The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About11 November 20, 2017 Technical Advisory CommitteeComments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. MEETING AGENDA Technical Advisory Committee Time 10:30 a.m. (PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE) Date November 20, 2017 Location BOARD ROOM Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Lori Askew, City of Calimesa Armando Baldizzone, City of Blythe Chad Blais, City of Norco Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert K. George Colangeli, PVVTA John Corella, City of Cathedral City Brad Fagrell, City of Lake Elsinore Tom Garcia, City of Palm Springs Christopher Gray, WRCOG Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Joe Indrawan, City of Eastvale Amer Jakher, City of Beaumont Rohan Kuruppu, Riverside Transit Agency David Lee, Caltrans District 8 Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Steve Loriso, City of Jurupa Valley Martin Magana, CVAG Brian McKinney, City of La Quinta Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside Vice Chair Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris and San Jacinto Nelson Nelson, City of Corona Aaron Palmer, City of Canyon Lake Daniel Porras, City of Desert Hot Springs Patricia Romo, County of Riverside Mark Sambito, City of Rancho Mirage Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells – Chair Sudi Shoja, City of Hemet Jonathan Smith, City of Menifee Patrick Thomas, City of Temecula Art Vela, City of Banning Timothy T. Wassil, City of Indio Dan York, City of Wildomar COMM-TAC-00059 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 20, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE and EMAIL BANNING ART VELA Acting Director of Public Works Holly Stuart Public Works Analyst BEAUMONT AMER JAKHER Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Parton City Manager BLYTHE ARMANDO BALDIZZONE Director of Public Works CVAG MARTIN MAGANA Director of Transportation rAkgiri 4 MAG Ask �-- 1 CALIMESA LORI ASKEW Works Director Michael Thornton City Engineer . Lzend N.k..kAoi �.'1 1Public l _ key gLt a f. eAki4i cut . yicF CALTRANS DAVID LEE District Local Assistance Planner -- -_ g, 4 0 eAA ,� J CANYON LAKE AARON PALMER City Manager CATHEDRAL CITY COACHELLA JOHN CORELLA City Engineer 'Bill Simons Senior Engineer 'V'.; u Si "wfi cryf' --e 47 JONATHAN HOY City Engineer Maritza Martinez Interim Public Works Director 0 Ilk aAta N, Priy /9/ //-d---- _llaaY oa oGi.e/f • .oc CORONA NELSON NELSON Public Works Director/City Engineer Linda Bazmi Senior Engineer DESERT HOT SPRINGS DANIEL PORRAS Public Works Manager Richard Kopecky Contract City Engineer sail!l!l fl James pue JaieM uosdwoul II!8 JoloaKJ sNioM o!lgnd sivis adHa 03tION �. ritto Ja6euew uogoruisuo0 svoM o!lgnd 1101!H Jar Jeau0u3 An ON11H3001 808 d1312121nW ,,—'/,/iy �� t,231� ��' o --:? ry z-y rv2 f4 Jaau!6u3 Anluais!ssy�Ja6auaW uoisvij 6upaeuOu piton teem Jeau!6u3 oaJl A Ja6eue uopni uogepodsueJ SIM31 31213 -r A311dn ON321001 uuA10 anais Jeaui6u3 kopopaJ!a svoM Wind 1-11101S NdH1VNOr 33JIN301 Ja6euew Al!O }uels!ssy uosdw s uoser Jeau!6u3 An 113NOVJ ava 3HONIS13 3NV1 a. X , r ''Zill-n JeauOu31edpuPc1 A3NNIN aW NVIN8 d1Nlno dl Je6euen itlo uosdwoyl ke0 Jeau0u3 Al!O/s)JoM o!Ignd 10 JoloaJ!a OS121013n31S A311dn dd(1 inr , Jeauou3 HAD led!ouPd loaM op3 imago svoM o!lgnd "NSW '1 AH100111 (Nam II Jeau43 luels!ssy Je lee a puo8 Jopea!a svoM o!lgnd NIdHa - oivoin3S N3N S113M NVIaNI Ja6euew An goweAeW Japuexaly Jeau!6u3 An 6u!loy df OHS Tans 13013H meyspeJB 6!eJo Jae"3 An NVMVIlaNI 3or 31VA1Sd3 31MILVNJIS 3INVN 1NIdd 31V101311d 1:138W3W 3dl AON3Jd NI NOIS 3SYYld LIOZ bZ 2139W3AON 33111ININO3 ANOSIAMI 1VOIN1-1031 ,g 51) IN Jelly aawy svoM o!Ignd Jo aopaa!a SdWOH1)I31211dd -- -- - vino W31 bi,f v,s>s a3,71 -). -et-—a-y),+ • -a-k.:. Nei kiA ii:rk\si aa6aueW 6u!uueld ijsueal aVd a e !u W �. b' lNdadA 3NnNf1S L.,,,-----) ...5t,..,...?c.//15-v / ..,)+----19-ki ? 4/4(ki2 )2-1 4HOV110W aaau!6u3 Aija SISVH OlNladr NVS - --.1 o • Cr-) n ,--4 crw o-s c -- //JJ))Ni �, ) !,-x-ta uoppodsueal jo aoioaa!a *deo eweleS pauefoW uoRepodsueal Jo aopaala MOO VI3ItIldd A1Nf10a 3aIS213AIN _ ....----- ,) Q ' V-aC 1 ,S..J'PA ( ,.,% �'I vim? r_IvrI... aopoi!a svoM o!ignd zaui e . W . sia >I -- - - aa6aueW 6upeauOu3 NIVHa 30IA -'avow/HOW aIHS21` A 3aIS2l3AI?l "_�'9)(2/ )) / .J olicifwv>1.1 nauou3 A,!, sou3 we1II!M svoM o!Ignd Jo ao}oaa!a 0118WdS WAN 301/211W OH3NV2I is!lepeds 6u!www6oad pue 6u!uueld pisu!saeM u!isp>i nddntinN NVH021 d121 ''' ' s rsuf,.0,---a,r,/,,i_ ,- 5 d\'''0 r, , r if ' aaeuou3 All HOV110W SISVH S12al3d splouAaelea aa6eueW lame° l!sueal' 113ONd100 3%1030 )1 dlAAd , 9 .v.mi v4.9. ri ."..) '7) --x.rvv \410 I aaauOu3 HAD aolues noydweyyl leneS aaauOu3 Aini6upeauOu3 Jo imago d1321V0 WO1 SONINdS IN1Vd od (( 011 771 f--,a.... � �� . \0 �' � aaaui6u3 ao!uas ouaao W uo aaaui6u3 �ti!a N3H3 OS 1213S3a 111Vd lIVIN3 pue 3MCILVNJIS 31NVN 1N12id 31VNt1311V M381A131AI 3d.l A3N3Jd NI NOIS 3SV37d L1OZ 'OZ 2139W3nON 33111ININO3 ANOSIAaV 1VOIN11031 . . , Az-ALI. 9 51,,g(vz 0 , --7 --0 ,............„\t„ (.ti..+...,.x_°171711)11- ji 11 i AI -/#'1/1 '0 I V 1 Ik 9 ItTYV t3.4? 4711 kg04 , o_Li ",,,,,'1 . Gi , , , , v^ s . .,I, ` �'a 4 " u) J s v p Wa a'ct 3 n ;2111.1*\ ‘;J ( aa6eueW wefrid 6uaz1 spin uoRepodsueal to aoioaaia AVII0 N3HdO1SINHa 00311M ,�----)).0p, ,o,o!lcInd llauua8 lien aaaui6u3 �Cms)aoM jo ao oaij aa6euan Al!O luels!ssti � IOA Nda 21dmn/A �� -- / #40-771, (71-11.,)-.? 0, A•fi'llf) lIV IA13 pue 3mniv - S 3INVN 1NIdd 31VN?J311d 1:1391N3W Tn. A3N3JV NI NOIS 3SV3id 11.0Z bZ 2138W3AON 331111A1W03 ANOSIAaV1V3INH33.1 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:30 A.M. (PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE) DATE: November 20, 2017 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 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. Self-Introductions 3. Approval of September 18, 2017 Minutes 4. 