even though the program has received $200 million in federal funding, more
state funds are still expected.
Ms. Chan wanted to know if there were any thoughts to the due date options presented for the
CEQA/NEPA clearances, being either November 2022 or January 2023.
Vice Chair Khamphou thought the later the better when it comes to environmental
documentation, since there is a choice.
Ken Seumalo, Indian Wells, agreed with Vice Chair Khamphou on using the later due date.
Randy Bowman, Palm Desert, echoed the decision to use the later due date.
Amer Attar, Temecula, wanted to know if the due date is in January, how would RCTC staff
handle the recommendation when the Commission meeting is the same month. Ms. Chan
noted that staff would finalize the selection criteria with the TAC, which would then be adopted
by the Commission. In that same agenda item, staff would request authorization to award the
projects based on the selection criteria. An informational item would come back to the
Commission after the fact to inform them which projects were awarded.
4
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 5
Mr. Attar also wanted to know if the construction funding in the first three years of
programming meant funds from RCTC or the agency. Ms. Chan clarified it would be based on
the application where the construction funds were being requested and what year they were
requested in. Mr. Attar wanted to know what would happen if the application stated there was
funding in the first three years, but then the schedule fell through. Ms. Chan noted that was
currently happening on other projects, but since the project was already awarded there is no
mechanism of taking the funding back. This is a current concern with how the scoring criteria
is structured, so staff is interested in any comments TAC members might have.
Mr. Attar thought when the decision is being made, it should be for concrete facts at the present
time.
Vice Chair Khamphou thought the program understands the reality of obtaining environmental
documents, but this is a mechanism to encourage agencies to go through the process of getting
environmental clearance without being penalized for not having the clearance.
Andrew Simmons, Coachella, wanted to know if for criteria 3, CEQA/NEPA clearance, applicants
can only receive maximum points for having the PA/ED completed or if any consideration or
partial points would be given for having PA/ED started. He advocated that criteria 3 should
allow for partial points if the PA/ED is started at the time the application is due. Ms. Chan
wanted to know how staff should check whether PA/ED had been started. Mr. Simmons
thought the agency could submit an active contract for consultant PA/ED services.
Mr. Attar thought that was a good suggestion for partial points. Another way for RCTC staff to
monitor that would be to have the CEQA schedule and determine where the agency is on the
schedule.
Ms. Chan stated these comments would be brought back to staf f to revise the methodology
based on what was shared. At the next TAC meeting, an item will be presented with the
proposed methodology.
8. 2021 AND 2023 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2020 REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENT UPDATE
Martha Masters, RCTC, provided an update on the 2021 and 2023 Federal Transportation
Improvement Program (FTIP) and the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) amendment.
The FTIP is a listing of multi-modal transportation projects proposed over a six-year period for
the SCAG region. The projects include highway improvements, transit, rail and bus facilities,
high occupancy vehicle lanes, active transportation facilities and activities, signal
synchronization, intersection improvements, freeway ramps, and more.
Links to the 2021 FTIP were included in the agenda item, and Amendments 1 through 18 have
been approved as of today’s date. The 2021 FTIP Amendment 21 -19 is currently undergoing
public review and can be viewed on SCAG’s website; the link is also provided in the agenda item.
Approval of Amendment 21-19 is expected in late June.
5
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 6
RCTC Planning and Programming staff should be notified by local agencies of any FTIP project
changes so they can be properly incorporated and avoid project delays, especially as it relates
to federal funds that require programming and projects that are expecting environmental
approval. Both formal and administrative amendments are due to SCAG on Tuesday, April 5.
Staff requests that any revisions to the project sheets be provided by Tuesday, Ma rch 29 to
meet the SCAG deadline. The 2021 FTIP schedule was provided in the agenda item as well as a
link to the 2021 FTIP guidelines for reference.
In January 2022, staff submitted 310 projects to SCAG totaling approximately $10 billion in
funding in the 2023 FTIP. The 2023 FTIP is anticipated to be approved in December 2022.
The 2023 FTIP schedule is provided in the agenda item for information. RCTC Planning and
Programming staff are available to assist with any questions regarding projects that may require
updates in the 2021 or 2023 FTIP for federal approvals or federal obligations.
On January 26, an email was sent out to all TAC members regarding the 2022 RTP amendment
opportunity. This opportunity meant that SCAG was accepting model updates for capacity
increasing projects such as scope changes and completion date updates, as well as new projects
that would be starting environmental work within the next two years. Opportunities such as
these do not occur often, as it takes at least a year to ap prove an RTP amendment. Staff did
not hear from all agencies. If an agency determines a new project needs to be added to the
model or that a current project needs modeling updates, they should contact RCTC staff as soon
as possible. The next opportunity to make modeling changes will be in the fall for inclusion in
the 2024 RTP, anticipated to be approved in early summer 2024.
9. CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE
Albert Vergel De Dios, Caltrans, announced that District 8 is planning on going back to the office
April 1, utilizing a new telework agreement. Additionally, Mr. Vergel De Dios indicated the Clean
California debrief is being scheduled and Caltrans is thinking about participating in the debrief
to help out.
Leslie Avila, Caltrans, shared that funding information and award notification updates for Clean
California were sent earlier this month to projects. As a county, there were six projects awarded
out of the nine awarded to District 8. The grant amount that was awarded to the agencies
totaled $19 million.
There are several funding opportunities open and available currently. There are funds from the
State Transportation Innovation Councils Incentive Program. These funds can be used to
implement process changes, develop guidance standards and specifications, organize peer
exchanges, offset implementation costs, and other activities that move innovation forward.
The deadline to submit an application for the program is April 1. For the ATP program, as
mentioned before, the project applications are due June 15. The FHWA Local Aid Support Tribal
Transportation Assistance Program Centers, whose purpose is to re-establish the TTAP centers
across the country, has an application due date of March 25. Lastly, the Rebuilding American
6
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 7
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE), a discretionary grant program, has a
deadline of April 14. Information on the grant is available on the U.S. Department of
Transportation website.
There are currently eight inactive projects for Riverside County that need to be addressed,
totaling an unexpended balance of $6 million. The inactive project information should be
reviewed on the Caltrans website. Cooperative Work Agreements (CWA) were recently sent
out for project approvals, with all information also on the website. If an agency did not receive
an approved extension or did not request an extension, invoices must be submitted by April 1,
or the funds left on the project will lapse by June. There are currently 11 projects in Riverside
County with Project End Date (PED) issues, which can also be viewed on the website. If more
information is needed, member agencies can reach out to their respective area coordinator at
Caltrans.
For clarification, PED is defined as the day after which no additional costs may be incurred for
an authorized phase of work. Any cost incurred after this day would not be eligible for federal
reimbursement. If the PED is revised after the authorized P ED has passed, any costs incurred
between the authorized and revised PED are ineligible for reimbursement.
Vice Chair Khamphou reminded the TAC that the PED comes from the agreement between an
agency and Caltrans. They should be updated as necessary because if they are missed or are
not updated, invoices can become ineligible.
Mr. Vergel De Dios added that the Buy America waiver for vehicle purchases needs to be turned
in by March 22, which is a quarterly call. The A&E unit at Caltrans Headquarters is developing
a checklist for developing RFP and RFQs. Caltrans does not have the resources to review these
for agencies, so the checklist should be helpful for submittals on A&E contracts.
Vice Chair Khamphou wanted to clarify if the Buy America waiver for vehicles applied to FTA
grants or funds. Mr. Vergel De Dios stated that this waiver did not apply to FTA grants or funds.
10. FUTURE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LOCATIONS
Jillian Guizado, RCTC, noted that AB 361 has allowed the Commission and associated
committees to hold their meetings virtually due to the state of emergency caused by the
COVID-19 virus. With transmission rates declining and restrictions lifting, staff brought forward
this item today in anticipation that sooner or later the TAC will be required to return to in-person
meetings. For the time being, the Commission continues to pass resolutions monthly to allow
for virtual committee meetings to keep being held. As long as that is the case, staff will continue
to hold the TAC meetings virtually. This will require members to pay close attention to the TAC
agendas for location information and calendar invitations will be updated accordingly.
Staff would like input from the TAC on what would facilitate the best participation once there
is a return to in-person meetings. Prior to the pandemic, when the TAC had meetings, the
location was alternated between Riverside and the Coachella Valley to open opportunities for
7
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 8
the TAC members to not have to drive so far, every meeting. An idea to get the conversation
started would be to stick with the previous format of requiring all members to travel to
downtown Riverside one meeting, and then Coachella Valley for the next meeting.
Another option that was being brainstormed prior to the pandemic was to have two meeting
locations for every meeting. The two locations would likely be downtown Riverside and the
Coachella Valley. In this situation, both locations would use video conferencing so that the TAC
members would be able to interact. RCTC staff could trade off each meeting alternating
between both locations, or split up for every meeting so staff could be at both locations.
Since the TAC meeting follows the Brown Act, it is not possible to have a high number of meeting
locations because the agenda would need to be posted at each location at least 72 hours in
advance and the public would have to have access to each location to attend the meeting.
Proposing two locations for the time being helps to manage the workload required to host the
meeting.
Vice Chair Khamphou wanted to clarify that the proposed locations would be downtown
Riverside and the CVAG office, but not the City of Beaumont location as had been the case in
the past. Ms. Guizado stated that quite some time ago the TAC stopped meeting in Beaumont
and instead moved the meetings to the Coachella Valley.
Ms. Masters noted that the City of Beaumont meeting location was relocated in 2017.
Mr. Thomas wanted to know with the two meeting locations if the TAC would still be accessible
via Zoom. Ms. Guizado noted that once the Commission is no longer able or willing to continue
approving the resolution for AB 361, meetings will have to be fully in -person and not virtual or
hybrid. Mr. Thomas noted with that being the case, the two locations would be preferred.
Ms. Guizado added that staff had discussed the p ossibility of a third location in the
southwestern county, though staff has not reached out to any member agencies about hosting.
Mr. Thomas stated that if staff did want to add a third location, the City of Temecula has video
conferencing capabilities at City Hall and could offer to host if the group agrees.
Jason Farag, Wildomar, noted that he would be in support of a third location in Temecula.
Paul Toor, Jurupa Valley, noted that when the TAC meeting used to be in the City of Banning
and then switched to Beaumont it was very helpful. Ms. Guizado clarified that there is an option
to have every TAC meeting at three separate locations that any jurisdiction could attend. The
locations would be in downtown Riverside, Coachella Valley, and the southwest c ounty. This
does leave jurisdictions in the pass area in between locations.
Nate Smith, Banning, noted he would be willing to see if the city had facilities and would be able
to accommodate and cover the middle of the region.
8
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 9
Vice Chair Khamphou wanted clarification on whether the TAC was looking to have three
meeting sites for each meeting, or if the TAC wanted to have one central location for each
meeting. The current meeting sites for the three locations would be downtown Riverside, t he
CVAG office, and somewhere in the southwest region, but the TAC could decide to replace one
of those locations with somewhere in the pass region.
Mr. Smith thought it best to defer to Mr. Toor on whether the city could accommodate this
meeting as he is new to this community. Mr. Toor stated that if the meeting could be in the City
of Banning or Beaumont, it would bring the location to the halfway point and the CVAG location
wouldn’t be needed.
Vice Chair Khamphou clarified that the TAC would like three locations with one of them being
at the pass either in Banning or Beaumont, one being in downtown Riverside, and the third
being the southwestern region, eliminating the CVAG office.
Joel Montalvo, Palm Springs, would be in favor of keeping a meeting location in the desert as
there are seven or eight jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley that would then have to drive out
to the pass to get to the meeting.
Michael Thornton, Calimesa, wanted to know if the current virtual option would no longer be
available. Ms. Guizado noted that since the TAC is done in accordance with the Brown Act,
virtual meetings will not always be an option. The TAC is currently able to hold meetings
virtually because the Commission is adopting monthly resolutions declaring a state of
emergency which allows the TAC, under AB 361, to conduct business virtually. This discussion
is for what the TAC will do once that option goes away. The current plan is the TAC will continue
to meet virtually for as long as possible, but staff would like to be well positioned for when that
option is unavailable.
Mark Lancaster, Riverside County, thought providing flexibility with three locations is probably
the best option, leaving one in Palm Desert, one in downtown Riverside, and a third in the
southwest county region. Each jurisdiction would have no more than an hour drive to one of
the three locations.
Ms. Guizado noted that based on the comments received and internal staff work that needed
to be done, at the May TAC meeting, if we are still able to meet virtually, an item will be brought
forward to formalize the locations. Staff will work on reaching out to some locations to
determine if they would be able to host the TAC meeting , as well. If the May meeting is going
to be in person, staff will move forward with formalizing locations and send communication to
the TAC in advance.
11. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS: JANUARY AND MARCH
2022
Ms. Guizado noted since the last meeting of the TAC, the CTC has had three meetings in
December, January, and March. At the January 2022 meeting, the CTC approved RCTC’s request
9
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 10
to allocate SB 1 Local Partnership Program Formulaic Funding for the design phase of the Mid
County Parkway construction.
At the March meeting, the CTC adopted the 2023 Active Transportation Program guidelines for
ATP Cycle 6 and released a call for projects last week. The CTC adopted the 2022 State
Transportation Improvement Program, programming nearly $50 million in Riverside County on
four projects: I-10 Highland Springs Interchange, Temescal Canyon Road, I-10 Monroe Street
Interchange, and Coachella Valley Rail. The CTC also adopted the 2022 SHOPP for Caltrans.
Finally, the CTC approved an allocation request from RCTC for the SB 1 Trade Corridor
Enhancement Program, competitive funding that was received back in December 2020, for the
71/91 Interchange, which is going to construction later this year.
The next CTC meeting will be held on May 18-19 in Fresno.
12. RCTC COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS: DECEMBER 2021 AND JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND
MARCH 2022
Ms. Guizado noted at the December meeting of the Commission, the Board approved
Temecula’s request for help filling the funding gap on the I-15 Auxiliary Lane Project, which the
TAC heard a presentation on at the November 2021 meeting.
At the January Commission Meeting, the Board approved the 2023 FTIP financial resolution.
Finance also presented, and the Commission approved, the revised mid-year revenue
projections for the current Fiscal Year 2021/22, as well as the revenue projections for Fiscal Year
2022/23. The current year revenues are exceeding original and even the previously revised
projections. Next year’s revenue projections are also looking strong. This action officially
commences RCTC’s annual budget process, which is required to be completed by June 15.
At the February Commission Meeting, the Board approved six additional SB 821 awards for the
Fiscal Year 2021/22 cycle due to the revised LTF projections. The additional awards are for
projects in Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Corona, Hemet, and Desert Hot Springs. Also at the February
Commission meeting, the Board approved funding for the design and right of way phases of the
regional I-10 Bypass Project led by the County of Riverside. This item was not able to be brought
to the TAC as the request was received in December when the environmental phase was
completed.
At the March Commission Meeting, the Board approved the awards of two separate
construction contracts. One to Granite Construction for the construction of the Moreno Valley
March Field Metrolink Station Track and Platform Expansion Project, the other to All American
Asphalt for the I-15 Interim Corridor Operations Project at the southern terminus of the I-15
Express Lanes in south Corona. The Commission also approved the Policy Goals an d Objectives
for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget.
The next Commission meeting will be held on April 14, most likely in person.
10
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 11
13. COMMITTEE MEMBER / STAFF REPORT
Ms. Guizado shared that staff heard this week that US DOT will be releasing federal competitive
notices of funding opportunities. Last fall, the federal government passed a new transportation
authorization bill called IIJA but Congress did not pass the related budget to fund the five -year
act. The funding bill was finally approved two weeks ago, fully authorizing the federal Fiscal
Year 2021/22 amounts in the IIJA. US DOT will be busy putting out the programs that are
authorized under the bill.
Caltrans mentioned the RAISE opportunity closes on April 14 and there are a few oth ers that
may come out as one large notice of funding opportunity. The three programs that have been
confirmed are the Mega Program, INFRA, and Rural.
The Mega Program, also known as the National Infrastructure Project Assistance Program,
provides funding through single or multi-year grant agreements for eligible surface
transportation projects such as highway or bridge projects, freight intermodal or freight rail
projects with public benefit, railway/highway grade separation s, inner city passenger rail
projects, or other public transportation projects. The minimum project cost is $100 million, with
the funding being split 50% for projects that are $100 million or more and 50% for projects that
are $500 million or more.
INFRA is a continuation of the program that was authorized under the FAST Act previously.
It continues to cover the multimodal freight and highway projects of national or regional
significance.
The Rural program, named Rural Surface Transportation Grants, will improve and expand the
surface transportation infrastructure in rural areas to increase connectivity, improve safety and
reliability of the movement of people and freight, and generate regional economic growth
improving quality of life.
As soon as the information is available, staff will forward it to the TAC members.
Lastly, Caltrans headquarters has embarked on what is being called an updated approach to
highway investments, whereby a list of pipeline projects that have already received
environmental approval are being reviewed for alignment with the state’s new goals, including
SB 743 for VMT reduction and CAPTI, the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure.
Headquarters has authorized the districts to discuss pipeline projects with pro ject sponsors but
to date RCTC has not been successful obtaining the list, so it is unknown which projects may be
in question. TAC members should reach out to Ms. Guizado directly if they have been in
communication with the District about any of the projects.
Mr. Lancaster, Riverside County, asked if anyone from Caltrans District 8 was still on the meeting
and could provide the list. Ms. Avila, Caltrans, stated she was not aware of the list but could
inquire with Local Assistance to get more information. Mr. Lancaster asked that the list be
provided to RCTC staff so it could be forwarded to the TAC members.
11
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2022
Page 12
Vice Chair Khamphou asked that any information about this be funneled through Ms. Guizado
so it could be passed on to the TAC members.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the
meeting adjourned at approximately 11:17 a.m. The next meeting will be on May 16, 2022, at
10:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jillian Guizado
Planning and Programming Director
12
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 16, 2022
TO: Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: Martha Masters, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Southern California Association of Governments Regional Dedicated Transit
Lanes Study Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to receive and file an update from the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) for the Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study (Study).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Transit expansion is a cornerstone of Connect SoCal, SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan
and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), contributing to the region’s mobility,
sustainability, and air quality goals. The Study is one of SCAG’s efforts to advance implementation
of Connect SoCal and support transit recovery as the region continues to confront the COVID-19
pandemic.
Transit agencies in the SCAG region and nationwide have been grappling with ridership decline.