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.) 5. Regional Truck/Fee Study Update (Presentation) 6. SCAG Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture Project (Presentation) 7. SB 1 Program Updates (Presentation) 8. ATP Cycle 4 Update (Attachment) 9. Caltrans Update (Verbal Presentation) 10. FFY 2017/18 Obligation Authority Update (Attachment) 11. November Commission Meeting Highlights (Verbal Presentation) 12. Other Announcements 13. Other Business 14. Adjournment Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 20, 2017 Page 2 The next meeting will be January 22, 2018 at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Conference Room A, Riverside, CA 92501 at 10:00 a.m. MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 18, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order by Chair Ken Seumalo, at 10:00 a.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501. 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS Members Present: Others Present: Lori Askew, City of Calimesa Amer Attar, City of Temecula Linda Bazmi, City of Corona Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert John Corella, City of Cathedral City Brad Fagrell, City of Lake Elsinore Tom Garcia, City of Palm Springs Christopher Gray, WRCOG Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella David Lee, Caltrans Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Martin Magana, CVAG Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris and San Jacinto Mark Sabito, Rancho Mirage Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells Jonathan Smith, City of Menifee Patrick Thomas, City of Temecula Kristin Warsinski, Riverside Transit Agency Timothy T. Wassil, City of Indio Dan York, City of Wildomar Fred Alamolhoda, LAE Associates Grace Alvarez, RCTC Agustin Barajas, SLAG Brad Brophy, Cities of Perris and San Jacinto Carley Escarrega Allan Guizado, RCTC Pabl❑ Gutierrez, SCAG Aaron Hake, RCTC Edward Lara, City of Riverside Margery Lazarus Maria Lopez, SCAG Martha Masters, RCTC Darla Matthews, Caltrans Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 18, 2017 Page 2 Anne Mayer, RCTC Brian McKinney Julie Migenan LoreIle Moe -Luna, RCTC Josh Nickerson, NAI Consulting Roy Null, Riverside County Mike Parmer, City of Indian Wells Sedush Paul, City of Corona Paul Rodriguez, Rodriguez Consulting Group Julie Tarrant, City of Temecula Daniel Trani SCAG 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 15, 2017 AND 1ULY 17, 2017 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Shirley Medina, RCTC, thanked Grace Alvarez for her contributions to RCTC and for her assistance for the past ten years. Anne Mayer, RCTC, thanked Grace Alvarez for her public service and congratulated her on her impending retirement. Grace was given a round of applause and other speakers expressed their gratitude and appreciation for her work. Grace thanked everyone. 5. 2019 FTIP Update Process Grace Alvarez, RCTC, introduced SCAG members: • Maria Lopez, FTIP Manager • Daniel Tran, Senior Regional Planner • Pablo Gutierrez, Regional Planner Specialist ■ Austin Barajas, Associate Regional Planner The Planning and Programming staff {provided a brief summary of the 2019 FTIP process, reviewed upcoming deadlines, and responded to various questions. 6. Long Range Transportation Plan Advisory Committee Shirley Medina reported that a committee is being formed that will meet on an as -needed basis, perhaps quarterly, to review technical comments that come out of the long range transportation plan. She is soliciting volunteers of representatives from various parts of Riverside County. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 18, 2017 Page 3 7. SB 1 Funding Programs Update LoreIle Moe -Luna, RCTC, pointed out that the SB 1 Funding Programs Update attached to this agenda item lists all the programs that were discussed at the last TAC meeting, including transit, ATP, local streets and roads, and local planning grants. She highlighted the programs with the upcoming deadlines. She specifically pointed out the local streets and roads program deadline that had been pushed back one month, to October 16. The CTC will adopt the lists of eligible projects in December, and in mid -January apportionments will begin. Jillian Guizado reported that Friday was the end of the legislative session for this year. The budget trailer bill, Assembly Bill 135, did get through but it's on the governor's desk and it may be another month before we'll know if it gets signed. She also said that in 2012 the federal government approved a NEPA assignment program on rail, transit, and multi -modal projects, which is part of AB 135. Approval for letters of no prejudice to advance our own dollars to use on SB 1 programs, including the freight program, is also included. There is a large section that amends SB 1 through Trailer Bill AB 135 for local streets and roads that will change the list of projects that will have to be adopted by resolution of the council. It allows for the CTC to make multiple reports to the controller. She and Planning and Programming staff responded to various questions. 