In 2018, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) completed a SCAG-funded study on
transit ridership declines, titled, Falling Transit Ridership in California and Southern California,
and identified two main recommendations. First, UCLA found that based on current trends,
public transit’s core ridership could dramatically shrink in the future, and recommended transit
agencies to encourage discretionary riders to occasionally take transit instead of driving.
Second, the UCLA authors identified increasing car ownership as the leading factor in declining
ridership but acknowledged this was outside transit agencies’ control. However, the authors
recommended that transit agencies increase the quality of service to make transit more
appealing to discretionary riders.
As the region’s transit agencies look forward to recovery and post-pandemic times, there exists
an opportunity to implement changes to redefine transit quality, delivery, and the need for more
frequent service.
DISCUSSION:
Restoring confidence in transit among previous riders and attracting new riders is largely
dependent on how these transit challenges are resolved, particularly in relation to the delivery
of transit services and improved frequency to meet the returning riders’ demands as the
economy reopens. On-time performance is a key factor for all riders and underscores their
13
perception of transit. Dedicated transit lanes and priority treatments are part of the
tools/strategies to help address transit speed and reliability on congested corridors.
The objective of this Study is to support the development of a regional network of dedicated bus
lanes to enable enhanced transit services, improve mobility, accessibility and sustainability, and
advance implementation of Connect SoCal. The Study will identify the key benefits of dedicated
bus lanes and the primary factors for successful implementation, provide a preliminary
assessment on where dedicated bus lanes and other transit priority treatments might be most
feasible and beneficial in the SCAG region, and provide recommendations and guidance for local
jurisdictions that are seeking to pilot or implement dedicated bus lanes and other transit priority
treatments.
Table 1: Summary of Study Tasks and Deliverables
Task Key Deliverables Expected Date (s)
Stakeholder Engagement - Stakeholder Engagement Plan Aug. 2021 – Sept. 2021
Best Practices & Existing
Conditions Report
- Best practices
- Review of existing conditions
Nov. 2021 – May 2022
Jan. 2021 – June 2021
Corridor Identification - Corridor Identification
- Corridor Evaluation
Apr. 2022 – Aug. 2022
May 2022 – Sep. 2022
Final Report Sept. 2022
Stakeholder Engagement
The project team conducted the transportation agency stakeholder kickoff meeting in
October 2021, and convened county group meetings including representatives from various
Councils of Governments (COGs), transit agencies, and planning and public works staff. SCAG staff
engaged with the SCAG Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee (RTTAC) and shared the
preliminary best practices findings. SCAG staff also provided an overview to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee, Metro Bus Operators
Sub-Committee (BOS), San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Transportation Committee,
and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) Transportation Technical Advisory
Committee and have several future meetings planned to share updates and key findings with
various stakeholders and committees.
Study Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The TAC for the Study is made up of transportation planning directors and staff from the County
Transportation Commissions (CTCs), COGs, transit operators, and community-Based
Organizations (CBOs), and has provided technical input on study methodology, technical analysis,
and findings.
The project team has conducted three meetings with the TAC to date. At the TAC kickoff meeting,
the project team shared key highlights from the transportation agency kickoff and county group
meetings and provided updates on the preliminary findings from the best practices and case
14
studies review. During the second TAC meeting, the project team focused on the preliminary
existing conditions findings and future forecasts, discussed screening goals, criteria and
methodology, and the preliminary screening universe, receiving invaluable feedback. The TAC
discussed the screening results and the recommended screened corridors for additional
feedback.
Preliminary Findings
Staff has been analyzing best practices and existing conditions and will share a summary of key
findings during the presentation. Staff will also share updates on the selected screened corridors
for feedback. The corridor screening is meant to assess where dedicated lanes and other transit
priority treatments might be most feasible and beneficial in the SCAG region. The screening is an
initial step of the overall corridor identification and evaluation process.
Next Steps
The corridor screening and evaluation will occur from now through September. SCAG and the
project team will continue to coordinate with key stakeholders, including the respective
representatives from Riverside County.
15
Regional Dedicated Transit Lanes Study
Monday, May 16, 2022
Priscilla Freduah-Agyemang, Senior Regional Planner
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Technical Advisory Committee
Background –Connect SoCal
2
Support the development of a regional network of dedicated bus lanes and priority
treatments to enable enhanced transit services, improve mobility, accessibility and
sustainability, and advance implementation of Connect SoCal.
The Study will :
•Identify key benefits of dedicated bus lanes and priority treatments and primary factors
for implementation,
•Provide a preliminary assessment of where dedicated bus lanes and priority treatments
might be most feasible and beneficial in the SCAG region, and
•Provide recommendations and guidance for local jurisdictions that are seeking to pilot or
implement bus lanes or priority treatments.
Project Purpose
Project Timeline
4
JUNE 2021 SEPTEMBER 2022
BEST PRACTICES &
EXISTING
CONDITIONS REPORT
•Best Practices
Review
•Existing
Conditions
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
•Transportation
Agency Meetings
•County Meetings
•TAC Meetings
•Others
CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION
•Corridor Selection
•Corridor Evaluation
FINAL
REPORT
Project Team
5
•Transportation Agency stakeholder
kickoff meeting
•Conducted individual county
meetings with CTCs, COGs, and
relevant agencies & CBOs
•Set up Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC)
•Conducted 3 TAC meetings
Stakeholder Engagement Efforts
6
Best Practices and Peer Cases
1.WHY build dedicated lanes and priority treatments?
▪Four key elements:Reliability, Speed, Comfort,and Convenience.
▪Results in faster travel times, safer traveling environments, improved schedule reliability,
user confidence, convenience and experience
2. WHERE are lanes most feasible and beneficial?
▪Metrics used to identify and evaluate potential corridors
▪Supportive conditions and context for potential implementation
3. HOW do jurisdictions pilot or implement?
▪Peer regions and agency stakeholders with track record of successful implementation
Best Practices Case Studies and Research include:
8
1.Example Capital Improvements
▪Transit-only lane configurations
▪Stop positioning and spacing/consolidations
▪Curb extensions (bus bulbs) and bus pullout lanes
▪Station area enhancements and level boarding
▪Bus and bicycle facilities
2.Example Operational and Technology Enhancements
▪Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) and queue jumps
▪Real-time information
▪Fare collection and all door boarding
▪Route realignment
3.Example Policies and Other Actions
▪Technology, information, and responsibility sharing
▪Enforcement
▪Project programming and funding
Potential Transit Priority Treatments and Solutions
9
SB 288 –CEQA Exemptions for Transportation Related Projects
Exemptions from CEQA review requirements expanded to projects that:
▪Institute or increase new bus rapid transit, bus, or light rail services on public rail or highway ROW
▪Designate and convert general purpose lanes, high-occupancy toll lanes, high-occupancy vehicle
lanes, or highway shoulders
▪Improve customer information and wayfinding or include pedestrian and bicycle facilities
▪ZE vehicle fueling or charging facilities
▪Reduce minimum parking requirements
▪Projects over $100K require equity analysis and community engagement
Sunsets January 1, 2023
AB 917–Video Imaging of Parking Violations
Expands current law applicable to City/County SF to include all of CA
▪May install automated devices on public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging of parking
violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes and at transit stops
Sunsets January 1, 2027
Transit Priority Policy Examples
10
▪Strong leadership from the top -setting transit as a priority at the
top levels of government
▪Adopt a regional network plan long-range plan that allows you to
take advantage when funding opportunities arise
▪Identify KPIs and appropriate metrics to identify priority corridors
and hotspots
▪Incorporate equity and climate impacts within capital project
planning and prioritization
▪Scalable solutions applicable across geographies and jurisdictions
▪Foster a sense of ownership, competency and capacity with
stakeholders
▪Identify complementary treatments and/or projects promoting
complete streets, station access and connectivity
Project Identification and Prioritization
11
Example speed and reliability hotspot
analysis visualization
▪Where possible,alleviate the burden of proof and mitigation for
local stakeholders and partners
▪Don’t be afraid of the details to break down barriers through data
sharing , conflict identification and resolution
▪Develop shared design and procurement standards to expedite
reviews, funding, procurement, and implementation.
▪Align schedules of transit priority with implementation of
complementary infrastructure and land use changes
▪Capitalize on pilot project opportunities and jurisdictional
willingness/ability to implement and demonstrate success
▪Demonstrate and report on successes to build the business case
and user confidence to continue investment and preserve ROW
▪Capitalize on decreased auto traffic to pilot bus lane and transit
priority during the pandemic
(2022 traffic volumes approaching 80% of previous levels)
Project Development & Implementation
Example evolution of transit priority treatments and land uses
Existing Conditions Review
Planning Documents
•Regional short and long range plans
•Transit strategic and mobility plans
•Active transportation plans
•Climate action plans
Policy Decisions
•Planning (SB288 CEQA Exemption)
•Funding
•Operations (AB917 Lane Enforcement)
•Housing Coordination
Data Sources
•Population, employment, and equity
demographics
•Land use and development
•Trip origins & destinations
•Transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian features
•Transit ridership and performance
•Traffic data
•Climate and environmental data
Research and Data Collection
14
•Where do people live?
•Population Density, 2016 and 2045
•Population Growth, 2016 to 2045
•Where do people work?
•Employment Density, 2020 and 2045
•Activity Units, 2016/2020 and 2045
•Where are equity focused communities
located?
•Race/Ethnicity, 2020
•Median Income, 2020 and 2045
•Vehicle Access,2019
•SCAG Communities of Concern, 2020
Visualizing Existing and Future Conditions
15
•What challenges do equity
communities face?
•Healthy Places Index ,2021
•CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021
•Protected Open Spaces, 2021
•How is the region built?
•Land Use, 2019
•Transit Network, 2016
•Transit Priority, 2019 and Proposed*
•Bikeways and Bike Shed, 2016 and Planned
•How do people travel?
•Travel Demand, 2019 and 2045
•Corridor Delay, 2016 and 2045
•Transit Ridership, 2019 and 2045
Corridor Screening Goals, Criteria, and
Methodology
Corridor Screening and Evaluation
CORRIDOR
IDENTIFICATION
CORRIDOR
SCREENING
CORRIDOR
EVALUATION
PRIORITIZATION
All corridors where bus-only lanes
are appropriate
Corridors screened by
feasibility and effectiveness
Corridors evaluated across
qualitative and quantitative
criteria
Corridors ranked based on defined
criteria and local priorities
»Ridership, mode split
and throughput
»Travel time and
reliability benefits
»VMT and GHG
»Equity and accessibility
»Ease of implementation
»Cost, funding, and ROI
»Corridor compatibility
Screen and evaluate for:
1.Develop goals (and relative
importance) for priority treatments
2.Associate metrics and weights to
each goal
3.GIS assessment of metrics for
corridors throughout region
4.Alternative methods for goals or
treatments that are less quantifiable
5.Develop a first list of corridors or
areas that pass screening thresholds
1.Apply treatment types to screened
corridors based on
feasibility/suitability criteria
2.Code and run in SCAG model based on
sensitivity test results
3.Calculate and weight model-derived
metrics
4.Off-model calculations and
adjustments as needed (minimize)
5.Review and prioritize based on goals
and geographic considerations
High Level Methodology
18
Step I. Identification & Screening Step II. Evaluation & Prioritization
Screening Step 1. Developing Goals and Priorities
19
Proposed Goal Area Considerations
Improve Transportation System Performance •Transit Speed and Reliability Potential
•Minimizing Traffic and Safety Impacts
•Regional Connectivity
Increase People Throughput and Attract Riders •Population and Employment Density
•Travel Markets / Trip Intensity
•Transit Ridership
Improve Access for Equity Communities •Equity Community Proximity
•Equity Community Transit Riders
•Job, Education, and Institutional Access
Promote Local Plans and Priorities •Alignment to Local Priorities
•Identified in Plans and Studies
•Financial Feasibility
Integrate with the Built Environment •Transit Supportive Land Use and TOC
•Technical Treatment Feasibility
•Supportive First/Last Mile and AT Network
Improve Climate and Health Outcomes •GHG and Emissions Impacts
•Benefits to Healthy Places
St
e
p
I
+
I
I
St
e
p
I
I
Screening Step 2. Metrics and Weights
20
Goal Area Weight Consideration Metrics (Max Pts)
System
Performance 35 points
Transit Speed and Reliability
Potential
Existing Peak V/C Ratio (10)
Future Peak V/C Ratio (5)
Existing Peak Speed Ratio (10)*
Future Peak Speed Ratio (5)*
Minimizing Traffic and Safety
Impacts
Facility Type
Number of Lanes
Regional Connectivity Proximate HC Transit Connections (5)
Throughput
and Riders 30 points
Population and Employment Density Existing Activity Unit Density (5)
Future Activity Density (5)
Travel Markets / Trip Intensity Existing Zone Activity (5)
Future Zone Activity (5)
Transit Ridership Existing Bus Activity (5)
Future Bus Activity (5)
* V/C and Speed are highly correlated. Used V/C as a proxy for Speed to reduce processing time
Corridor Screening Summary
21
County Recommend to Advance Possible to Advance, but Likely Drop
Freeway Arterial Freeway Arterial
Imperial 0 2 0 8
Los Angeles 7 48 22 122
Orange 5 5 4 16
Riverside 4 5 4 17
San Bernardino 3 8 5 10
Ventura 1 6 2 9
Total 20 74 37 182
Over 46,500 links were analyzed to arrive at a set of about 100 corridors/areas to advance
to full evaluation
Next Steps
22
•Best Practices Report –Toolkit
•Existing Conditions Report
•Corridor evaluation
•SCAG Staff will work with the TAC and stakeholders
during the various stages of the project
Thank you!
Questions & Comments?
Contact Info:
Priscilla Freduah-Agyemang
Senior Regional Planner, Mobility Planning & Goods Movement Dept.
agyemang@scag.ca.gov/213-236-1973
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 16, 2022
TO: Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager
SUBJECT:
Active Transportation Program – Southern California Association of
Governments 2023 Regional Program Guidelines – Selection Criteria for
Riverside County Applications
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Technical Advisory Committee to:
1) Approve the project selection criteria for inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations’ (MPO) Regional Program Guidelines for Active Transportation Program
(ATP) Cycle 6;
2) Authorize staff to award projects based on the approved selection criteria for the MPO
funding; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
ATP is a highly competitive statewide program that funds bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
programs to enhance or encourage walking and biking. The California Transportation Commission
(CTC) awards 50% of the funds at the statewide competitive level, 10% to small urban and rural
regions, and 40% at the large MPO level. The ATP evaluation process allows applicants in
Riverside County two opportunities for award – at the statewide level and the large MPO level.
As part of the sequential project selection, projects are first evaluated statewide and those that
are not ranked high enough for statewide funding are automatically provided a second
opportunity for funding through the large MPO share. As the MPO, the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) is required to work with county transportation commissions,
the CTC, and Caltrans to develop its regional program recommendations.
Based on the approved ATP Fund Estimate, SCAG is expected to receive $137.68 million for the
upcoming cycle, Cycle 6. Like past cycles, the SCAG share is split 95% to implementation projects
and 5% to Non-Infrastructure (NI) projects and plans. However, for this cycle, SCAG will not be
utilizing the 5% share to supplement its Sustainable Communities Program. Instead, the 5% share
will be distributed to the county transportation commissions based on population. Table 1
illustrates this cycle’s programming capacity for each county. The Commission will have
approximately $17.69 million to award for Cycle 6 - $16.8 million for implementation projects
and $884 thousand for NI and planning projects.
16
Table 1: County Share for Implementation and NI and Planning Projects ($ in 1,000s)
County Population % Implementation NI and Planning Total Capacity
Imperial 1% $1,249 $66 $1,314
Los Angeles 53% $69,579 $3,662 $73,241
Orange 17% $22,144 $1,165 $23,309
Riverside 13% $16,802 $884 $17,686
San Bernardino 12% $15,159 $798 $15,956
Ventura 4% $5,863 $309 $6,172
100% $130,795 $6,884 $137,679
DISCUSSION:
Implementation Projects
As part of the development of the regional program guidelines, SCAG allows each county
transportation commission to assign up to 20 points to the CTC’s project scores. Each county
transportation commission in the SCAG region is responsible for defining “plans” and developing
its guidance and methodology for assigning the 20 points.
The points distribution approved for the last cycle, Cycle 5, is provided in Table 2. The points
distribution allowed the Commission to meet its goal of awarding projects that were construction
ready and rewarding agencies that invested in pre-construction activities. Additionally, as an
unexpected result, the Commission was able to award projects that previously competed in prior
cycles.
Table 2: ATP Cycle 5 20-Point Distribution
Criteria Points
1. Requesting construction-only funding 6
2. Construction funding in the first two years of programming & PA/ED
completed
10
3. Projects identified in WRCOG Sub-regional Active Transportation Plan or
CVAG Non-Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan,
bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan
4
For Cycle 6, staff is proposing minor revisions to the points distribution methodology. With the
passage of the new federal transportation bill, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
Cycle 6 has more federal dollars than were in Cycle 5. This may lead to more projects being
subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and may prolong the project delivery
timeline. To manage this program change, Commission staff is proposing a revision to the
methodology, as seen in Table 3. The revised point distribution continues to reflect the
Commission’s goal of funding projects that are construction-ready and reward agencies that
invested or will invest in pre-construction activities. Lastly, at the March 2022 TAC meeting,
Committee members suggested offering partial funding for applicants that have initiated the
environmental process. This suggestion is also incorporated into the new recommended 20-point
distribution.
17
Proposed changes are as follows:
1. Award 4 points for projects with construction funding in the first three years of the
program cycle.
2. Award 7 points for projects with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or
NEPA approved. Award partial funding of 3 points for projects that have initiated CEQA
or NEPA.
3. Award 3 points for projects identified in Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG) Sub-regional Active Transportation Plan or Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) Non-Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan,
bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan.
Table 3: Recommended 20-Point Distribution
Criteria Points
1. Requesting construction-only funding 6
2. Construction funding in the first three years of programming 4
3.
3a.
PA/ED completed – either CEQA, NEPA, or both
PA/ED started – either CEQA, NEPA, or both (partial funding)
7 or
3
4. Projects identified in WRCOG Sub-regional Active Transportation Plan or
CVAG Non-Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan,
bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan
3
In the last cycle, to satisfy criterion 3, a copy of the CEQA and/or NEPA signature page had to be
provided. Commission staff provided applicants an additional six months from application
deadline to submit the CEQA and/or NEPA clearance. If a project was already federalized, the
agency had to provide the NEPA signature page. This criterion was beneficial in the last cycle as
it was the main criterion for award, leading to the Commission receiving all state funding because
projects cleared CEQA.