8. ATP Augmentation Funds Update Ms. Moe -Luna provided staff recommendations for the 2017 Active Transportation Program Cycle 3 Augmentation that will be posted to RCTC's website this week for next week's committee meeting and she gave a quick overview of the recommendations. She reported that eight new projects are included on the list. 9. SB 821 Project Recommendations Update Martha Masters, RCTC, stated that the agenda item going to the Budget and Implementation Committee on September 25 is included in the current TAC agenda. This item is taking the previous 5B 821 recommendations made in July and revising to fund more projects. There were two projects (County's Clark Street Project and Riverside's Carmine project) submitted to the Commission for SB 821 funding. These two projects were smaller segments of larger ATP projects that were eligible to apply through SB 1 ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation Call for projects. These two projects will be recommended for award for ATP Cycle 3 at the CTC October meeting; therefore, staff is recommending to the Commission to free up the SB 821 funds from those two projects to award the next highest scored projects which are Lake Elsinore's Palomar Multi Use Trial, La Quinta's Jefferson Street sidewalk gap closure and Temecula's citywide buffered bike lane striping project. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 18, 2017 Page 4 10. 2018 STIP Development/Update Ms. Medina reported that last week, she presented to the Commission staff recommendations for the Western County STIP funds. There was about $80 million available for programming in Western Riverside County and it was decided to replenish the I-15 French Valley Interchange project, and allocate $50 million for PA&ED for the I-15 Express Lanes southerly section from Cajalco to SR-74. Other projects will be examined that will compete well with the SB 1 programs. The STIP intercountry formula sets aside the STIP capacity funding for the three geographic areas. Coachella Valley has about $22 million for programming. Per the STIP MOU with Blythe, Palo Verde Valley STIP funds have been traded with Measure A Western Riverside County highway funds to facilitate delivery of local arterial projects in the Palo Verde Valley, The STIP will be approved by the CTC in March. 11. Caltrans Local Assistance Update David Lee, Caltrans Local Assistance, reported the RE Academy coming up, which is a four -day training session. He suggested contacting Jenny Chan for scheduling. He also stated that CWA Cycle 15, which is a cooperative work agreement that applies to the funds you received for projects in the years 2012/2013 and funds would have to be used by six years. If needed, a two-year extension would have to be requested. There are new federal requirements for the A&E for consultant contract reviewers checking, Exhibit 10-C has been added to the LAPM to implement this new requirement. There will be training September 19. Two months ago, FHWA contacted the district directors regarding inactive obligations. Mr. Lee said inactive projects are recorded and Caltrans has the right to sanction jurisdictions. FHWA is currently having discussions with Caltrans Headquarters on how to sanction. 12. FFY 16/17 Obligation Authority Report Ms. Masters reported that the Commission obligated 107 percent of its obligation authority for 2016/17 and it is expected that amount will go to 118 percent; therefore, Riverside County apportionment will not be loaned to another county and will not lose out on the August redistribution of funds from Federal Highways. This year's distribution for California will surpass the prior year's, which was $293 million. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 18, 2017 Page 5 13. FFY 17/18 Obligation Authority Plan Martha Masters asked the agencies to look at the list of projects programmed to be obligated attached to her staff report and review to see if your project is on the list and, if so, you are encouraged to start your federal -aid process early to ensure timely obligation of federal funds and to ensure sufficient OA is available. if your agency has a project that can be delivered/obligated in FFY 17/18 but is not on the attached list, please contact staff so it can be added to the plan. 14. September Commission Highlights Shirley Medina reported that the Railroad Canyon project is in design phase. She also stated that staff will send information to the TAC regarding the vanpool program. 15. Other Announcements There were no other announcements. 16. Other Business There was no other business presented. 17. Adjournment There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, �� Shirley Medina Planning and Programming Director AGENDA ITEM 5 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 5. AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 20, 2017 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Planning and Programming Manager SUBJECT: Southern California Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has announced the start of the Southern California Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Architecture project. The R egional ITS Architecture is a planning framework for ensuring that ITS projects and technologies for managing transportation systems are deployed in a coordinated fashion in the six -county region (Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial). The project is a 12-month effort to update the Regional ITS Architecture that was developed initially in 2005 and updated subsequently in 2008 and 2011. SCAG staff will present an overview of the project and describe how RCTC and lo cal agencies can be involved in the development of the architecture. AGENDA ITEM 7 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 20, 2017 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Martha Masters, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 4 Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 and Assemb ly Bill 101 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation such as biking and walking. The program