At the March 2022 TAC meeting, staff received feedback from the TAC regarding the deadline for
applicants to submit their completed CEQA and/or NEPA to Commission staff. TAC members
expressed a strong desire to have as much time as possible to demonstrate compliance with
criterion 3. As such, staff is allowing applicants to submit their CEQA and/or NEPA documentation
to staff by January 3, 2023, to satisfy criterion 3 and 3a. To satisfy criterion 3a, applicants will
need to provide a letter detailing the environmental work that has been performed to date.
Non-infrastructure and Planning
As previously stated, SCAG will not be utilizing the 5% share to supplement its Sustainable
Communities Program for this cycle. Instead, the 5% share is distributed to the Commission based
on population share. The Commission will have $884 thousand dollars to award to NI and
planning projects that are not awarded at the statewide level. Like the implementation projects,
SCAG allows each county transportation commission to assign up to 20 points to the CTC’s project
scores and allows the Commission to establish any other eligibility criteria. Staff is recommending
the Commission not establish a 20-point distribution methodology for the NI and planning
projects. Instead, staff is recommending to award projects with a minimum score of 80 points in
the state scores with a maximum award amount of $442 thousand dollars. This item was also
18
brought forward to the Technical Advisory Committee at the March 2022 meeting and the
committee members agreed with this approach.
The Commission’s deadline to submit the ATP award list to SCAG for the MPO share is
January 30, 2023. To meet this deadline, staff will follow the approved project selection criteria
to award projects for the MPO share. For implementation projects, staff will utilize the approved
methodology to assign 20 points to the statewide scores and will award the highest scoring
projects. For non-infrastructure and planning projects, staff will award projects with a minimum
score of 80 points and limit the award amount to $442 thousand dollars per project.
Any remaining funds for non-infrastructure and planning projects will be utilized for
implementation projects, and vice versa.
19
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION’S
Active Transportation Program –Cycle 6
2023 Regional Program Guidelines
Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager
1
ATP Cycle 6 20-Point Distribution
2
Criteria Points
1.Requesting construction-only funding 6
2.Construction funding in the first three years of programming 4
3.
3a.
PA/ED completed –either CEQA,NEPA or both
PA/ED started –either CEQA,NEPA,or both (partial funding)
7 or
3
4.Projects identified in WRCOG Sub-regional Active Transportation
Plan or CVAG Non-Motorized Plan;or an adopted local active
transportation plan,bike or pedestrian master plan,or Safe Routes
to School Plan
3
Due Jan 3, 2023
Non-infrastructure & Planning
3
•SCAG not supplementing Sustainable Communities
Program
•$884K available to award
•Selection criteria:
–Minimum of 80 points in state score
–Maximum award amount of $442K
•Any remaining NI & Planning funds will be used to fund
infrastructure/implementation projects, and vice-versa
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 16, 2022
TO: Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager
SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program Augmentation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to discuss and provide input on the California Transportation Commission (CTC) Active
Transportation Program (ATP) Augmentation Proposal.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 2021, the CTC requested a one-time augmentation of $2 billion from the state’s General Fund
surplus for the ATP, intended to augment ATP Cycle 5 the CTC adopted in March 2021.
In response to the CTC’s request, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law
Senate Bill 129 (Skinner, 2021), which amended the Budget Act of 2021 to provide a $500 million
one-time augmentation for the ATP, contingent on the enactment of additional legislation prior
to October 10, 2021. The additional legislation required was not enacted prior to the deadline,
so the $500 million was returned to the General Fund instead of augmenting the ATP.
CTC is requesting a one-time $2 billion General Fund augmentation again in the state’s
Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget. Depending on the size and timing of the enactment of an
augmentation during the 2022 legislative session, the CTC may fund additional projects from the
2021 ATP backlog (Cycle 5 – see Attachment) and potentially reserve a portion of funding to
increase the 2023 ATP (Cycle 6) funding and create a pilot program for large, transformative
projects.
DISCUSSION:
The CTC is hosting a virtual workshop on May 26, 2022, to discuss possible funding augmentation
options. As of the writing of this staff report, the workshop agenda and materials were not
available. This item is for TAC members to discuss funding options that advance the ATP goals
and interests of Riverside County to enable Commission staff to advocate accordingly.
Anticipated possible options are:
1. Reserve all augmentation funds for the previous cycle, ATP Cycle 5.
2. Reserve all augmentation funds for the current cycle, ATP Cycle 6.
3. Hybrid approach of augmenting both Cycles 5 and 6.
Attachment: ATP Cycle 5 List of Projects
20
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
Active Transportation Resource Center Various Active Transportation Resource Center 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ Non-Infrastructure N/A N/A N/A
3-Sacramento, City of-1 Sacramento Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Project 16,265 $ 9,323 $ -$ -$ 9,323 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,323 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 99
4-Oakland, City of-1 Alameda 7th Street Connection Project 21,037 $ 14,180 $ -$ -$ -$ 14,180 $ -$ -$ -$ 14,180 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 98
6-Huron, City of-1 Fresno
City of Huron Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety
Improvement Project 1,969 $ 1,769 $ 125 $ 1,644 $ -$ -$ 25 $ 100 $ -$ 1,644 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 98
8-Perris, City of-1 Riverside
City of Perris Bike and Pedestrian Network
Project 1,999 $ 1,931 $ 35 $ 1,896 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,896 $ 35 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x 97
8-San Bernardino County-2 San Bernardino
Muscoy Area Safe Routes to School Pedestrian
Improvements Project 2,355 $ 1,881 $ 112 $ 463 $ -$ 1,306 $ 112 $ 160 $ 303 $ 1,271 $ 35 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 97
3-Sacramento County-2 Sacramento
South Sacramento County Safe Routes to
School Project 1,946 $ 1,946 $ 95 $ 390 $ 1,461 $ -$ 95 $ 190 $ 200 $ 1,381 $ 80 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 96
5-Watsonville, City of-1 Santa Cruz
Safer Access to Pajaro Valley High School and
Beyond 15,823 $ 11,709 $ 1,168 $ 10,541 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 521 $ 10,541 $ 647 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 96
6-Fresno County-1 Fresno Biola Community Sidewalks 1,498 $ 1,255 $ -$ 1,255 $ -$ -$ 1,255 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 96
7-Los Angeles, City of-3 Los Angeles
SRTS Carver Middle, Ascot Avenue and
Harmony Elementary Schools Project 6,700 $ 6,030 $ 801 $ -$ 290 $ 4,939 $ 801 $ 290 $ -$ 4,939 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 96
7-Los Angeles, City of-5 Los Angeles
SRTS Panorama City Elementary School
Project 6,832 $ 6,149 $ 756 $ -$ 329 $ 5,064 $ 756 $ 329 $ -$ 5,064 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 96
8-Ontario, City of-1 San Bernardino Vine Ave & B St Bike Boulevard Project 4,881 $ 4,392 $ 513 $ -$ 3,879 $ -$ 45 $ 468 $ -$ 3,879 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 96
2-Redding, City of-2 Shasta Turtle Bay to Downtown Gap Completion Project 3,935 $ 2,665 $ -$ -$ 50 $ 2,615 $ -$ -$ 50 $ 2,462 $ 153 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 95
3-West Sacramento, City of-2 Yolo
Sycamore Trail (Phase 2) Bicycle/Pedestrian
Overcrossing 11,538 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,500 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 95
4-Fairfield, City of-1 Solano West Texas Street Complete Streets Project 16,922 $ 10,903 $ -$ 955 $ 9,948 $ -$ -$ 838 $ -$ 9,948 $ 117 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 95
5-San Luis Obispo County-1 San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County-Bob Jones Trail Gap
Closure 23,414 $ 18,248 $ 2,295 $ 15,953 $ -$ -$ -$ 321 $ 1,974 $ 15,953 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 95
7-Long Beach, City of-1 Los Angeles Downtown Long Beach Walkable Corners 8,771 $ 7,893 $ 768 $ 450 $ -$ 6,675 $ 225 $ 450 $ -$ 6,675 $ 543 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 95
7-Maywood, City of-1 Los Angeles City of Maywood Active Transportation Plan 263 $ 263 $ 263 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 263 $ Plan x x 95
8-Riverside County-10 Riverside
Riverside County Safe Routes for All - San
Jacinto 600 $ 600 $ -$ 600 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 600 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 95
10-Mariposa County-1 Mariposa
Mariposa Elementary School Connectivity
Project 1,900 $ 1,900 $ 100 $ -$ 1,800 $ -$ 100 $ -$ -$ 1,800 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 95
10-Mariposa County-2 Mariposa Mariposa Creek Parkway 5,176 $ 4,415 $ 200 $ 1,200 $ -$ 3,015 $ 200 $ 450 $ 750 $ 3,015 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 95
11-San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG)-1 San Diego Orange Family Friendly Street Project 5,660 $ 4,317 $ -$ 4,317 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,317 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 95
1-Arcata, City of-1 Humboldt Arcata Annie & Mary Trail Connectivity Project 5,286 $ 4,220 $ 67 $ 495 $ 3,658 $ -$ 67 $ 240 $ 255 $ 3,658 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 94
6-Fresno, City of-1 Fresno
Kids Crossing: Safe Routes to School in South
Fresno 1,636 $ 1,636 $ 141 $ 14 $ 1,481 $ -$ 3$ 138 $ 14 $ 1,441 $ 40 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 94
6-Porterville, City of-2 Tulare
Butterfield Stage Corridor (Henderson Avenue to
Date Avenue) 4,650 $ 4,000 $ -$ 4,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 94
6-Porterville, City of-4 Tulare
Butterfield Stage Corridor (W North Grand Ave
to College Ave) 7,750 $ 7,100 $ -$ 7,100 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,100 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 94
7-South El Monte, City of-1 Los Angeles
South El Monte Safe Routes to School
Pedestrian Safety Project 1,637 $ 1,637 $ 140 $ 1,497 $ -$ -$ 10 $ 130 $ -$ 1,497 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 94
11-Oceanside, City of-1 San Diego Laurel Elementary Safe Routes to School 1,535 $ 1,522 $ 447 $ 1,075 $ -$ -$ 160 $ 160 $ -$ 1,075 $ 127 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 94
4-Contra Costa County-2 Contra Costa
North Bailey Road Active Transportation
Corridor 6,845 $ 6,159 $ 499 $ -$ 5,660 $ -$ 499 $ -$ -$ 5,660 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 93
4-Santa Clara County-1 Santa Clara Active and Safe Routes to a Healthier City 2,510 $ 2,510 $ 2,510 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,510 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 93
California Transportation Commission Page 1 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 21
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
5-Santa Cruz, City of-2 Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase 2
Construction 12,030 $ 9,184 $ 9,184 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,634 $ 550 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 93
6-Delano, City of-1 Kern
ATP-5 SRTS Intersection Enhancement and NI
Work Plan 1,178 $ 1,164 $ -$ -$ 1,164 $ -$ -$ 140 $ -$ 949 $ 75 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 93
7-Bell Gardens, City of-1 Los Angeles
Bell Gardens Complete Streets Improvements -
Phase 1 6,999 $ 6,499 $ 200 $ 6,299 $ -$ -$ 200 $ -$ -$ 6,299 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 93
7-Long Beach, City of-2 Los Angeles Pacific Avenue Cycle Track 8,332 $ 7,498 $ 225 $ 1,533 $ -$ 5,740 $ 225 $ 675 $ -$ 5,740 $ 858 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 93
7-Los Angeles, City of-11 Los Angeles
Connecting Canoga Park Through Safety and
Urban Cooling Improvements 38,655 $ 30,731 $ 3,567 $ -$ 1,921 $ 25,243 $ 3,567 $ 1,921 $ -$ 25,243 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 93
7-Los Angeles, City of-4 Los Angeles
SRTS Berendo Middle and 3 Feeder Elementary
Schools Safety Project 11,057 $ 9,951 $ 188 $ -$ 1,588 $ 8,175 $ 188 $ 1,588 $ -$ 8,175 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 93
2-Redding, City of-1 Shasta
Victor Ave & Cypress Ave Active Transportation
(VCAT) Project 10,409 $ 7,822 $ 1,352 $ 740 $ 5,730 $ -$ 1,352 $ 338 $ 402 $ 5,643 $ 87 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 92
3-El Dorado County-3 El Dorado
Pollock Pines - Pony Express Trail Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvements 2,000 $ 1,440 $ 1,440 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,440 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 92
4-Oakland, City of-2 Alameda East Oakland Neighborhood Bike Routes 21,859 $ 17,269 $ -$ -$ 17,269 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 17,269 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 92
7-Ventura County-2 Ventura
El Rio Pedestrian Improvement and Safe Route
to School Project 6,960 $ 6,195 $ -$ 222 $ 5,973 $ -$ 222 $ 884 $ -$ 5,089 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 92
11-Imperial Beach, City of-1 San Diego 9th St Active Transportation Corridor 3,354 $ 3,018 $ 539 $ 2,479 $ -$ -$ -$ 539 $ -$ 2,479 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 92
11-National City, City of-3 San Diego Highland Avenue Inter-City Bike Connection 1,897 $ 1,895 $ 58 $ 260 $ 1,577 $ -$ 58 $ 260 $ -$ 1,577 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 92
7-Santa Monica, City of-2* Los Angeles
Stewart-Pennsylvania Safety Enhancement
Project 4,000 $ 3,196 $ 3,196 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,171 $ 25 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x 92
1-Clearlake, City of-1 Lake
Dam Road Extension & South Center Drive
Bike/Pedestrian Improvements 997 $ 997 $ 997 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 82 $ -$ 915 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 91
2-Karuk Tribe-1 Siskiyou Happy Camp Complete Streets Project 12,221 $ 9,971 $ 600 $ 1,901 $ -$ 7,470 $ 600 $ 800 $ 1,101 $ 7,470 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 91
2-Siskiyou County Transportation
Commission-1 Siskiyou Siskiyou- Regional Active Transportation Plan 212 $ 202 $ 202 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202 $ Plan x 91
4-Contra Costa County-4 Contra Costa
San Pablo Avenue Complete Street/Bay Trail
Gap Closure Project 9,485 $ 8,535 $ 850 $ -$ 7,685 $ -$ 850 $ -$ -$ 7,685 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 91
5-Seaside, City of-1 Monterey Broadway Ave Complete Street Corridor 14,001 $ 12,041 $ 1,576 $ -$ 10,465 $ -$ -$ 1,576 $ -$ 9,450 $ 1,015 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 91
6-Fresno, City of-3 Fresno Cross, Walk & Roll! SRTS in Central Fresno 4,358 $ 3,532 $ 370 $ 147 $ 3,015 $ -$ 9$ 361 $ 147 $ 2,968 $ 47 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 91
7-El Monte, City of-1 Los Angeles Traffic Calming for Parkway Dr/Denholm Dr 5,350 $ 4,167 $ 4,167 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,167 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 91
7-Huntington Park, City of-1 Los Angeles
Huntington Park's Safe Routes and Childhood
Obesity Project 3,757 $ 3,757 $ 325 $ 3,432 $ -$ -$ 50 $ 275 $ -$ 3,405 $ 27 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 91
7-Long Beach, City of-4 Los Angeles Pine Avenue Bicycle Boulevard 4,087 $ 3,678 $ 90 $ 475 $ 514 $ 2,599 $ 90 $ 475 $ -$ 2,599 $ 514 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x 91
7-Los Angeles, City of-10 Los Angeles
Mission Mile: Sepulveda Visioning for a Safe
and Active Community 49,900 $ 39,670 $ 4,958 $ -$ 2,125 $ 32,587 $ 4,958 $ 2,125 $ -$ 32,587 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 91
8-Riverside County-1 Riverside
Riverside County Safe Routes for All - City of
Hemet 636 $ 636 $ -$ 636 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 636 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 91
10-Tuolumne County-1 Tuolumne Jamestown Community Connectivity Project 2,300 $ 2,071 $ 198 $ 147 $ 140 $ 1,586 $ 198 $ 147 $ 140 $ 1,586 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 91
12-Orange County-1 Orange OC Loop Coyote Creek Bikeway (Segment O) 6,605 $ 4,644 $ -$ -$ 4,644 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,644 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 91
2-Shasta County-3 Shasta
Cottonwood Active Transportation Trunk Line
Express (CATTLE) Network 17,844 $ 14,273 $ 1,197 $ 2,556 $ 76 $ 10,444 $ 1,197 $ 1,796 $ 760 $ 10,444 $ 76 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 90
4-Bay Area Toll Authority-1 Alameda
West Oakland Link to Bay Trail and Bay Bridge
Path 65,035 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,000 $ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 90
4-Berkeley, City of-1 Alameda Addison Street Bicycle Boulevard Project 1,997 $ 1,997 $ 10 $ 300 $ 1,687 $ -$ 10 $ 300 $ -$ 1,687 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 90
4-San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency-1 San Francisco Folsom Streetscape Project 38,981 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 90
California Transportation Commission Page 2 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 22
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
5-Santa Barbara, City of-3 Santa Barbara
Upper De La Vina Street Gap Closure and Safe
Crossings 1,998 $ 1,998 $ 290 $ -$ 37 $ 1,671 $ 290 $ 29 $ 8$ 1,671 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 90
5-Santa Cruz Health Services Agency-1 Santa Cruz
Safe Routes for Watsonville School Families
and Community 1,686 $ 1,666 $ 1,666 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,666 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 90
6-Corcoran, City of-1 Kings Corcoran Safe Routes to School 1,998 $ 1,998 $ 235 $ -$ 1,763 $ -$ 15 $ 220 $ -$ 1,763 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 90
6-Visalia, City of-1 Tulare Goshen-Visalia Corridor Improvement Project 14,270 $ 11,273 $ 273 $ -$ 11,000 $ -$ -$ 273 $ -$ 11,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 90
7-Los Angeles, City of-1 Los Angeles
Safe Routes to School Active Transportation
Education Program 2,401 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,160 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 90
7-Santa Monica, City of-1 Los Angeles Wilshire Active Transportation Safety Project 5,450 $ 4,354 $ 480 $ -$ 3,874 $ -$ -$ 480 $ -$ 3,874 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 90
7-Ventura, City of-1 Ventura
Cabrillo Segment Multi-Use Path Gap
Completion 1,008 $ 1,008 $ 178 $ 5$ 825 $ -$ 68 $ 110 $ 5$ 825 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 90
8-Cathedral City, City of-1 Riverside
Downtown Cathedral City Connectors: Gap
Closure & Complete Streets Improvements 5,556 $ 4,383 $ -$ 4,383 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,383 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 90
8-Wildomar, City of-2 Riverside
Mission Trail Active Transportation Project
(MTATP) 6,548 $ 3,638 $ 451 $ 3,110 $ 77 $ -$ 168 $ 168 $ 115 $ 3,110 $ 77 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x 90
10-Modesto, City of-1 Stanislaus Encina-Lincoln Bike Path 6,950 $ 5,550 $ -$ 834 $ -$ 4,716 $ -$ 834 $ -$ 4,716 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 90
10-Stockton, City of-4 San Joaquin
MLK Crossing Improvements and Downtown
Stockton RRFB Project 5,832 $ 5,248 $ 60 $ 977 $ 4,211 $ -$ 60 $ 977 $ -$ 4,211 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 90
10-Stockton, City of-9 San Joaquin
Alpine Pershing Mendocino Bicycle-Pedestrian
Connectivity 4,364 $ 3,924 $ 225 $ 450 $ 3,249 $ -$ 225 $ 450 $ -$ 3,249 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 90
12-Santa Ana, City of-3 Orange
Raitt Street Protected and Buffered Bike Lane
Project 5,499 $ 5,499 $ 81 $ 808 $ 4,610 $ -$ 81 $ 808 $ -$ 4,610 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 90
10-Stanislaus County-1 Stanislaus
Robertson Road Elementary Safe Crossing and
Active Transportation Connectivity Project 1,997 $ 1,609 $ -$ 1,609 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,609 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 89.5
4-Alameda County-1 Alameda
Mission Boulevard Safe and Complete Street for
Active Transportation 30,943 $ 7,900 $ -$ 7,900 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,900 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 89
4-Alameda County-3 Alameda
Anita Avenue Safe and Accessible Route to
School and Transit 5,425 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,100 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 89
4-Berkeley, City of-2 Alameda
Washington Elementary and Berkeley High
SR2S Project 1,425 $ 1,425 $ 5$ 200 $ 1,220 $ -$ 5$ 200 $ -$ 1,220 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 89
4-Concord, City of-1 Contra Costa
Willow Pass/Parkside/Salvio Bikeways
Connection Project 2,968 $ 2,621 $ 118 $ 472 $ -$ 2,031 $ 118 $ 354 $ 118 $ 2,031 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 89
5-California Department of Transportation-4 Santa Barbara Los Alamos Connected Community Project 6,899 $ 6,499 $ 710 $ -$ 1,897 $ 3,892 $ 710 $ 984 $ 913 $ 3,842 $ 50 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 89
5-Salinas, City of-1 Monterey Alisal Safe Routes to School Project 1,338 $ 1,338 $ 206 $ 1,132 $ -$ -$ -$ 206 $ -$ 1,132 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 89
6-Porterville, City of-3 Tulare Putnam and Elderwood Area Pedestrian Project 1,104 $ 494 $ -$ 494 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 494 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 89
7-Lancaster, City of-2 Los Angeles
Lancaster Safe Routes to School Master Plan
Implementation, Phase 2 6,384 $ 5,424 $ 450 $ -$ 420 $ 4,554 $ 450 $ 420 $ -$ 4,554 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 89
7-Los Angeles, City of-9 Los Angeles
Normandie Beautiful: Creating Neighborhood
Connections in South L.A. 21,395 $ 17,009 $ 2,103 $ -$ 944 $ 13,962 $ 2,103 $ 944 $ -$ 13,962 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 89
8-Riverside County-2 Riverside
Hemet Area Safe Routes to School Sidewalk
Project 1,946 $ 1,946 $ 25 $ 565 $ -$ 1,356 $ 25 $ 225 $ 340 $ 1,181 $ 175 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 89
8-Riverside County-20 Riverside Riverside County Safe Routes for All - Coachella 657 $ 657 $ -$ 657 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 657 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 89
11-National City, City of-2 San Diego Civic Center Drive Protected Bikeway 1,890 $ 1,888 $ 48 $ 280 $ 1,560 $ -$ 48 $ 280 $ -$ 1,560 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 89
5-Santa Barbara, City of-1* Santa Barbara
Cliff Drive: Urban Highway to Complete Street
Transformation Project 24,938 $ 24,689 $ 2,003 $ 928 $ -$ 21,758 $ 2,003 $ 858 $ 70 $ 21,693 $ 65 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 89
11-Chula Vista, City of-2 San Diego Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A 2,339 $ 1,953 $ -$ 250 $ 1,703 $ -$ -$ 250 $ -$ 1,703 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 88.5
3-West Sacramento, City of-1 Yolo
I Street Bridge Deck Conversion for Active
Transportation Project 25,671 $ 21,555 $ 2,600 $ 775 $ -$ 18,180 $ -$ 2,600 $ 775 $ 18,180 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 88
4-Contra Costa County-6 Contra Costa Carquinez Middle School Trail Connection 4,700 $ 4,550 $ 510 $ 340 $ 3,700 $ -$ 510 $ 340 $ -$ 3,700 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 88
California Transportation Commission Page 3 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 23
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
4-Oakland, City of-3 Alameda Bancroft Avenue Greenway 33,690 $ 4,475 $ 845 $ 3,630 $ -$ -$ 845 $ 3,630 $ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 88
4-Santa Rosa, City of-1 Sonoma
Santa Rosa US Highway 101 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Overcrossing 27,100 $ 12,000 $ -$ -$ 12,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 12,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 88
5-Santa Barbara, City of-2 Santa Barbara
Westside and Lower West Neighborhood Active
Transportation Plan Implementation 12,239 $ 12,117 $ 1,633 $ 560 $ -$ 9,924 $ 1,633 $ 513 $ 47 $ 9,830 $ 94 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 88
6-Porterville, City of-1 Tulare
Butterfield Stage Corridor Project (Tea Pot
Dome to Avenue 196) 14,150 $ 13,500 $ -$ 13,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,500 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 88
7-Los Angeles County-3 Los Angeles
Metro A Line Connections for Unincorporated
Los Angeles County 12,330 $ 12,330 $ 1,012 $ -$ 3,785 $ 7,533 $ 1,012 $ 650 $ 3,135 $ 7,533 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 88
7-Southern California Association of
Governments-1 Los Angeles
SCAG Statewide Go Human Local
Demonstration & Capacity Building Program 3,644 $ 3,644 $ 3,644 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,644 $ Non-Infrastructure x 88
8-Coachella Valley Association of
Governments-1 Riverside Coachella Valley Arts & Music Line 26,818 $ 16,903 $ -$ 16,903 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16,903 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 88
8-Fontana, City of-4 San Bernardino
Date Elementary School Street Improvements
Project 1,808 $ 1,808 $ 71 $ -$ 128 $ 1,609 $ 71 $ 128 $ -$ 1,591 $ 18 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 88
8-Riverside, City of-2 Riverside
Five Points Neighborhood Pedestrian Safety
Improvements 6,953 $ 6,113 $ -$ -$ 1,070 $ 5,043 $ -$ -$ 1,070 $ 5,043 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 88
10-Stockton, City of-10 San Joaquin
8th Street/Houston Avenue/Manthey Road
Bicycle/Pedestrian Connectivity 5,114 $ 4,602 $ 270 $ 563 $ 3,769 $ -$ 270 $ 563 $ -$ 3,769 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 88
11-San Diego, City of-3 San Diego Southeastern San Diego Safe Routes to School 666 $ 666 $ 666 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 666 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 88
12-Santa Ana, City of-20 Orange Fitz Int_Heritage ES_Russell ES_Newhope 5,986 $ 5,986 $ 91 $ 680 $ 5,215 $ -$ 91 $ 680 $ -$ 5,215 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 88
2-Shasta County-2 Shasta Cottonwood Lasso Loop 12,848 $ 10,277 $ 858 $ 1,947 $ 50 $ 7,422 $ 858 $ 1,287 $ 660 $ 7,422 $ 50 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 87
4-Alameda County-4 Alameda
D Street Safe Route to Fairview Elementary
School 6,964 $ 2,500 $ -$ -$ 2,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 87
4-Emeryville, City of-2 Alameda
40th Street Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian
Improvements 13,915 $ 1,374 $ 1,374 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,374 $ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 87
4-Sonoma County-1 Sonoma Moorland Pedestrian and School Access 4,854 $ 4,454 $ 193 $ 348 $ 3,913 $ -$ 78 $ 69 $ 46 $ 3,913 $ 348 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 87
5-Santa Cruz, City of-1 Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Rail Trail Segment 8 and 9
Construction 32,069 $ 19,986 $ 655 $ 19,331 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250 $ 19,081 $ 655 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 87
6-Dinuba, City of-2 Tulare
El Monte Way Pedestrian and Bicycle
Improvements 3,214 $ 2,837 $ 423 $ 2,414 $ -$ -$ 76 $ 347 $ -$ 2,414 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 87
6-Selma, City of-3 Fresno
Dinuba Avenue Class II Bike Lane
Improvements 343 $ 343 $ 343 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 38 $ -$ 305 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 87
7-Lynwood, City of-2 Los Angeles Lynwood Safe Routes To School (SRTS) Plan 250 $ 238 $ 238 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 238 $ Plan x x 87
8-Apple Valley, Town of-1 San Bernardino
Yucca Loma Elementary School Safe Routes to
School Phase 2 986 $ 838 $ 191 $ 647 $ -$ -$ -$ 85 $ 106 $ 647 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 87
8-Desert Hot Springs, City of-3 Riverside Desert Hot Springs CV Link Extension Project 32,572 $ 29,035 $ -$ 1,290 $ 27,745 $ -$ -$ -$ 1,290 $ 27,745 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 87
8-Eastvale, City of-1 Riverside
Southeast Eastvale Safe Routes to School
Equitable Access Project 1,420 $ 1,420 $ 1,420 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150 $ -$ 1,270 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 87
8-San Bernardino County-1 San Bernardino Santa Ana River Trail - Phase III 6,880 $ 1,105 $ 1,105 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,105 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 87
11-El Cajon, City of-1 San Diego
Johnson Avenue Neighborhood Trail & School
Connections project 4,620 $ 4,220 $ 815 $ 3,405 $ -$ -$ 2$ 295 $ -$ 3,405 $ 518 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 87
11-Oceanside, City of-3 San Diego
Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Boulevard to
Morse Street 9,075 $ 7,659 $ 500 $ 7,159 $ -$ -$ -$ 500 $ -$ 7,159 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 87
12-Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA)-1 Orange
Garden Grove - Santa Ana Rails-to-Trails Gap
Closure 42,397 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 3,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 87
7-Paramount, City of-1 Los Angeles West Santa Ana Branch Bikeway Phase 3 4,800 $ 4,300 $ 496 $ -$ -$ 3,804 $ -$ 496 $ -$ 3,804 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 86.5
8-Desert Hot Springs, City of-1 Riverside
Palm Drive Improvements - Pierson Blvd. to
Mission Lakes Blvd. 4,905 $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,700 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 86.5
2-Shasta County RTPA-1 Shasta
North Redding Active Transportation Trunk Line
(NRATTL) 24,418 $ 19,533 $ 318 $ -$ 3,714 $ 15,501 $ 318 $ 2,158 $ 1,556 $ 15,353 $ 148 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 86
California Transportation Commission Page 4 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 24
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
3-Nevada County Transportation
Commission-1 Nevada
SR 174/49/20 Roundabout and Active
Transportation Safety Project 6,526 $ 6,526 $ 500 $ -$ 646 $ 5,380 $ 500 $ 600 $ 46 $ 5,380 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 86
3-Paradise, Town of-1 Butte Skyway Connectivity Project 5,937 $ 4,632 $ 93 $ 649 $ -$ 3,890 $ 93 $ 331 $ 318 $ 3,890 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 86
4-Alameda County-6 Alameda
San Lorenzo Creekway: Building Equitable
Active Transportation in Alameda County 28,300 $ 23,385 $ 552 $ 2,272 $ -$ 20,561 $ 552 $ 2,022 $ 250 $ 18,143 $ 2,418 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 86
4-Oakland, City of-5 Alameda
International Boulevard Pedestrian Lighting and
Sidewalk Improvements 14,824 $ 11,651 $ -$ -$ 11,651 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,651 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 86
5-San Luis Obispo County-2 San Luis Obispo Morro Bay to Cayucos Multi-Use Trail 12,198 $ 6,357 $ -$ 6,357 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,357 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 86
6-Dinuba, City of-4 Tulare
Kamm Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle
Improvements 1,139 $ 839 $ 84 $ 755 $ -$ -$ 4$ 80 $ -$ 755 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 86
7-Culver City, City of-2 Los Angeles
E Line (Expo) to Downtown Bicycle, Pedestrian,
and Transit Corridor 12,233 $ 10,393 $ 368 $ 10,025 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,025 $ 368 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 86
7-Los Angeles County-5 Los Angeles
Four Pedestrian Plans for High-Collision
Disadvantaged Communities in LA County 1,860 $ 1,860 $ -$ 1,860 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,860 $ Plan x 86
7-Los Angeles, City of-2 Los Angeles
SRTS Cabrillo Avenue Elementary School
Project 4,744 $ 4,269 $ 61 $ -$ 701 $ 3,507 $ 61 $ 701 $ -$ 3,507 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 86
7-Los Angeles, City of-6 Los Angeles
Hollywood Walk of Fame Safety and
Connectivity Project: Phase One 19,696 $ 15,726 $ 1,526 $ -$ 14,200 $ -$ -$ 1,526 $ -$ 14,200 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 86
7-Oxnard, City of-1 Ventura SRTS Safety and Enhancements Project 1,981 $ 1,981 $ 202 $ 1,779 $ -$ -$ -$ 202 $ -$ 1,480 $ 299 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 86
8-Barstow, City of-1 San Bernardino
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Safe Routes to Schools
Corridors (SR2S), Barstow 6,902 $ 6,902 $ 100 $ -$ 302 $ 6,500 $ 100 $ 200 $ 40 $ 6,500 $ 62 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 86
9-Tehachapi, City of-1 Kern
SRTS Dennison Road Bicycle/Pedestrian
Corridor Improvement Project 2,437 $ 2,432 $ 345 $ 2,087 $ -$ -$ -$ 225 $ 120 $ 2,087 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 86
11-San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG)-4 San Diego Inland Rail Trail - Gap Connector 15,825 $ 12,057 $ 1,236 $ -$ -$ 10,821 $ -$ 1,236 $ -$ 10,821 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 86
12-Fullerton, City of-1 Orange
Bridging the Gap: Nutwood Avenue Bicycle and
Pedestrian Mobility Enhancements 6,523 $ 6,252 $ -$ 1,233 $ 5,019 $ -$ 48 $ 1,114 $ 58 $ 5,019 $ 13 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x 86
12-Santa Ana, City of-7 Orange
Santa Ana High School, Heninger Elementary
and ALA SRTS 6,855 $ 6,855 $ 107 $ 643 $ 6,105 $ -$ 107 $ 643 $ -$ 6,105 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 86
11-Vista, City of-2 San Diego Emerald Drive Complete Streets Project 3,931 $ 3,734 $ 755 $ 2,979 $ -$ -$ 100 $ 450 $ 205 $ 2,979 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 85.5
6-Dinuba, City of-6* Tulare Euclid Avenue-Phase 2 Improvements 1,571 $ 1,501 $ 168 $ 1,333 $ -$ -$ 20 $ 148 $ -$ 1,333 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 85
1-Eureka, City of-2 Humboldt C Street Bike Boulevard 1,995 $ 1,869 $ 1,869 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,869 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 85
2-Modoc County-1 Modoc
Surprise Valley School Safety and Community
Connectivity Project 2,439 $ 2,439 $ 131 $ 164 $ 2,144 $ -$ 131 $ 159 $ 5$ 2,144 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 85
2-Shasta County-1 Shasta West Cottonwood School Connector 12,622 $ 10,096 $ 860 $ 1,700 $ 49 $ 7,487 $ 860 $ 1,290 $ 410 $ 7,487 $ 49 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 85
3-Yuba County-2 Yuba Garden Avenue Safe Route to School Project 2,500 $ 2,320 $ -$ 50 $ 2,270 $ -$ -$ 50 $ -$ 2,270 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 85
4-Alameda County Transportation
Commission-1 Alameda East Bay Greenway 224,070 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,000 $ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 85
4-Healdsburg, City of-1 Sonoma Healdsburg Avenue Complete Streets Project 12,117 $ 10,107 $ 50 $ 250 $ 9,807 $ -$ 50 $ 210 $ 40 $ 9,807 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 85
5-Santa Barbara County-2 Santa Barbara
Isla Vista Bike and Pedestrian Improvements
Project 4,539 $ 3,997 $ 143 $ 267 $ 3,587 $ -$ 143 $ 188 $ 79 $ 3,587 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 85
6-Coalinga, City of-1 Fresno
Coalinga East Polk Street Bike/Ped Safety and
Connectivity Initiative 1,770 $ 1,551 $ 23 $ 475 $ 1,053 $ -$ 23 $ 144 $ 331 $ 1,025 $ 28 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x 85
7-Los Angeles, City of-7 Los Angeles
LA River Greenway East San Fernando Valley
Gap Closure 34,927 $ 19,927 $ 3,100 $ 3,175 $ -$ 13,652 $ 3,100 $ 3,100 $ 75 $ 13,652 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 85
10-Stockton, City of-1 San Joaquin Main Street and Market Street Complete Streets 6,999 $ 6,299 $ -$ 1,150 $ -$ 5,149 $ -$ 1,150 $ -$ 5,149 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 85
11-Oceanside, City of-2 San Diego
Palmquist Elementary and Lincoln Middle Safe
Routes to School 1,424 $ 1,411 $ 427 $ 984 $ -$ -$ 150 $ 150 $ -$ 984 $ 127 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x 85
12-Brea, City of-1 Orange Tracks at Brea Final Phase Gap Closure 14,046 $ 5,030 $ 5,030 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,030 $ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 85
California Transportation Commission Page 5 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 25
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
3-Paradise, Town of-4 Butte Oliver Curve Pathway Project 5,944 $ 5,097 $ 190 $ -$ -$ 4,907 $ -$ -$ 190 $ 4,907 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 84
3-Roseville, City of-1 Placer Dry Creek Greenway East Trail, Phase 2 6,566 $ 5,176 $ -$ -$ 5,176 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,013 $ 163 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 84