is funded from various federal and state funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act, including the federal Transportation Alternative Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, State Highway Account funds and the SB 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds . The ATP is administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Available funding for Cycle 4 is approximately $438 million from state Fiscal Years 2019/20 – 2022/23. Cycle 4 guidelines are currently in ‘discussion draft’ form and CTC workshops are being held throughout the state for input. See Attachment 1 for the draft 2019 ATP Guidelines. Four workshops have already taken place; there are four remaining. These workshops are considered ‘progressive’ in that each workshop builds upon the comments from previous workshops. See Attachment 2 for the CTC workshop schedule. If an agency plan to apply it is highly recommended agencies attend the ATP workshop in San Bernardino on December 7th as it will provide a good glimpse on the proposed changes. Based on the CTC draft guidelines, the Call for Projects for Cycle 4 is expected to open March 26, 2018, and the deadline to submit applications is May 30, 2018. There are a few major proposed revisions to the guidelines and application process this cycle based on the progressive workshops staff has attended. The following is a summary of the revisions which are subject to change:  Separate project applications based on large projects, medium projects and small projects  Extend deadline for expenditures by 20 months  Possibly add a new definition of Disadvantaged Communities Project sponsors should be aware of the following upcoming milestone dates and resources. Proposed Milestone Dates Wed., Jan 31, 2018 CTC to adopt ATP Guidelines http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm Wed., Mar 21, 2018 CTC adopts ATP Fund Estimate* http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm Mon., Mar. 26, 2018 Cycle 4 Call for Projects Opens* http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm Wed., May 30, 2018 Applications due to Caltrans* This date will most likely change. *Dates are subject to change pending CTC final approval of the 2019 ATP Guidelines. Available Resources: There are a number of resources available, as shown below, to help local agencies strengthen their applications. If your agency is planning to apply for ATP funds this cycle it is highly recommended to begin the project selection and development process now.  The Active Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) is funded through the ATP program and offers an ATP resource website to provide an easy cl earinghouse for ATP program information and resources; conducts training and workshops for communities (including underserved and low-income communities) on topics such as application writing, outreach and education, active transportation planning, and bicycle and pedestrian facility engineering best practices; and provides guidance to ATP awardees for project implementation and delivery. For more information, contact Jane Kemp at jane.kemp@cdph.ca.gov or visit http://caatpresources.org/.  The Active Transportation Resource Team (ATRT) (led by Rails-to-Trails, Local Government Commission, California Bike Coalition, and California Walks) held a workshop in Riverside in June 2017 and is offering free follow-up technical assistance relating to bicycling, walking and trail projects and programs. They are local agencies with projects in disadvantaged communities, however, for the purposes of this assistance the definition of a disadvantaged community is not limited to the requirements as described in the ATP application, but rather is intended for lower resourced communities. The ATRT is also not limited to assisting local agencies who are applying for the ATP program but also other programs such as the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant program, which can fund active transportation planning efforts. The ATRT has limited funding and is available to local agencies in Tulare and Riverside counties and is accepting applications on a rolling basis through early spring 2018. See Attachment 3 for the announcement of this resource.  The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has also offered workshops on ATP in the past cycles and has covered topics such as best practices in outreach, project design, and public health engagement; innovative design treatments; and other application tips for making an application more competitive. For more inform ation on past workshops, please visit: http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Documents/ATP_Cycle_3_Combined_Presentations.pdf .  The Riverside County Active Transportation Network (ATN) is a local consortium comprised of various public and private agencies and interest groups such as the Riverside University Health System, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Inland Empire Biking Alliance, and various others. The ATN meets quarterly and the next meeting will be on February 21, 2018 at the SCAG Riverside Office from 10:00am to 12:00pm, video conference is also available from the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) office in Palm Desert. RCTC will be collaborating with the ATN to maximize resources, share data, and encourage partnerships.  