4-Alameda County-2 Alameda
E. Lewelling Boulevard Safe and Complete
Street for Active Transportation 9,233 $ 2,996 $ -$ 2,996 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,996 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 84
6-Kern Council of Governments-1 Kern
Safe Routes for Cyclists in Kern County's
Disadvantaged Communities 826 $ 792 $ 792 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 792 $ Non-Infrastructure x 84
7-Lynwood, City of-1 Los Angeles
Mid City Safe Routes to School Pedestrian
Safety Project 4,596 $ 4,356 $ 710 $ -$ 3,646 $ -$ -$ 710 $ -$ 3,646 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 84
8-Riverside County-4 Riverside
Theda Street Safe Routes to School Sidewalk
Project 1,881 $ 1,881 $ 25 $ 575 $ -$ 1,281 $ 25 $ 235 $ 340 $ 1,181 $ 100 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 84
10-Calaveras County-1 Calaveras
San Andreas Pope Street and Safe Routes to
School Project 6,710 $ 6,596 $ 336 $ 1,050 $ -$ 5,210 $ 336 $ 600 $ 450 $ 5,210 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 84
10-San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission-1 San Joaquin
East Channel Street Streetscape and
Connectivity Project 6,992 $ 4,516 $ 4,516 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,516 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 84
10-Stockton, City of-5 San Joaquin
Greater Downtown Bike and Ped Connectivity
(Lincoln/Rose/Aurora) 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 75 $ 215 $ 1,710 $ -$ 75 $ 215 $ -$ 1,710 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 84
11-Chula Vista, City of-1 San Diego
F Street Promenade Phase I, from Bay
Boulevard to Broadway 9,060 $ 5,770 $ 790 $ 4,980 $ -$ -$ 130 $ 660 $ -$ 4,980 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 84
12-Anaheim, City of-1 Orange Rio Vista Safe Routes to School Project 999 $ 999 $ 20 $ 255 $ 724 $ -$ 20 $ 135 $ 120 $ 724 $ -$ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 84
12-Orange County-2 Orange
OC Loop Coyote Creek Bikeway (Segments O,
P, Q) 45,354 $ 31,806 $ 3,400 $ -$ 28,406 $ -$ -$ -$ 3,400 $ 28,406 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 84
12-Santa Ana, City of-19 Orange Rosita ES_Hazard ES 5,652 $ 5,652 $ 86 $ 642 $ 4,924 $ -$ 86 $ 642 $ -$ 4,924 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 84
8-Menifee, City of-2 Riverside
Harvest Valley Elementary Safe Routes to
School 2,997 $ 2,397 $ 245 $ 40 $ 2,112 $ -$ 15 $ 230 $ 40 $ 2,112 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 83.5
8-Ontario, City of-3 San Bernardino Euclid West Pedestrian Improvements 1,996 $ 1,996 $ 5$ 245 $ 1,746 $ -$ 5$ 245 $ -$ 1,746 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 83.5
1-Humboldt County Association of
Governments-1 Humboldt Humboldt Regional Active Transportation Plan 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200 $ Plan x 83
3-Sacramento County-3 Sacramento
Watt Avenue Complete Street Improvements,
Phase 1 12,798 $ 8,767 $ 1,100 $ -$ 7,667 $ -$ -$ 700 $ 400 $ 7,667 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 83
4-California Department of Transportation-3 Contra Costa
Central Avenue I-80 Undercrossing Ped/Bike
Improvements 4,333 $ 3,833 $ 535 $ 1,050 $ -$ 2,248 $ 535 $ 677 $ 373 $ 2,248 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 83
4-Fremont, City of-1 Alameda
Walnut Avenue Corridor Protected Intersections
Project 3,555 $ 2,712 $ -$ 2,712 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,712 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 83
4-San Rafael, City of-1 Marin San Rafael Canal Crossing Project 22,127 $ 1,575 $ 1,575 $ -$ -$ -$ 1,575 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 83
6-Dinuba, City of-1 Tulare
Connecting Dinuba N-S for Bike/Pedestrian
Safety - Alta Avenue 3,081 $ 2,631 $ 388 $ -$ 2,243 $ -$ 73 $ 315 $ -$ 2,243 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 83
6-Woodlake, City of-1 Tulare Sequoia Ave Pedestrian Improvement Project 1,481 $ 1,247 $ 1,247 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,247 $ -$ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 83
7-San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments-
1 Los Angeles
Metro L (Gold) Line Fairplex Safety and
Connectivity Project 8,513 $ 6,810 $ -$ 6,810 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,810 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 83
7-West Covina, City of-1 Los Angeles
West Covina Safe Routes to School &
Pedestrian Safety Project 1,999 $ 1,999 $ 150 $ 1,849 $ -$ -$ 10 $ 140 $ -$ 1,849 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 83
10-Lathrop,City of-2 San Joaquin Lathrop Active Transportation Plan 200 $ 190 $ 190 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 190 $ Plan x 83
10-Stanislaus County-2 Stanislaus
Denair School Safe Crossing and Active
Transportation Connectivity Project 3,070 $ 2,445 $ -$ -$ 2,445 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,445 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 83
10-Stockton, City of-7 San Joaquin Stockton Citywide Active Transportation Plan 825 $ 825 $ 825 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 825 $ Plan x 83
11-Solana Beach, City of-1 San Diego
Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project,
Solana Beach 12,214 $ 10,754 $ 370 $ 10,270 $ 114 $ -$ -$ -$ 370 $ 10,270 $ 114 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 83
11-Vista, City of-1 San Diego Rancho Minerva Safe Routes to School 3,687 $ 3,502 $ 427 $ 3,075 $ -$ -$ 142 $ 285 $ 50 $ 3,025 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 83
4-Corte Madera, Town of-1 Marin
Central Marin Regional Pathways Gap Closure
Project 1,996 $ 1,326 $ 1,326 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,326 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 82
California Transportation Commission Page 6 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 26
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
5-El Paso De Robles, City of-1 San Luis Obispo
Creston Road Active Transportation and Bike
and School Access Improvements 12,190 $ 6,026 $ 6,000 $ -$ 26 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000 $ 26 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 82
5-King City, City of-1 Monterey
San Antonio Drive Bikeway & School Gap
Closure 6,712 $ 6,612 $ 590 $ 6,022 $ -$ -$ 100 $ 490 $ -$ 6,022 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 82
5-Santa Cruz, City of-3 Santa Cruz Swanton Delaware Multiuse Path 2,292 $ 2,092 $ 90 $ 2,002 $ -$ -$ 10 $ 80 $ 25 $ 1,977 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 82
5-Santa Maria, City of-1 Santa Barbara
Active Santa Maria Safe Routes to School
Corridor Improvements 5,256 $ 4,948 $ 92 $ 920 $ 3,936 $ -$ 92 $ 320 $ 600 $ 3,936 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 82
7-Avalon, City of-1 Los Angeles
Tremont Five Corners School Safety
Roundabouts 5,106 $ 2,890 $ 2,890 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,870 $ 20 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 82
7-Culver City, City of-1 Los Angeles
Overland-Transit Center Bicycle and Pedestrian
Connector 6,732 $ 5,652 $ 996 $ 4,656 $ -$ -$ 168 $ 524 $ -$ 4,656 $ 304 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 82
7-Pico Rivera, City of-1 Los Angeles
City of Pico Rivera Active Transportation Master
Plan 411 $ 411 $ 411 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 411 $ Plan x 82
8-Highland, City of-1 San Bernardino
Highland/San Bernardino Bi-City Transformative
Bikeway/Walkway Connector 22,222 $ 19,241 $ 928 $ 1,787 $ -$ 16,526 $ 888 $ 1,392 $ 395 $ 16,526 $ 40 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 82
8-Montclair, City of-1 San Bernardino Montclair SRTS Implementation Project 5,426 $ 5,426 $ 580 $ 4,846 $ -$ -$ 145 $ 435 $ -$ 4,764 $ 82 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 82
8-Riverside County-6 Riverside
Mecca-North Shore Community Connector Bike
Lanes 10,055 $ 10,055 $ 200 $ 1,600 $ 8,205 $ 50 $ 200 $ 1,600 $ -$ 8,205 $ 50 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 82
8-Temecula, City of-1 Riverside Temecula Creek Southside Trail Project 3,637 $ 3,218 $ 58 $ 3,160 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,160 $ 58 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 82
11-National City, City of-1 San Diego El Toyon Multi-Use Path 1,320 $ 1,268 $ 63 $ 1,205 $ -$ -$ 15 $ 48 $ -$ 1,205 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 82
8-San Bernardino, City of-1 San Bernardino
Marshall Elementary Safe Route to School
Improvements 3,366 $ 3,366 $ 350 $ -$ 3,016 $ -$ 50 $ 300 $ -$ 3,016 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 81.5
2-Redding, City of-3* Shasta California Street Bikeway 4,302 $ 2,413 $ -$ 2,413 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,413 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 81
3-Nevada County Transportation
Commission-2 Nevada
SR 49 Multimodal Corridor Improvements,
Nevada City 10,550 $ 10,550 $ 645 $ -$ 811 $ 9,094 $ 645 $ 806 $ 5$ 9,019 $ 75 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 81
3-Paradise, Town of-3 Butte Pentz Pathway Project Phase II 35,377 $ 10,188 $ -$ -$ -$ 10,188 $ -$ -$ -$ 10,188 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 81
3-Placer County-1 Placer Kings Beach Western Approach Project 8,329 $ 6,050 $ 6,050 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,260 $ 4,790 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 81
5-Buellton, City of-1 Santa Barbara
Santa Ynez River Trail: Connecting Buellton,
Solvang, and Chumash Reservation 20,403 $ 2,490 $ 740 $ 1,750 $ -$ -$ 740 $ 1,400 $ 350 $ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 81
6-Delano, City of-2 Kern
ATP-5 Bike Lane and Sidewalk Gap
Improvement Project 925 $ 911 $ -$ -$ 911 $ -$ -$ 120 $ -$ 716 $ 75 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 81
6-Selma, City of-2 Fresno Mitchell Avenue Sidewalk Improvements 611 $ 611 $ 147 $ -$ 464 $ -$ -$ 68 $ 79 $ 464 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 81
8-San Jacinto, City of-1 Riverside San Jacinto Complete Streets Plan 328 $ 328 $ 328 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 328 $ Plan x x 81
9-Bishop, City of-1 Inyo Sierra Street Bicycle Path Rehabilitation 1,717 $ 1,717 $ 125 $ 384 $ -$ 1,208 $ 125 $ 84 $ 300 $ 1,208 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 81
10-Waterford, City of-1 Stanislaus
Waterford Safe Routes to School Project –
Yosemite Boulevard 946 $ 946 $ 55 $ 88 $ 803 $ -$ 15 $ 40 $ 88 $ 803 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 81
12-Santa Ana, City of-5 Orange
Orange Avenue Bike Lane and Bicycle
Boulevard Project 4,858 $ 4,858 $ 71 $ 709 $ 4,078 $ -$ 71 $ 709 $ -$ 4,078 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 81
3-Placerville, City of-1 El Dorado
Placerville Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities 26,913 $ 14,185 $ 930 $ -$ 13,255 $ -$ -$ 845 $ 85 $ 13,255 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 80
4-Menlo Park, City of-1* San Mateo
Middle Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Rail Crossing
Project 20,258 $ 10,000 $ 6,820 $ 3,180 $ -$ -$ -$ 100 $ 6,720 $ 3,180 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 80
4-Napa County Office of Education-1 Napa Napa County Safe Routes to School Program 996 $ 869 $ 869 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 869 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 80
5-Santa Barbara, City of-4 Santa Barbara
Milpas Street Crosswalk Safety and Sidewalk
Widening Project 27,642 $ 27,366 $ 3,635 $ 1,712 $ -$ 22,019 $ 3,635 $ 1,212 $ 500 $ 22,019 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 80
6-Bakersfield, City of-2 Kern Chester Avenue (4th Street to Brundage Lane) 791 $ 791 $ 791 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 91 $ -$ 700 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 80
7-Glendora, City of-1 Los Angeles
Glendora L-Line (Gold) Extension First/Last Mile
Projects - Glendora Avenue 4,275 $ 3,415 $ 140 $ 390 $ -$ 2,885 $ 140 $ 390 $ -$ 2,885 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium 80
California Transportation Commission Page 7 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 27
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
7-South Gate, City of-2 Los Angeles Hollydale Area Access Improvements Project 313 $ 313 $ 29 $ 284 $ -$ -$ 10 $ 19 $ -$ 284 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 80
8-Riverside, City of-1 Riverside Mitchell Avenue Sidepath Gap Closure 6,989 $ 6,289 $ -$ 200 $ 2,373 $ 3,716 $ -$ 200 $ 2,373 $ 3,716 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 80
12-Santa Ana, City of-1 Orange Safe Mobility Santa Ana 5,282 $ 5,282 $ 77 $ 771 $ 4,434 $ -$ 77 $ 771 $ -$ 4,434 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 80
12-Santa Ana, City of-6 Orange St. Andrews Place Bicycle Boulevard Project 3,218 $ 3,218 $ 47 $ 470 $ 2,701 $ -$ 47 $ 470 $ -$ 2,701 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 80
12-Santa Ana, City of-8 Orange
Monroe Elementary and Edison Elementary
SRTS 6,705 $ 6,705 $ 102 $ 762 $ 5,841 $ -$ 102 $ 762 $ -$ 5,841 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 80
4-Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)-1* Marin
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Shared Use Path
Gap Closure 5,612 $ 4,302 $ 4,302 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,302 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 80
4-San Bruno, City of-1 San Mateo
Huntington Bikeway and Pedestrian Safety
Project 6,750 $ 6,572 $ 1,003 $ 5,569 $ -$ -$ -$ 805 $ 198 $ 5,569 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 79.5
10-Manteca, City of-1 San Joaquin Manteca SRTS Pedestrian Safety Improvements 3,477 $ 3,477 $ 248 $ 373 $ -$ 2,856 $ 248 $ 373 $ -$ 2,856 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 79.5
1-Round Valley Indians Tribe-1 Mendocino
Foothill Blvd. Safe Routes to School Sidewalk
Project 1,543 $ 1,543 $ 170 $ 1,373 $ -$ -$ 50 $ 120 $ -$ 1,373 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 79
3-El Dorado County-4 El Dorado
Ponderosa Road Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements 1,801 $ 496 $ 496 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 496 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 79
3-Elk Grove, City of-1 Sacramento
Laguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail Crossing at
State Route 99 7,770 $ 434 $ 434 $ -$ -$ -$ 434 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 79
4-Contra Costa County-3 Contra Costa Market Avenue Complete Street 3,209 $ 2,884 $ 295 $ -$ 2,589 $ -$ 295 $ -$ -$ 2,589 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 79
4-Oakland, City of-6 Alameda
International Boulevard Pedestrian Lighting and
Sidewalk Improvements (M) 6,598 $ 5,212 $ -$ -$ 5,212 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,212 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 79
5-Atascadero, City of-1 San Luis Obispo Downtown Infrastructure Enhancement Plan 6,952 $ 6,352 $ 25 $ 1,125 $ 5,202 $ -$ 25 $ 1,050 $ 75 $ 5,202 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium 79
6-Bakersfield, City of-4 Kern North Bakersfield Bicycle Connectivity Project 234 $ 234 $ 234 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 234 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 79
6-Clovis, City of-1 Fresno
Sierra Vista Elementary Area Sidewalk
Improvements 997 $ 997 $ 25 $ 96 $ 876 $ -$ 25 $ 96 $ -$ 876 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 79
6-Orange Cove, City of-1 Fresno
Bike Lane, Sidewalk and Crossing Improvement
Project 973 $ 973 $ 973 $ -$ -$ -$ 25 $ 109 $ -$ 839 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 79
7-Baldwin Park, City of-1 Los Angeles Baldwin Park Blvd Bike Lane Project 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 83 $ -$ 2,017 $ -$ 50 $ 33 $ -$ 2,017 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 79
7-Manhattan Beach, City of-1 Los Angeles
Rowell Avenue Safe Routes to School
Connectivity Improvement Project 1,531 $ 1,531 $ 75 $ 235 $ -$ 1,221 $ 75 $ 185 $ 50 $ 1,221 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 79
8-Menifee, City of-1 Riverside
Romoland Elementary SRTS Sidewalk Gap
Closure and Pedestrian Improvements 6,413 $ 5,453 $ 370 $ 5,083 $ -$ -$ 60 $ 260 $ 50 $ 5,083 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 79
8-Riverside County-5 Riverside
Grand Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Improvement Project 2,820 $ 2,820 $ 25 $ 650 $ -$ 2,145 $ 25 $ 400 $ 250 $ 2,045 $ 100 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 79
8-Twentynine Palms, City of-1 San Bernardino Class II Bike Paths on Amboy Road 643 $ 643 $ 10 $ 90 $ 543 $ -$ 10 $ 80 $ 10 $ 543 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 79
8-Wildomar, City of-1 Riverside
Bundy Canyon Active Transportation Corridor
(BCATC) 3,990 $ 1,454 $ 1,454 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,377 $ 77 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium 79
12-La Habra, City of-1 Orange La Habra Rails to Trail OC Loop Gap Closure 43,223 $ 36,729 $ 3,839 $ 247 $ 32,643 $ -$ -$ -$ 3,839 $ 32,643 $ 247 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 79
7-Los Angeles County-4 Los Angeles Los Nietos Pedestrian Access Improvements 5,574 $ 5,574 $ 615 $ -$ 390 $ 4,569 $ 615 $ 390 $ -$ 4,569 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 78.5
3-El Dorado County-5 El Dorado
Golden Center Drive/Forni Road Pedestrian and
Bicycle Improvements Project 1,982 $ 1,982 $ 462 $ -$ 1,520 $ -$ 133 $ 199 $ 130 $ 1,520 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 78
3-South Lake Tahoe, City of-1 El Dorado
Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project
Phase 2 3,400 $ 3,400 $ 3,400 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500 $ 2,900 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 78
3-Yolo County-1 Yolo
Yolo-80 Corridor Improvement Project - Bikeway
Connectivity 17,700 $ 1,900 $ 1,900 $ -$ -$ -$ 1,000 $ 900 $ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 78
3-Yuba County-1 Yuba
Ninth Avenue & Fleming Way Safe Route to
School Project 5,370 $ 5,070 $ -$ 214 $ 4,856 $ -$ -$ 214 $ -$ 4,856 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 78
4-Contra Costa County-1 Contra Costa
Appian Way Corridor - Pedestrian Crossing
Enhancements 2,332 $ 1,961 $ 101 $ 67 $ -$ 1,793 $ 101 $ 67 $ -$ 1,793 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 78
California Transportation Commission Page 8 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 28
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
4-Napa County-1 Napa
Napa Valley Vine Trail Yountville to St Helena
Gap Closure 16,200 $ 10,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 10,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 10,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 78
5-Monterey, City of-1 Monterey
Del Monte/Washington Intersection, Bike, and
Pedestrian Improvements 2,798 $ 2,238 $ 24 $ 280 $ 1,934 $ -$ 24 $ 280 $ -$ 1,934 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium 78
8-Fontana, City of-1 San Bernardino
San Sevaine Class I Multi-Use Trail:Philadelphia
to North of Foothill 30,831 $ 30,331 $ 2,575 $ 3,745 $ -$ 24,011 $ 2,575 $ 2,575 $ 1,170 $ 23,961 $ 50 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 78
8-Fontana, City of-2 San Bernardino
San Sevaine Class I Multi-Use Trail:
Philadelphia to Slover 9,840 $ 9,340 $ 750 $ 1,920 $ -$ 6,670 $ 750 $ 750 $ 1,170 $ 6,645 $ 25 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 78
10-Waterford, City of-2 Stanislaus
Waterford Safe Routes to School Project –
Washington Road 504 $ 504 $ 35 $ 469 $ -$ -$ 10 $ 25 $ 32 $ 437 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 78
12-Buena Park, City of-1 Orange
Dale Street Complete Street and Safe Route to
School Project 810 $ 611 $ 611 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 611 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 78
12-Santa Ana, City of-10 Orange Jackson ES_Diamond ES 7,737 $ 7,737 $ 120 $ 720 $ 6,897 $ -$ 120 $ 720 $ -$ 6,897 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 78
8-Jurupa Valley, City of-1 Riverside Pacific Avenue Safe Route to School Project 4,132 $ 2,403 $ 233 $ 2,170 $ -$ -$ -$ 233 $ -$ 2,170 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 78
7-Ventura County-1 Ventura
Saticoy to Santa Paula: West Branch Trail Gap
Closure 22,434 $ 21,000 $ 1,500 $ 2,250 $ 17,250 $ -$ 1,500 $ 2,250 $ -$ 17,250 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 77.5
1-Mendocino Council of Governments-1 Mendocino
Gualala Downtown Streetscape Enhancement
Project 9,039 $ 7,224 $ 260 $ 437 $ -$ 6,527 $ 260 $ 250 $ 187 $ 6,527 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 77
3-Rancho Cordova, City of-1 Sacramento
Safe Routes to School Safety Enhancement
Project 1,987 $ 1,987 $ 275 $ 1,712 $ -$ -$ -$ 275 $ -$ 1,712 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 77
6-Dinuba, City of-3 Tulare
Complete Streets in Downtown Dinuba - Tulare
Street 1,946 $ 1,946 $ 245 $ 1,701 $ -$ -$ 45 $ 200 $ -$ 1,701 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 77
7-Lancaster, City of-1 Los Angeles
Avenue L Interchange Bike/Ped Safety
Improvements and Gap Closure 12,780 $ 10,854 $ 254 $ 10,600 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,600 $ 254 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x x 77
10-California Department of Transportation-1 Tuolumne
District 10-Groveland Bike and Pedestrian
Improvement Project 2,750 $ 2,295 $ 180 $ 755 $ -$ 1,360 $ 180 $ 220 $ 535 $ 1,360 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 77
10-Escalon, City of-1 San Joaquin Main Street Bike and Pedestrian Improvements 1,999 $ 1,999 $ 160 $ 345 $ 1,494 $ -$ 160 $ 165 $ 180 $ 1,494 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 77
12-Santa Ana, City of-2 Orange Ross Street Complete Streets 3,305 $ 3,305 $ 47 $ 523 $ 2,735 $ -$ 47 $ 523 $ -$ 2,735 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 77
12-Santa Ana, City of-9 Orange Heroes ES_Carver ES_Willard Int_Wilson SRTS 9,752 $ 9,752 $ 148 $ 1,108 $ 8,496 $ -$ 148 $ 1,108 $ -$ 8,496 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 77
1-Eureka, City of-1 Humboldt Bay to Zoo Trail 6,999 $ 6,824 $ 130 $ 450 $ 6,244 $ -$ 25 $ 105 $ 450 $ 6,244 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 76
3-Colusa, City of-1 Colusa
Cycle 5 – City of Colusa Active Transportation
Improvement Project 1,999 $ 1,999 $ 1,999 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 83 $ -$ 1,916 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 76
3-El Dorado County-1 El Dorado
El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Pedestrian
Overcrossing 5,722 $ 5,129 $ 5,129 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,129 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 76
4-Oakland, City of-4 Alameda Garfield Elementary Safe Routes to School 947 $ 937 $ 260 $ -$ 677 $ -$ -$ 260 $ -$ 677 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 76
4-Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA)-1 Contra Costa
Our Streets: SRTS Community Bike/Walk
Campaign for East Contra Costa 488 $ 488 $ 488 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 488 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 76
7-Glendora, City of-2 Los Angeles
Glendora L-Line (Gold) Extension First/Last Mile
Projects - Foothill Boulevard 3,513 $ 2,810 $ 112 $ 292 $ -$ 2,406 $ 112 $ 292 $ -$ 2,406 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium 76
10-San Joaquin County-1 San Joaquin
Main Street/Henry Elementary School Road
Diet/Buffered Bike Lanes 317 $ 254 $ 4$ 40 $ 210 $ -$ 4$ 40 $ -$ 210 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 76
10-Stockton, City of-2 San Joaquin Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Gap Closure 6,239 $ 3,540 $ -$ -$ 3,540 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,540 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 76
10-Stockton, City of-8 San Joaquin
Pedestrian Connectivity and Safety
Improvements 6,795 $ 6,116 $ 485 $ 728 $ 4,903 $ -$ 485 $ 728 $ -$ 4,903 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 76
3-Folsom, City of-1 Sacramento Riley Street Sidewalks Project 6,147 $ 4,917 $ 955 $ 269 $ 3,693 $ -$ 451 $ 504 $ 269 $ 3,693 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 75
3-Nevada County-2 Nevada Rough and Ready Highway Roundabout Project 4,032 $ 2,727 $ 195 $ 2,532 $ -$ -$ -$ 100 $ 95 $ 2,532 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 75
3-Truckee, Town of-1 Nevada Truckee River Legacy Trail Phase 4A 8,079 $ 6,215 $ 6,215 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,215 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 75
5-Lompoc, City of-1 Santa Barbara
Lompoc High School Corridor Sidewalk Infill and
Crossing Improvement Project 669 $ 599 $ 56 $ 543 $ -$ -$ -$ 56 $ -$ 543 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 75
California Transportation Commission Page 9 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 29
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
5-Santa Barbara County-1 Santa Barbara
Old Town Orcutt Bike and Pedestrian
Improvements Project 6,806 $ 6,396 $ 225 $ 400 $ 5,771 $ -$ 225 $ 270 $ 130 $ 5,771 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 75
5-Transportation Agency for Monterey County-
1 Monterey
Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway: CSUMB
North Segment 12,950 $ 10,100 $ -$ -$ 10,100 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,100 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 75
6-Dinuba, City of-5 Tulare Making Crawford Avenue Safe- Phase 1 4,414 $ 4,033 $ 427 $ 3,606 $ -$ -$ 106 $ 321 $ -$ 3,606 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 75
6-Selma, City of-1 Fresno
Rose Avenue Bike Path and Sidewalk
Improvements 677 $ 677 $ 120 $ -$ 557 $ -$ -$ 75 $ 45 $ 557 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 75
7-Oxnard, City of-2 Ventura 4th Street Mobility Improvements 6,900 $ 6,900 $ 650 $ 6,250 $ -$ -$ -$ 650 $ -$ 6,250 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 75
7-Pasadena, City of-1 Los Angeles
Northwest Pasadena Active Transportation Plan
(ATP) 243 $ 243 $ 243 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 243 $ Plan x 75
7-South Gate, City of-1 Los Angeles Tweedy Boulevard Traffic Safety Improvements 6,459 $ 6,459 $ 645 $ -$ 5,814 $ -$ 30 $ 615 $ -$ 5,814 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 75
8-California Department of Transportation-5 San Bernardino
Route 66 / Fifth Street Complete Street
Improvements 23,988 $ 23,988 $ 1,950 $ 5,391 $ -$ 16,647 $ 1,950 $ 1,700 $ 3,691 $ 16,647 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 75
8-Fontana, City of-3 San Bernardino
San Sevaine Class I Multi-Use Trail: Valley to
Foothill 14,171 $ 14,171 $ 1,050 $ 2,220 $ -$ 10,901 $ 1,050 $ 1,050 $ 1,170 $ 10,876 $ 25 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 75
8-Ontario, City of-2 San Bernardino Euclid East Pedestrian Improvements 1,999 $ 1,999 $ -$ 165 $ 1,834 $ -$ -$ 165 $ -$ 1,834 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 75
10-Stockton, City of-3 San Joaquin
California Street Separated Bikeway Project
Phase 1 3,601 $ 1,395 $ 1,395 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,395 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 75
10-Stockton, City of-6 San Joaquin
Downtown East-West Connection
(Park/Oak/Fremont) 1,999 $ 1,999 $ 110 $ 240 $ 1,649 $ -$ 110 $ 240 $ -$ 1,649 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 75
12-Santa Ana, City of-11 Orange
King ES_Lincoln ES_Monte Vista ES_Griset
Academy 9,036 $ 9,036 $ 140 $ 841 $ 8,055 $ -$ 140 $ 841 $ -$ 8,055 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 75
7-Cerritos, City of-2* Los Angeles
Del Amo Boulevard Bridge Replacement and
Signal Enhancements 27,436 $ 7,111 $ -$ -$ 7,111 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,111 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 75
12-Santa Ana, City of-15 Orange
Madison ES_Roosevelt ES_Walker ES_Century
HS 8,693 $ 8,693 $ 132 $ 988 $ 7,573 $ -$ 132 $ 988 $ -$ 7,573 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 74.5
1-Humboldt County-1 Humboldt
Annie & Mary Trail Phase 2 (Blue Lake to
Glendale) 8,844 $ 8,754 $ 920 $ -$ 814 $ 7,020 $ 920 $ 614 $ 200 $ 7,020 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 74
3-Winters, City of-1 Yolo
SR128/I-505 Overcrossing (Br. 22-0110)/Russell
Blvd Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 9,953 $ 9,703 $ 550 $ 2,162 $ -$ 6,991 $ 550 $ 745 $ 1,417 $ 6,991 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 74
8-Desert Hot Springs, City of-2 Riverside
Palm Drive Improvements – I-10 to Camino
Aventura 6,995 $ 6,154 $ -$ 6,154 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,154 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 74
10-Lathrop,City of-1 San Joaquin Class II Bikeway to ACE Station 1,054 $ 1,001 $ 178 $ 823 $ -$ -$ 71 $ 107 $ -$ 823 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 74
11-El Centro, City of-1 Imperial El Centro Pedestrian Improvement Project 3,998 $ 3,598 $ -$ 300 $ 3,298 $ -$ -$ 300 $ -$ 3,298 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 74
11-San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG)-2 San Diego San Diego Regional Active Transportation Plan 1,990 $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,750 $ Plan x 74
12-Irvine, City of-1 Orange JOST I-5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge 16,842 $ 7,837 $ 7,837 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,837 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 74
4-San Francisco County Transportation
Authority-1 San Francisco Yerba Buena Island Multi-use Pathway Project 89,400 $ 3,800 $ -$ 3,800 $ -$ -$ -$ 3,800 $ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 73
5-San Luis Obispo Council of Governments-2 San Luis Obispo
Active Campus: Equitable, Educational
Programming 350 $ 310 $ 310 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 310 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 73
6-Fowler, City of-1 Fresno
Fremont Elementary/ Marshall
Elementaryl/Fowler High Safe Routes to School 426 $ 426 $ 5$ 40 $ 381 $ -$ 5$ 40 $ -$ 381 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 73
6-Tulare County-1 Tulare
Poplar Avenue 145 Sidewalk Improvements
Project 2,200 $ 2,178 $ 626 $ -$ -$ 1,552 $ -$ 256 $ 370 $ 1,552 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 73
6-Tulare County-3 Tulare Tipton Sidewalk Improvements Project 4,800 $ 4,752 $ 841 $ -$ -$ 3,911 $ -$ 401 $ 440 $ 3,911 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 73
7-Carson, City of-1 Los Angeles
City of Carson Active Transportation Safety
Improvement Project 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 70 $ 1,730 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,730 $ 70 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x 73
9-Tehachapi, City of-2 Kern
Valley Boulevard and Mill Street Gap Closure
Project 3,509 $ 2,934 $ 284 $ 2,650 $ -$ -$ -$ 184 $ 100 $ 2,650 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 73
10-Calaveras County-2 Calaveras
Murphys State Route 4 Complete Streets
Project 3,839 $ 3,775 $ 66 $ 365 $ -$ 3,344 $ 66 $ 365 $ -$ 3,344 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 73
California Transportation Commission Page 10 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 30
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
12-Santa Ana, City of-18 Orange
Mendez Fundamental Int_Hoover ES_Santiago
ES_Sierra Int SRTS 10,122 $ 10,122 $ 155 $ 942 $ 9,025 $ -$ 155 $ 942 $ -$ 9,025 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 73
4-Daly City, City of-1 San Mateo
Bayshore and Woodrow Wilson Safe Routes to
School Project 3,400 $ 2,780 $ -$ -$ 2,780 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,780 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 72
4-Napa, City of-1 Napa
Westwood Neighborhood Pedestrian
Infrastructure Improvements 2,258 $ 2,258 $ 336 $ 1,922 $ -$ -$ 5$ 331 $ 7$ 1,915 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 72
4-San Mateo, City of-1 San Mateo Delaware Street Safe Routes to School Corridor 1,661 $ 1,661 $ 260 $ 1,401 $ -$ -$ 37 $ 213 $ 10 $ 1,401 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 72
6-Bakersfield, City of-3 Kern Garces Memorial Circle 172 $ 172 $ 172 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 172 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 72
7-Los Angeles, City of-12 Los Angeles
Linking Warner Center as an Active
Transportation Hub to Jobs/Housing 470 $ 374 $ 374 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 374 $ Plan x 72
8-Apple Valley, Town of-2 San Bernardino
Bear Valley Road Class 1 Bike Path Project
Phase 2 1,768 $ 1,538 $ 260 $ 1,278 $ -$ -$ -$ 130 $ 130 $ 1,278 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 72
11-Encinitas, City of-2 San Diego Leucadia Streetscape - Phase 2 41,577 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000 $ -$ Infrastructure + NI - Large 72
3-Citrus Heights, City of-1 Sacramento Old Auburn Road Complete Streets - Phase I 12,096 $ 9,984 $ 609 $ -$ 1,506 $ 7,869 $ 609 $ 914 $ 592 $ 7,869 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 71
5-Transportation Agency for Monterey County-
2 Monterey
Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway:
California Avenue Segment 4,202 $ 3,582 $ -$ -$ 3,582 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,582 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 71
7-Burbank, City of-1 Los Angeles Burbank Citywide Safe Routes to School Plan 569 $ 569 $ 569 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 569 $ Plan x x 71
10-Tracy, City of-2 San Joaquin
Holly Drive Pedestrian and Bikeway
Improvements 1,830 $ 1,632 $ 163 $ 1,469 $ -$ -$ -$ 163 $ -$ 1,469 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 71
3-Sacramento County-1 Sacramento
Folsom Boulevard Complete Street
Improvements, Phase 2 4,777 $ 4,201 $ 635 $ 3,566 $ -$ -$ -$ 521 $ 114 $ 3,566 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 70
5-Monterey County-1 Monterey
Community and School Connections Through
Active Transportation 4,424 $ 4,424 $ 1,158 $ 3,266 $ -$ -$ 25 $ 300 $ 25 $ 3,241 $ 833 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 70
6-Tulare County-4 Tulare
Strathmore Complete Streets Improvements
Project 2,600 $ 2,574 $ 744 $ -$ -$ 1,830 $ -$ 324 $ 420 $ 1,830 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 70
7-Alhambra, City of-1 Los Angeles
Alhambra Active Transportation Plan with Multi-
Modal Connectivity 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200 $ Plan x x 70
10-Los Banos, City of-1 Merced Pioneer Road Regional Path 15,226 $ 11,756 $ -$ 1,857 $ -$ 9,899 $ -$ 1,400 $ 457 $ 9,899 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 70
10-Sonora, City of-1 Tuolumne Dragoon Gulch Connector Trail 4,435 $ 3,954 $ 315 $ 561 $ 3,078 $ -$ 315 $ 300 $ 261 $ 3,078 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 70
11-El Cajon, City of-2 San Diego Main Street - Green Street Ph II 1,998 $ 1,838 $ -$ 170 $ -$ 1,668 $ -$ 170 $ -$ 1,668 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 70
12-Santa Ana, City of-17 Orange
MacArthur Intermediate and Taft Elementary
SRTS 4,278 $ 4,278 $ 65 $ 486 $ 3,727 $ -$ 65 $ 486 $ -$ 3,727 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 70
3-Oroville, City of-1 Butte Foothill Blvd. Safe Routes to School Project 1,965 $ 1,965 $ 50 $ 220 $ 400 $ 1,295 $ 50 $ 220 $ 400 $ 1,295 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 69
3-Rancho Cordova, City of-2 Sacramento
Olson Drive Corridor Safety Enhancement
Project 1,042 $ 1,042 $ 186 $ 856 $ -$ -$ -$ 186 $ -$ 856 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 69
4-Danville, Town of-1 Contra Costa Diablo Road Trail 3,840 $ 1,807 $ -$ 1,807 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,807 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium 69
5-Monterey County-2 Monterey
San Ardo Community & School Connections
Through Active Transportation 2,399 $ 2,399 $ 905 $ 1,494 $ -$ -$ 50 $ 250 $ 25 $ 1,469 $ 605 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 69
6-California Department of Transportation-7 Tulare Ivanhoe Safe Route To School 1,788 $ 1,070 $ 120 $ 181 $ -$ 769 $ 120 $ 90 $ 91 $ 769 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 69
6-Kingsburg, City of-1 Fresno
Roosevelt & Reagan Elementary Safe Routes to
School Project 1,900 $ 1,900 $ 235 $ 1,665 $ -$ -$ 10 $ 225 $ 120 $ 1,545 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 69
7-Covina, City of-1 Los Angeles Covina High School Pedestrian Improvements 1,720 $ 1,710 $ 130 $ 1,580 $ -$ -$ -$ 130 $ -$ 1,580 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 69
11-San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG)-3 San Diego
Uptown Phase Four: Mission Hills to Old Town
Bikeway 5,689 $ 3,950 $ -$ -$ 3,950 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,950 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 69
12-Orange, City of-1 Orange Santiago Creek Bike Trail Gap Closure 9,184 $ 8,741 $ 2,122 $ 66 $ 6,553 $ -$ -$ 317 $ 1,805 $ 6,553 $ 66 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 69
12-Santa Ana, City of-14 Orange
Lathrop Intermediate_Lowell ES_Martin ES_Pio
Pico ES_Franklin ES 7,515 $ 7,515 $ 114 $ 854 $ 6,547 $ -$ 114 $ 854 $ -$ 6,547 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 69
California Transportation Commission Page 11 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 31
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
11-Escondido, City of-2* San Diego
Hidden Valley Middle School Safe Routes to
School Improvements 6,997 $ 6,907 $ 89 $ 3,357 $ -$ 3,461 $ 89 $ 297 $ 3,060 $ 3,461 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 68
3-Butte County-1 Butte
SOUTH OROVILLE BIKE AND PED