The WRCOG Grant Writing Assistance Program provides members with help developing grant applications for funding. This program has a bench of consultants available to members on a first-come, first-served basis. The consultants will assist members with the grant application process only, not with subsequent award management or project implementation. This program focuses on a few select grant opportunities including ATP, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program, Clean Cities related grants and new planning grant opportunities. Interested members must review the guidelines and submit an interest form and/or application to be considered for assistance. For more information you may contact Christopher Tzeng at ctzeng@wrcog.us or visit: http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/266/Grant-Writing-Assistance. Attachments: Draft 2019 ATP Guidelines ATP Workshop Schedule Active Transportation Resource Team Flyer 2019 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES Discussion Draft OctoberMay, 2017 California Transportation Commission i CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2019 ATP GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1. Background ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Program Goals ............................................................................................................ 1 3. Program Schedule ...................................................................................................... 1 II. Funding ............................................................................................................................. 2 4. Source ......................................................................................................................... 2 5. Distribution .................................................................................................................. 3 6. Matching Requirements ............................................................................................. 4 7. Funding for Active Transportation Plans .................................................................. 4 8. Reimbursement ........................................................................................................... 5 III. Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 5 9. Eligible Applicants ...................................................................................................... 5 10. Partnering With Implementing Agencies ................................................................... 6 11. Eligible Projects .......................................................................................................... 6 12. Minimum Request For Funds ..................................................................................... 9 13. Project Type Requirements ........................................................................................ 9 IV. Project Selection Process ..............................................................................................14 14. Project Application ....................................................................................................14 15. Sequential Project Selection .....................................................................................14 16. MPO Competitive Project Selection ..........................................................................15 17. Screening Criteria ......................................................................................................15 18. Scoring Criteria ..........................................................................................................16 19. Project Selection between Project Applications with the Same Score ..................15 20. Project Evaluation Committee ..................................................................................16 V. Programming ...................................................................................................................17 VI. Allocations .......................................................................................................................19 VII. Project Delivery ...........................................................................................................21 21. Federal Requirements ...............................................................................................22 22. Design Standards ......................................................................................................23 23. Project Inactivity ........................................................................................................23 24. Project Reporting .......................................................................................................24 VIII. Roles And Responsibilities ........................................................................................25 25. California Transportation Commission (Commission) ............................................25 26. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ................................................26 27. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) With Large Urbanized Areas ..........26 28. Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) Outside an MPO with Large Urbanized Areas and MPOs without Large Urbanized Areas ...........................................27 29. Project Applicant .......................................................................................................27 IX. Program Evaluation ........................................................................................................28 California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 1 Introduction 1. Background The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Senate Bill 1 (Chapter 2031) stipulates that $100,000,000 of revenues from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account will be available annually to the ATP. These guidelines describe the policy, standards, criteria, and procedures for the development, adoption and management of the ATP. The guidelines were developed in consultation with the Workgroup. The workgroup includes representatives from Caltrans, other government agencies, and active transportation stakeholder organizations with expertise in pedestrian and bicycle issues, including Safe Routes to School programs. The Commission may amend the ATP guidelines after conducting at least one public hearing. The Commission must make a reasonable effort to amend the guidelines prior to a call for projects or may extend the deadline for project submission in order to comply with the amended guidelines. 