CONNECTIVITY PROJECT 6,055 $ 4,555 $ -$ 4,555 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,555 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 68
6-Parlier, City of-1 Fresno
City of Parlier Pedestrian Facilities
Improvements Project 1,995 $ 1,995 $ 1,995 $ -$ -$ -$ 20 $ 250 $ -$ 1,638 $ 87 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 68
7-Los Angeles, City of-8 Los Angeles
Telfair Avenue Multimodal Bridge Over Pacoima
Wash 7,000 $ 6,800 $ 1,100 $ 5,700 $ -$ -$ -$ 900 $ 200 $ 5,700 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 68
8-Moreno Valley, City of-1 Riverside South City Trail Project 7,781 $ 7,781 $ 80 $ 1,150 $ 6,551 $ -$ 80 $ 900 $ 250 $ 6,551 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 68
11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Diego Connect Main Street - Phases 4 thru 6 5,666 $ 5,609 $ 75 $ 843 $ 4,691 $ -$ 75 $ 843 $ -$ 4,691 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 68
3-Nevada County-1 Nevada Combie Road Active Transportation Project 980 $ 980 $ 55 $ 925 $ -$ -$ 5$ 50 $ -$ 925 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 67
4-San Jose, City of-5 Santa Clara
Five Wounds Trail (Story to Julian) - PA&ED and
CON 34,035 $ 29,387 $ 97 $ -$ 220 $ 29,070 $ 97 $ 220 $ -$ 29,070 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 67
6-Wasco, City of-1 Kern
Central Avenue Class I & Class II Bicycle Trails,
Wasco 409 $ 404 $ 35 $ 369 $ -$ -$ -$ 35 $ -$ 369 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 67
7-Commerce, City of-1 Los Angeles
Slauson Avenue Corridor & Citywide Transit,
Pedestrian, Bike Improvements Project 1,999 $ 1,999 $ 350 $ 1,649 $ -$ -$ 150 $ 200 $ -$ 1,649 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 67
7-South Pasadena, City of-1 Los Angeles
Fremont Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian
Projects 1,900 $ 1,672 $ 216 $ 1,456 $ -$ -$ 72 $ 144 $ -$ 1,456 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small 67
7-Ventura County-3 Ventura
Santa Rosa Road Bike Lane Improvement and
Pedestrian Project (SRRBLP) 1,103 $ 1,103 $ 75 $ 122 $ 906 $ -$ 75 $ 122 $ -$ 906 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 67
8-Eastvale, City of-2 Riverside
Cucamonga Creek Multipurpose Path Bridge
and Trail Gap Closures 1,999 $ 1,999 $ 1,999 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150 $ -$ 1,849 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 67
9-California Department of Transportation-6 Inyo
SR 168 (W. Line Street) Sidewalk Extension -
Bishop CA 4,215 $ 4,215 $ 380 $ 1,160 $ 2,675 $ -$ 380 $ 660 $ 500 $ 2,675 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 67
4-Vacaville, City of-1 Solano Ulatis Creek Safe Routes to Transit Gap Closure 5,603 $ 3,468 $ -$ -$ 3,468 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,468 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 66
7-Long Beach, City of-3 Los Angeles 11th Street Bicycle Boulevards 6,715 $ 6,043 $ 135 $ 1,189 $ -$ 4,719 $ 135 $ 675 $ -$ 4,719 $ 514 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x 66
8-Needles, City of-1 San Bernardino
ATP In-Fill Sidewalk, Curbs & Gutter
Improvements Project (Three Areas) 1,921 $ 1,921 $ 1,921 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 140 $ -$ 1,781 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 66
7-Glendale, City of-1 Los Angeles
Glendale Systemic Safe Routes to School
Improvement Project 5,365 $ 4,828 $ 402 $ -$ 4,426 $ -$ 96 $ 306 $ -$ 4,426 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 65.5
4-Alameda County-5 Alameda
Closing the gap in Niles Canyon; the Niles
Canyon Pathway 26,522 $ 2,800 $ 2,800 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,800 $ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large 65
4-East Bay Regional Park District-1 Contra Costa
Martinez Intermodal Station - Crockett Bay Trail
Gap Closure Project 2,796 $ 2,209 $ 2,209 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,209 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 65
4-East Palo Alto, City of-1 San Mateo
University Avenue at 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle
Overcrossing 14,900 $ 12,800 $ 12,800 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,800 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 65
5-Carpinteria, City of-1 Santa Barbara
Carpinteria Avenue and Palm Avenue Crossing
Improvements 406 $ 406 $ 70 $ 12 $ 324 $ -$ 24 $ 46 $ 12 $ 324 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 65
10-San Joaquin County-2 San Joaquin
Country Club Boulevard Complete Streets
Corridor Plan 303 $ 242 $ 242 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 242 $ Plan x 65
12-Yorba Linda, City of-1* Orange
Transportation/Safe Routes to Schools/Trail
Plan 350 $ 350 $ 350 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350 $ Plan x x 65
7-Los Angeles County-2* Los Angeles Quarry Clasp / Peck Park Bike Trail 3,440 $ 1,800 $ 200 $ 1,600 $ -$ -$ 200 $ -$ -$ 1,600 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 65
4-Dublin, City of-1 Alameda City of Dublin Safe Routes to Schools Project 5,323 $ 3,456 $ 54 $ 424 $ 2,978 $ -$ 42 $ 424 $ -$ 2,978 $ 12 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x 64
6-Kings County-1 Kings Becky Pease Street Sidewalk Improvements 2,000 $ 885 $ 5$ 80 $ -$ 800 $ 5$ 80 $ -$ 800 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 64
2-Department of Transportation-2 Tehama Mineral Multi Use Path 4,562 $ 1,897 $ -$ 634 $ -$ 1,263 $ -$ 634 $ -$ 1,263 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 63
3-Woodland, City of-1 Yolo
Matmor Road and E. Gum Avenue Complete
Streets Project 5,094 $ 3,994 $ -$ 3,994 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,994 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 63
4-San Carlos, City of-1 San Mateo
Holly Street/US-101 Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Overcrossing 11,600 $ 8,300 $ -$ 8,300 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,300 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 63
California Transportation Commission Page 12 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 32
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
7-Duarte, City of-1 Los Angeles
Donald & Bernice Watson Multi-Use Pathway
Improvement Project 1,225 $ 1,050 $ 1,050 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,050 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 63
2-Shasta Lake, City of-1 Shasta Ashby-to-Downtown 12,131 $ 11,964 $ 600 $ 1,200 $ -$ 10,164 $ 600 $ 1,200 $ -$ 10,111 $ 53 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 62
4-Lafayette, City of-2 Contra Costa Pleasant Hill Road Class I Pathway 3,070 $ 2,830 $ 2,830 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,830 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 62
5-San Luis Obispo Council of Governments-1 San Luis Obispo
Active Campus: Arrival/Dismissal Outreach and
Education Program 260 $ 240 $ 240 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 240 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 62
6-Tulare County-2 Tulare
Cutler George Road and 2nd Drive Sidewalk
Improvements Project 3,000 $ 2,278 $ 545 $ -$ -$ 1,733 $ -$ 269 $ 276 $ 1,733 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 62
10-Manteca, City of-2 San Joaquin Manteca Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure 6,800 $ 6,800 $ 486 $ 729 $ -$ 5,585 $ 486 $ 729 $ -$ 5,585 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 62
11-San Diego County-5 San Diego
Camino San Bernardo at Deer Ridge Road
Traffic Signal 318 $ 318 $ 318 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 318 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 62
12-Santa Ana, City of-21 Orange Fairhaven ES_Muir Fundamental ES 6,206 $ 6,206 $ 94 $ 705 $ 5,407 $ -$ 94 $ 705 $ -$ 5,407 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 62
4-Lafayette, City of-1 Contra Costa
School Street/Topper Lane Safe Routes to
School Project 5,216 $ 4,016 $ 1,675 $ 2,341 $ -$ -$ 50 $ 325 $ 1,300 $ 2,341 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 61
12-Santa Ana, City of-12 Orange
Adams ES_Carr Intermediate_Godinez Fund
HS_Harvey ES_Sepulveda ES_Valley HS 9,052 $ 9,052 $ 137 $ 1,029 $ 7,886 $ -$ 137 $ 1,029 $ -$ 7,886 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 61
4-Tiburon, Town of-1 Marin Trestle Glen Boulevard Class II Bikeway 3,518 $ 3,113 $ 88 $ 467 $ 2,558 $ -$ 88 $ 445 $ 22 $ 2,558 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 60
5-Monterey County-4 Monterey Chualar Pedestrian Improvement Project 4,178 $ 4,178 $ 1,175 $ 3,003 $ -$ -$ 200 $ 350 $ 25 $ 2,978 $ 625 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 60
6-Bakersfield, City of-1 Kern
California Avenue (Oleander Avenue to R
Street) 770 $ 770 $ 770 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 89 $ -$ 681 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 60
7-Camarillo, City of-1 Ventura Camarillo Active Transportation Plan 370 $ 370 $ 370 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 370 $ Plan x 60
11-San Diego, City of-2 San Diego Downtown Mobility Complete Streets Phase 3B 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 300 $ 1,700 $ 7,000 $ -$ 300 $ 1,700 $ -$ 7,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 60
4-Novato, City of-1 Marin
San Marin High School Area Multimodal Access
Project 1,743 $ 1,432 $ -$ 1,432 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,432 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 59
4-Vallejo, City of-1 Solano Vallejo Bluff Trail Phase 1 3,786 $ 3,786 $ 547 $ 350 $ 2,889 $ -$ 20 $ 527 $ 350 $ 2,889 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 59
7-Palmdale, City of-1 Los Angeles
Eight-School Students-to-Classrooms
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 200 $ 250 $ 6,550 $ -$ 200 $ 250 $ -$ 6,550 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 59
8-Big Bear Lake, City of-2 San Bernardino Rathbun Creek Trail Extension 1,637 $ 1,571 $ 133 $ 1,438 $ -$ -$ 43 $ 28 $ 62 $ 1,438 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 59
5-Monterey County-5 Monterey Carmel Valley Road Class II Bike Lanes Project 531 $ 425 $ 76 $ -$ 349 $ -$ -$ 76 $ -$ 349 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 58
6-Bakersfield, City of-5 Kern Kern River at 24th Street 1,368 $ 1,368 $ 127 $ -$ 117 $ 1,124 $ 127 $ 117 $ -$ 1,124 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 57
7-Pasadena, City of-2 Los Angeles
Northwest Pasadena Continental Crosswalk
Implementation 967 $ 967 $ 160 $ 807 $ -$ -$ -$ 160 $ -$ 807 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 57
11-San Diego County-3 San Diego
Allen School Road SRTS Sidewalk and Bicycle
Lanes 1,964 $ 1,964 $ 392 $ 1,572 $ -$ -$ 100 $ 202 $ 90 $ 1,572 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 57
1-Lake County-1 Lake Konocti Road Safe Routes To School Project 811 $ 770 $ 770 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 770 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 56
3-Biggs, City of-1 Butte
Biggs E Street & Second Street Safe Routes to
School 1,937 $ 1,777 $ 1,777 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,517 $ 260 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small x x 56
3-El Dorado County-6 El Dorado San Bernardino Class 1 Bike Trail Project 3,352 $ 1,395 $ 1,395 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,395 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 56
5-San Benito County-1 San Benito
San Benito Comprehensive Active
Transportation Plan 424 $ 424 $ 424 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 424 $ Plan x 56
10-Tracy, City of-1 San Joaquin
Tracy Boulevard Bikeway and Pedestrian
Improvements 1,441 $ 1,416 $ 180 $ 1,236 $ -$ -$ -$ 180 $ -$ 1,236 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 56
11-San Diego County-4 San Diego Arnold Way Sidewalk 1,612 $ 1,612 $ 339 $ 1,273 $ -$ -$ 100 $ 184 $ 55 $ 1,273 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small 56
7-Cerritos, City of-1 Los Angeles
Safe Routes to School Infrastructure
Improvements 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150 $ -$ 1,350 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 55
California Transportation Commission Page 13 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 33
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
7-Manhattan Beach, City of-6 Los Angeles
Manhattan Village Senior Villas ADA Pathway
Project 1,310 $ 990 $ 990 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 990 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small 55
12-Rancho Santa Margarita, City of-1 Orange
Traffic Calming at Avenida De Los Fundadores
Project 375 $ 375 $ 375 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 375 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small 55
12-Santa Ana, City of-13 Orange
Jefferson ES_Thorpe Fundamental_McFadden
Int_Greenville Fund ES_Segerstrom HS 7,653 $ 7,653 $ 120 $ 717 $ 6,816 $ -$ 120 $ 717 $ -$ 6,816 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 55
4-Half Moon Bay, City of-1 San Mateo
Highway 1 Safety and Operational
Improvements North 11,162 $ 4,462 $ 4,462 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,462 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large 54
4-San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District-1 Contra Costa
Bicycle, pedestrian, and ADA improvements at
Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station 1,996 $ 1,198 $ -$ 1,198 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,198 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 54
5-San Luis Obispo County-5 San Luis Obispo Pedestrian Plan & Prioritization - Countywide 218 $ 218 $ 218 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 218 $ Plan x 54
10-Patterson, City of-1 Stanislaus Pedestrian Controlled Crosswalk Project 909 $ 805 $ 111 $ -$ 694 $ -$ -$ 111 $ -$ 694 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 54
11-Encinitas, City of-1 San Diego Birmingham Drive Complete Streets Project 9,517 $ 7,639 $ 7,599 $ 40 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,599 $ 40 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 54
12-Costa Mesa, City of-1 Orange Adams Avenue Multipurpose Trail Project 6,942 $ 5,500 $ 5,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,500 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 54
3-Placer County-2 Placer
North Tahoe Regional Multi-Use Trail - Segment
1 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 53
6-Tulare County-5 Tulare
East Porterville Crabtree Avenue Sidewalk
Improvements Project 2,100 $ 2,079 $ 786 $ -$ -$ 1,293 $ -$ 221 $ 565 $ 1,293 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 53
7-California Department of Transportation-1 Los Angeles
State Route 110 (SR-110) /Figueroa Multi-Modal
Mobility and Operational Improvements 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 9,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 53
5-Morro Bay, City of-1 San Luis Obispo
SR 1/SR 41 Interchange Operational
Improvements 8,341 $ 3,424 $ 3,424 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 91 $ 3,333 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 52
5-San Luis Obispo County-3 San Luis Obispo Front Street Pedestrian Improvement Project 1,730 $ 1,400 $ -$ -$ 1,400 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,400 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 52
12-Santa Ana, City of-4 Orange Bishop Street Bicycle Boulevard Project 5,579 $ 5,579 $ 81 $ 815 $ 4,683 $ -$ 81 $ 815 $ -$ 4,683 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 52
4-Millbrae, City of-1 San Mateo
Millbrae Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian
Overcrossing Bridge Project 17,500 $ 14,000 $ -$ -$ 14,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large 51
3-Paradise, Town of-2 Butte Paradise ATP Gateway 11,922 $ 9,133 $ 630 $ -$ -$ 8,503 $ -$ -$ 630 $ 8,503 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 51
4-Contra Costa County-5 Contra Costa San Pablo Dam Road Pedestrian Crossings 1,984 $ 1,984 $ 180 $ 130 $ 1,674 $ -$ 180 $ 130 $ -$ 1,674 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 51
7-Manhattan Beach, City of-2 Los Angeles
High Traffic Beach Area Pedestrian Access
Crosswalk Safety Improvements 4,311 $ 4,311 $ 250 $ 550 $ 3,511 $ -$ 250 $ 450 $ 100 $ 3,511 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 50
8-Yucaipa, City of-1 San Bernardino
Yucaipa Blvd. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements
(3rd St. to 4th St.) 944 $ 944 $ -$ 944 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 944 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 50
11-San Diego County-2 San Diego
Bridging the Safe Routes to School Gap in El
Cajon 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 800 $ Non-Infrastructure x x 50
11-San Diego, City of-4 San Diego Active Transportation Engagement Program 317 $ 317 $ 317 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 317 $ Non-Infrastructure 50
12-Laguna Hills, City of-1 Orange
Safe Routes for Students-La Paz Road
Southerly Sidewalk Widening 1,006 $ 909 $ 111 $ 798 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 111 $ 798 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 50
11-San Diego, City of-5* San Diego Streamview Drive Improvements Phase 2 14,562 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 50
7-Los Angeles County-1 Los Angeles San Jose Creek Regional Access 16,728 $ 2,171 $ 315 $ -$ -$ 1,856 $ 315 $ 1,775 $ 81 $ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 49
8-Moreno Valley, City of-2 Riverside
Heacock Street Improvements / Atwood Avenue
to Myers Avenue 2,265 $ 2,265 $ 50 $ 860 $ -$ 1,355 $ 50 $ 200 $ 660 $ 1,355 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 49
10-Merced County-1 Merced Planada Sidewalk Infill Project 734 $ 734 $ 55 $ 76 $ 603 $ -$ 55 $ 76 $ -$ 603 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 49
11-San Diego County-1 San Diego SR-67 Multi-Use Undercrossing 4,653 $ 4,653 $ 370 $ 580 $ 3,703 $ -$ 370 $ 330 $ 250 $ 3,703 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 49
3-El Dorado County-2 El Dorado Diamond Springs Parkway Phase 1B 28,294 $ 1,000 $ -$ 1,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 47
10-Ripon, City of-1 San Joaquin Ripon Safe Routes to School Improvements 1,645 $ 1,315 $ 1,315 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,315 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 47
California Transportation Commission Page 14 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 34
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
Application ID County Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final Score
11-La Mesa, City of-1 San Diego La Mesa Bike and Sidewalk Connections Project 4,488 $ 4,418 $ 555 $ 3,863 $ -$ -$ -$ 375 $ -$ 3,863 $ 180 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x 47
11-Escondido, City of-1 San Diego
Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy
Plan, Escondido 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250 $ Plan x 45