2. Program Goals Pursuant to statute, the goals of the Active Transportation Program are to: • Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking. • Increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users. • Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals as established pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and Senate Bill 391 (Chapter 585, Statutes of 2009). • Enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity through the use of programs including, but not limited to, projects eligible for Safe Routes to School Program funding. • Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program. • Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. 3. Program Schedule and Funding Years The guidelines for the third fourth program of projects must be adopted by March 17January, 20186. New programming capacity for the 20197 ATP will be for state fiscal years 2019-/20, and 2020- /21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. Each programs must be adopted not later than April 1 of each odd-numbered year; however, the Commission may alternatively elect to adopt a program annually. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 2 The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the 20197 ATP: Draft ATP Guidelines and Application presented to Commission January 3120-21, 20186* Commission hearing and adoption of ATP Guidelines March 21-2217, 20186* Commission adopts ATP Fund Estimate March 21-22, 2018* Call for projects March 26April 15, 20186 Commission adopts ATP Fund Estimate May 18, 2016* Large MPOs submit optional guidelines to Commission April 9June 1, 20186 Project applications to Caltrans (postmark date) May 30,June 15, 201896 Commission approves or rejects MPO guidelines May 16-17June 29- 30, 20186* Staff recommendation for statewide and small urban and rural portions of the program October 3028, 20186 Commission adopts statewide and small urban and rural portions of the program December 5-67-8, 20168* Projects not programmed distributed to large MPOs based on location December 5-67-8, 20186 Deadline for MPO project programming recommendations to the Commission January 278, 20172019 Commission adopts MPO selected projects March 20172019 *Dates coincide with the Commission’s adopted 20186 CTC meeting calendar. Funding 4. Source The Active Transportation Program is funded from various federal and state funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act. These are: • 100% of the federal Transportation Alternative Program funds, except for federal Recreation Trail Program funds appropriated to the Department of Parks and Recreation. • $21 million of federal Highway Safety Improvement Program funds or other federal funds. • State Highway Account funds. • Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account In addition to furthering the goals of this program, all Active Transportation Program projects must meet eligibility requirements specific to at least one Active Transportation Program funding source. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 3 5. Programming Cycle Each Active Transportation Program programming cycle will include four years of funding. The first two years of funding in each cycle will consist of the $96 million per year from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). The latter two years of funding in each cycle will consist of the approximately $123 million per year of other Active Transportation Program funds (SHA, STBG, and other federal funds). The 2019 Active Transportation Program will cover fiscal years It is the intent of the Commission to adopt a multi-year program of projects covering state fiscal years 2019-20 through 2022-23. 5.6. Distribution State and federal law segregate the Active Transportation Program into multiple, overlapping components. The Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate must indicate the funds available for each of the program components. Consistent with these requirements, the Active Transportation Program funds must be distributed as follows: • Forty percent to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000. These funds must be distributed based on total MPO population. The funds programmed and allocated under this paragraph must be selected through a competitive process by the MPOs in accordance with these guidelines. Projects selected by MPOs may be in large urban, small urban, or rural areas. A minimum of 25% of the funds distributed to each MPO must benefit disadvantaged communities. The following statutory requirements apply specifically to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) o SCAG must consult with county transportation commissions, the Commission, and Caltrans in the development of competitive project selection criteria. o The criteria used by SCAG should include consideration of geographic equity, consistent with program objectives. o SCAG must place priority on projects that are consistent with plans adopted by local and regional governments within the county where the project is located. o SCAG must obtain concurrence from the county transportation commissions. • Ten percent to small urban and rural areas with populations of 200,000 or less, with projects competitively awarded by the Commission to projects in those regions. Federal law segregates the Transportation Alternative Program into separate small urban and rural competitions based upon their relative share of the state population. Small Urban areas are those with populations of 5,001 to 200,000. Rural areas are those with populations of 5,000 or less. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 4 A minimum of 25% of the funds in the Small Urban and Rural programs must benefit disadvantaged communities. Projects within the boundaries of an MPO with an urban area with a population of greater than 200,000 are not eligible for funding in the Small Urban or Rural programs. • Fifty percent to projects competitively awarded by the Commission on a statewide basis. A minimum of 25% of the funds in the statewide competitive program must benefit disadvantaged communities. • $4 million per year from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the California Conservation Corps for active transportation projects to be developed and implemented by the California Conservation Corps and certified community conservation corps. Not less than 50 percent of these funds shall be in the form of grants to certified local community conservation corps, as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code. 6.7. Matching Requirements Although the Commission encourages the leveraging of additional funds for a project, matching funds are not required. If an agency chooses to provide match funds, those funds cannot be expended prior to the Commission allocation of Active Transportation Program funds in the same project phase (permits and environmental studies; plans, specifications, and estimates; right-of- way; and construction). Matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionally to the Active Transportation Program funds. Costs incurred prior to allocation will not be counted towards match. The Matching funds may be adjusted before or shortly after contract award to reflect any substantive change in the bid compared to the estimated cost of the project. The applicant must provide a project funding plan through construction that demonstrates the supplemental funding in the plan (local, federal, state, private sources) is reasonably expected to be available and sufficient to complete the project. Large MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, may require a funding match for projects selected through their competitive process. Applicants from within a large MPO should be aware that the match requirements may differ between the MPO and statewide competitive programs. 7.8. Funding for Active Transportation Plans Funding from the Active Transportation Program may be used to fund the development of community-wide active transportation plans within or, for area-wide plans, encompassing disadvantaged communities, including bike, pedestrian, safe routes to schools, or comprehensive active transportation plans. A list of the components that must be included in an active transportation plan can be found in Section 13, subsection E. (This will be moved to an appendix) The Commission intends to set aside up to 2% of the funds in the statewide competitive component and in the small urban and rural component for funding active transportation plans in California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 5 predominantly disadvantaged communities. A large MPO, in administering its portion of the program, may make up to 2% of its funding available for active transportation plans in disadvantaged communities within the MPO boundaries. The first priority for the funding of plans will be for cities, counties, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, MPOs, school districts, or transit districts that have neither a bicycle plan, a pedestrian plan, a safe routes to schools plan, nor a comprehensive active transportation plan. The second priority for the funding of plans will be for cities, counties, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, or MPOs that have a bicycle plan or a pedestrian plan but not both. The lowest priority for funding of plans will be for updates of active transportation plans older than 5 years. Applications for plans may not be combined with applications for infrastructure or other non- infrastructure projects. 9. Funding Restrictions Active Transportation Program funds shall not supplant other committed funds are not available to fund cost increases. A project that is already fully funded or is a capital improvement to that is required as a condition for private development approval or permits is not eligible for funding from the Active Transportation Program. Any single applicant cannot submit more than XX applications per cycle. 