12-Santa Ana, City of-16 Orange
Esqueda ES_Chavez High_Washington
ES_Saddleback HS 8,017 $ 8,017 $ 121 $ 911 $ 6,985 $ -$ 121 $ 911 $ -$ 6,985 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 45
10-Lodi, City of-1 San Joaquin Garfield Street Safe Route to School Project 800 $ 705 $ 705 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 705 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 44
5-Greenfield, City of-1 Monterey
12th Street Pedestrian and Bike Route
Improvements 694 $ 694 $ 694 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 694 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x x 42
8-Big Bear Lake, City of-1 San Bernardino Moonridge Road Complete Streets 6,993 $ 2,280 $ 2,280 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,280 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 39
4-Hercules, City of-1 Contra Costa
Willow/Palm Pedestrian Corridor Transit Center
Connector 1,299 $ 1,124 $ 1,124 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,124 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small 38
11-San Diego, City of-1 San Diego Southeastern San Diego Safe Routes to School 22,957 $ 18,147 $ 18,147 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18,147 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x x 38
11-Santee, City of-1 San Diego
Santee Safe Routes to School pedestrian ramp
project 1,868 $ 1,868 $ 160 $ 1,708 $ -$ -$ 10 $ 150 $ -$ 1,708 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 38
1-Rio Dell, City of-1 Humboldt Eel River Trail 1,962 $ 1,962 $ 322 $ 1,640 $ -$ -$ 97 $ 217 $ 8$ 1,640 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 36
3-Marysville, City of-1 Yuba
City of Marysville -14th Street Corridor ATP
Improvements 549 $ 499 $ 40 $ 459 $ -$ -$ -$ 40 $ -$ 459 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 36
7-Diamond Bar, City of-1 Los Angeles Diamond Bar Boulevard Compete Street Project 5,972 $ 2,556 $ 2,556 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,556 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 36
7-Hawaiian Gardens, City of-1 Los Angeles
Bike Master Plan Preparation and General Plan
Circulation Element Amendment 200 $ 180 $ 180 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 180 $ Plan x 36
4-Danville, Town of-2 Contra Costa Cameo Drive Pedestrian Safety Improvements 960 $ 849 $ 849 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 849 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 35
11-San Diego County-6 San Diego
Hillsdale Middle School SRTS Crosswalk with
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 154 $ 154 $ 154 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 154 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 34
4-Solano County-1 Solano Benicia Road Complete Street Project 4,200 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 33
8-Coachella, City of-1 Riverside
Coachella Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity
Project 2,974 $ 2,974 $ 250 $ 2,724 $ -$ -$ -$ 250 $ -$ 2,724 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x 32
5-Monterey County-3 Monterey
San Lucas Community & School Connections
Through Active Transportation 2,292 $ 2,292 $ 907 $ 1,385 $ -$ -$ 50 $ 250 $ 25 $ 1,360 $ 607 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium x x 31
8-Riverside County-7 Riverside Skyview Road Pedestrian Bridge 10,343 $ 7,970 $ -$ -$ 7,970 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,870 $ 100 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large x 31
5-San Luis Obispo County-4 San Luis Obispo Burton Drive Pedestrian Path - Cambria, CA 749 $ 629 $ 157 $ -$ 472 $ -$ 20 $ 109 $ 28 $ 472 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small 29
4-San Ramon, City of-1 Contra Costa
Iron Horse Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian
Overcrossing Crow Canyon Road 18,000 $ 1,500 $ 200 $ 1,300 $ -$ -$ 200 $ 1,300 $ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure - Large 28
4-South San Francisco, City of-1 San Mateo Hillside and Lincoln Traffic Improvement Project 2,177 $ 1,762 $ -$ 1,762 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,762 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium x x 27
8-Adelanto, City of-1 San Bernardino
Active Transportation Improvements at Adelanto
Public Park 439 $ 365 $ 365 $ -$ -$ -$ 3$ 20 $ -$ 342 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 27
8-Murrieta, City of-1 Riverside Copper Canyon Park Bridge 664 $ 664 $ 20 $ 644 $ -$ -$ 20 $ 60 $ -$ 584 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 26
12-Orange County-3 Orange Santa Ana River Parkway Extension 21,171 $ 21,171 $ 21,171 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 21,171 $ -$ Infrastructure - Large x 26
6-Kern County - D6-1 Kern
Kern River Parkway Multi-Use Path Safety
Improvement Project 1,999 $ 1,939 $ -$ 1,939 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,939 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 25
5-Monterey County-6 Monterey
Esquiline Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Improvement Project 3,318 $ 405 $ 50 $ -$ 57 $ 298 $ 50 $ 57 $ -$ 298 $ -$ Infrastructure - Medium 24
7-Manhattan Beach, City of-3 Los Angeles
Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Peck Avenue
Traffic Signal Improvement Project 800 $ 800 $ 170 $ 630 $ -$ -$ 40 $ 130 $ -$ 630 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x 20
4-Pacifica, City of-1 San Mateo
Palmetto Ave - Esplanade Ave Bicycle &
Pedestrian Improvements Project 340 $ 306 $ 306 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 306 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small 17
6-Fresno, City of-2 Fresno Palm and Belmont Protected Bikeway Project 1,781 $ 1,310 $ 1,310 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,310 $ -$ Infrastructure - Small x WITHDRAWN
California Transportation Commission Page 15 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 35
Application ID
3-El Dorado County-7
County
El Dorado
Project Title
Fallen Leaf Road Recreational Access Project $
Total Project
Cost
2,473
ATP Funding
$ 420 $
21-22
250 $
22-23
170 $
23-24
- $
24-25
-
PA&ED
$ 250
PS&E
$ 170 $
ROW
- $
CON
- $
CON
NI
-
Project Type
Infrastructure - Medium
DAC SRTS
x
Final Score
INELIGIBLE
3-El Dorado County-8 El Dorado
South Tahoe Greenway - Upper Truckee Bridge
at Johnson Meadow $ 3,700 $ 850 $ 400 $ 450 $ - $ - $ 400 $ 450 $ - $ - $ - Infrastructure - Medium x INELIGIBLE
8-Riverside County-3 Riverside Lakeview/Nuevo Active Transportation Plan $ 300 $ 270 $ 270 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 270 Plan x INELIGIBLE
11-Coronado, City of-1 San Diego Age-Friendly Mobility Plan, Coronado $ 150 $ 135 $ 135 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 135 Plan INELIGIBLE
12-Yorba Linda, City of-2 Orange
Yorba Linda Boulevard Bike Lanes and
Pedestrian Path PS&E $
$
735
3,426,451
$ 587
$ 2,258,298
$ 587 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 587 $ - $ - $ - Infrastructure - Small INELIGIBLE
California Transportation Commission
2021 Active Transportation Program
All Applications by Score - Revised March 17, 2021
($1000s)
*Score adjusted due to the identification of a scoring error.
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms
CON: Construction Phase
DAC: Disadvantaged Community
NI: Non-Infrastructure
PA&ED: Environmental Phase
PS&E: Plans, Specifications & Estimates
Phase
ROW: Right-of-Way Phase
SRTS: Safe Routes to School
California Transportation Commission Page 16 of 16 Updated March 17, 2021 36
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 16, 2022
TO: Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: James Simpson, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Future Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Locations
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to concur on the two concurrent meeting
locations for future in-person TAC meetings.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Currently, the Commission’s TAC falls under the monthly resolution approved by the Commission
pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows public meetings to be held in a virtual setting.
This is permissible under the state of emergency declared by the state of California as a result of
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
For the March 2022 TAC meeting, in anticipation of the emergency declaration being lifted and/or
the expiration of AB 361, staff initiated discussion and requested input from the TAC on how to
proceed once in-person meetings are to return. In the same meeting, staff’s suggestion was for
the TAC to continue meeting virtually until virtual meetings are no longer permissible.
Staff proposed two options to begin the conversation; the first option being to return to
alternating locations between Riverside and the Coachella Valley, and the second option being
to have two simultaneous meeting locations, one in Riverside and one in the Coachella Valley.
In the second option, video conferencing would be utilized for TAC members to interact between
the two meeting sites.
TAC members inquired about the possibility of adding a third meeting location, located in either
the pass area (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa) or in the southwest region. The City of Temecula
offered to host a TAC meeting location in the southwest region. Based on the comments received,
staff concluded that further research was warranted, and an item would be brought back at the
May TAC meeting.
DISCUSSION:
To address the feedback received from the TAC at the March 2022 meeting, staff researched the
logistics of having three or more concurrent TAC meeting locations. RCTC and CVAG were
determined to be the two primary locations, as they were prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Other locations considered were Banning and Temecula. Distances from each TAC member
37
agency to each of the potential locations were recorded to determine which location is closest
for each agency and how many potential miles traveled were saved or added.
Upon review, staff observed that RCTC is closest to 23 member agencies and CVAG is closest to
13 member agencies. When introducing Temecula or Banning as a third location, it is worth
noting that the shortest travel distance did not change for any of the 13 agencies closest to CVAG.
While offering a third TAC meeting location, in either southwest county or the pass area, would
reduce the travel distance for some attendees, it does not improve the travel distance for those
coming from the sub-region without a meeting site. Additionally, staff is concerned that adding
a third concurrent meeting site would pose logistical challenges, particularly when having two
concurrent meeting sites has never been executed for TAC meetings in the past. Staff encourages
TAC members and meeting attendees to establish carpool arrangements with adjacent members
and attendees to reduce unnecessary vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
Attachment 1 is a park and ride location map for Riverside County.
As such, once TAC meetings are required to be held in person again, staff proposes to offer two
concurrent meeting site locations: RCTC’s Lemon Street office and CVAG’s office in Palm Desert.
Attachment: Riverside County Park and Ride Locations Map
38
VICTORVILLE
HESPERIA
CRESTLINE
YUCCA
VALLEY
LOMA LINDA
NEWPORT
BEACH
LOS ANGELES
LONG BEACH
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MONTCLAIR
CHINO
CHINO HILLS
PASADENA
IRVINE
ANAHEIM CORONA
LAKE ELSINORE
RIVERSIDE
MURRIETA
TEMECULA
MORENO VALLEY
PERRIS
YUCAIPA
SAN
BERNARDINO
PALM SPRINGS
Orange
County
Los Angeles
County
Riverside
County
San
Bernardino
County
15
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
215
405
215
210
605
710
110
210
210
73
22
55
91
91
71
60
38
60
62
18
60
57
241
241
210
138
133
261
CORONA
1 20 E Grand Blvd at SR 91/Main St
• Stalls: 272 • Operator: CalTrans • Contact: (909) 383-4631
2 Living Truth Christian Fellowship 1114 West Ontario Ave
• Stalls: 70 • Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
3 Canyon Community Church of the Nazarene 1504 Taber St
• Stalls: 75
• Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
4 Tom’s Farms, 23900 Temescal Canyon Rd
• Stalls: 48 • Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
• Restrictions: No Overnight or Weekend Parking
LAKE ELSINORE5 Laker Elsinore Market, 15887 Grand Ave
• Stalls: 79 • Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
6 18600 Dexter Ave at I-15/Central Ave
• Stalls: 50 • Operator: CalTrans • Contact: (909) 383-4631
7 Lake Elsinore Outlets (north end) 17600 Collier Ave at I-15/Nichols Rd
• Stalls: 186 • Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
8 Shepherd of Life, 30400 Grand Ave
• Stalls: 50 • Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141 • Restrictions: No Weekend Parking
JURUPA VALLEY
9 10180 Granite Hill Dr at SR 60/Country Village Rd
• Stalls: 75 • Operator: CalTrans • Contact: (909) 383-4631
10 12105 Limonite Ave at I-15
• Stalls: 76 • Operator: CalTrans
• Contact: (909) 383-4631
11 11060 E. Mission Blvd at SR 60
• Stalls: 22
• Operator: CalTrans • Contact: (909) 383-4631
MORENO VALLEY12 Moreno Valley Mall, 22650 Centerpoint Dr. @ Centerpoint Dr. & Town Cir
• Stalls: 74 • Operator: Moreno Valley Mall • Contact: (951) 653-1177 • Restrictions: No Parking Between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day
13 12255 Pigeon Pass Rd, next to Home Depot at SR 60
• Stalls: 200 • Operator: CalTrans • Contact: (909) 383-4631
MURRIETA
14 Mulligan Family Fun Center, 24950 Madison Ave
• Stalls: 50
• Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
• Restrictions: No Weekend Parking
15 Promise Lutheran Church, 25664 Madison Ave
• Stalls: 46
• Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
NORCO16 Hamner Ave at I-15/6th St
• Stalls: 100 • Operator: CalTrans • Contact: (909) 383-4631
PERRIS
17 Perris Station Transit Center, C Street and San Jacinto Ave
• Stalls: 24 • Operator: RCTC
• Contact: (951) 787-7141
18 South Perris Station, 1304 Case Rd
• Stalls: 74
• Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
RIVERSIDE
19 Galleria at Tyler, 10260 Magnolia Ave on southeast corner of Tyler and Magnolia, west of RTA bus stop
• Stalls: 100
• Operator: Mall • Contact: (951) 637-2002
20 2212 Orange St at SR 60/Main St
• Stalls: 142 • Operator: CalTrans • Contact: (909) 383-4631
21 Moreno Valley/March Field Station, 14160 Meridian Pkwy
• Stalls: 38
• Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
22 Hunter Park Station, 1101 Marlborough Ave
• Stalls: 45 • Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
23 La Sierra Metrolink Station, 10901 Indiana Ave
• Stalls: 172 • Operator: RCTC
• Contact: (951) 787-7141
TEMECULA
24 41327 Winchester Rd at I-15 (Next to Starbucks)
• Stalls: 87 • Operator: CalTrans • Contact: (909) 383-4631
IE Commuter is a program of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority | IE Commuter, PO Box 10431, San Bernardino, CA 92423-0431 | IECommuter.org | 1-866-RIDESHARE (866-743-3742)
042922
THOUSAND PALMS
BARSTOW
Riverside County Park & Ride Lots 25 Promenade Mall in Temecula, 40780 Winchester Rd @ Ring Rd & Promenade Way, top level of parking
structure
• Stalls: 75 • Operator: Promenade Mall
• Contact: (951) 296-0975 • Restrictions: Permit Required
26 United Methodist Church, 42690 Margarita Rd
• Stalls: 71 • Operator: RCTC • Contact: (951) 787-7141
27 Orchard Christian Fellowship, 42101 Moraga Rd
• Stalls: 105 • Operator: RCTC
• Contact: (951) 787-7141
28 Rancho Community Church, 31300 Rancho Community Way
• Stalls: 100 • Operator: City of Temecula
• Contact: (951) 303-6789 • Restrictions: No Overnight Parking
29 St. Thomas of Canterbury Episcopal Church 44651 Avenida de Missiones
• Stalls: 42 • Operator: RCTC
• Contact: (951) 787-7141
30 Temecula Parkway, 30100 Temecula Parkway
• Stalls: 157
• Operator: City of Temecula • Contact: (951) 694-6411
31 Grace Presbyterian Church, 31143 Nicolas Rd
• Stalls: 64 • Operator: RCTC
• Contact: (951) 787-7141
THOUSAND PALMS
32 72376 Varner Road, next to I-10 between Ramon Rd and Monterey Ave
• Stalls: 5 handicapped stalls, 79 standard stalls
• Operator: SunLine Transit Agency • Contact: (760) 343-3456
11
20
10
19
7
5
8
4
6
2515
14
27 26
28
29
30
31
24
17
12
13 32
23
9
16
1
2
3
22
21
18
39
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 16, 2022
TO: Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Manager
SUBJECT: Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to receive and file an update from Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Caltrans' Local Assistance Program oversees more than one billion dollars annually available to over
600 cities, counties, and regional agencies for the purpose of improving their transportation
infrastructure or providing transportation services. This funding comes from various Federal and State
programs specifically designated to assist the transportation needs of local agencies. Annually, over
1,200 new projects are authorized through the Local Assistance Program of which approximately 700
are construction projects.
Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance is responsible for obligating and allocating federal and state funds,
providing guidance on federal and state regulations, and direction on processes and procedures that
are tied to each funding program. Local Assistance is responsible for the current funding programs as
identified in Table 1.
Table 1: Caltrans Local Assistance Funding Program Responsibilities
Federal Programs State Programs
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Emergency Relief (ER) Local Partnership Program (LPP) Off-system
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Solutions for Congested Corridors Program
(SCCP) Off-system
Highway Bridge Program (HBP) State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) Off-system
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP)
Off-system
State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) Off-system
Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG)
40
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
MAY 16, 2022
Present Absent
City of Banning X
City of Beaumont X
City of Blythe X
City of Calimesa X
Caltrans X
City of Canyon Lake X
City of Cathedral City X
City of Coachella X
Coachella Valley Association of Governments X
City of Corona X
City of Desert Hot Springs X
City of Eastvale X
City of Hemet X
City of Indian Wells X
City of Indio X
City of Jurupa Valley X
City of La Quinta X
City of Lake Elsinore X
City of Menifee X
City of Moreno Valley X
City of Murrieta X
City of Norco X
City of Palm Desert X
City of Palm Springs X
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency X
City of Perris X
City of Rancho Mirage X
City of Riverside X
Riverside County X
Riverside Transit Agency X
City of San Jacinto X
Sunline Transit Agency X
City of Temecula X
Western Riverside Council of Governments X
City of Wildomar X