8.10. Reimbursement The Active Transportation Program is a reimbursement program for eligible costs incurred. Reimbursement is requested through the invoice process detailed in Chapter 5, Accounting/Invoices, Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Costs incurred prior to Commission allocation and, for federally funded projects, Federal Highway Administration project approval (i.e. Authorization to Proceed) are not eligible for reimbursement. Eligibility 9.11. Eligible Applicants The applicant and/or implementing agency for Active Transportation Program funds assumes responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of program funds. Applicants and/or implementing agencies must be able to comply with all the federal and state laws, regulations, policies and procedures required to enter into a Local Administering Agency-State Master Agreement (Master Agreement). Refer to Chapter 4, Agreements, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual for guidance and procedures on Master Agreements. The following entities, within the State of California, are eligible to apply for Active Transportation Program funds: • Local, Regional or State Agencies- Examples include city, county, MPO*, and Regional Transportation Planning Agency. • Caltrans* California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 6 • Transit Agencies - Any agency responsible for public transportation that is eligible for funds under the Federal Transit Administration. • Natural Resources or Public Land Agencies - Federal, Tribal, State, or local agency responsible for natural resources or public land administration. Examples include: o State or local park or forest agencies o State or local fish and game or wildlife agencies o Department of the Interior Land Management Agencies o U.S. Forest Service • Public schools or School districts. • Tribal Governments - Federally-recognized Native American Tribes. • Private nonprofit tax-exempt organizations may apply for projects eligible for Recreational Trail Program funds recreational trails and trailheads, park projects that facilitate trail linkages or connectivity to non-motorized corridors, and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors to trails. Projects must benefit the general public, and not only a private entity. • Any other entity with responsibility for oversight of transportation or recreational trails that the Commission determines to be eligible. For funding awarded to a tribal government, a fund transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) may be necessary. A tribal government may also partner with another eligible entity to apply if desired. * Caltrans and MPOs, except for MPOs that are also regional transportation planning agencies, are not eligible project applicants for the federal Transportation Alternative Program funds appropriated to the Active Transportation Program. Therefore, funding awarded to projects submitted directly by Caltrans and MPOs are limited to other Active Transportation Program funds. Caltrans and MPOs may partner with an eligible entity to expand funding opportunities. 10.12. Partnering With Implementing Agencies Eligible applicants that are unable to apply for Active Transportation Program funds or that are unable to enter into a Master Agreement with the State must partner with an eligible applicant that can implement the project. In addition, eligible applicants that are unfamiliar with the requirements to administer a Federal-Aid Highway Program project are encouraged to partner with an eligible applicant that can implement the project. If another entity agrees to be the implementing agency and assume responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement (e.g., letter of intent) must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the first request for allocation. The implementing agency will be responsible and accountable for the use and expenditure of program funds. 11.13. Eligible Projects All projects must be selected through a competitive process and must meet one or more of the program goals. Because some of the majority of funds in the Active Transportation Program are California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 7 federal funds, projects that are considered large or medium infrastructure must be federal-aid eligible.: • Infrastructure Projects: Capital improvements that will further the goals of this program. This typically includes the environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction phases of a capital (facilities) project. A new infrastructure project will not be programmed without a complete project study report (PSR) or PSR equivalent. The application will be considered a PSR equivalent if it defines and justifies the project scope, cost and schedule. Though the PSR or equivalent may focus on the project components proposed for programming, it must provide at least a preliminary estimate of costs for all components. PSR guidelines are posted on the Commission’s website: http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm. A capital improvement that is required as a condition for private development approval or permits is not eligible for funding from the Active Transportation Program. • Plans: The development of a community wide bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, or active transportation plan in a disadvantaged community. • Non-infrastructure Projects: Education, encouragement, and enforcement activities that further the goals of this program. The Commission intends to focus funding for non- infrastructure on start-up projects. A project is considered to be a start-up when no program currently exists. Start-up projects must demonstrate how the program is sustainable after ATP funding is exhausted. ATP funds cannot fund ongoing program operations. Non-infrastructure projects are not limited to those benefiting school students. Program expansions or new components of existing programs are eligible for ATP funds as long as the applicant can demonstrate that the existing program will be continued with non-ATP funds. • Infrastructure projects with non-infrastructure components. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 8 Example Projects Below is a list of projects considered generally eligible for Active Transportation Program funding. This list is not intended to be comprehensive; other types of projects that are not on this list may also be eligible if they further the goals of the program. Components of an otherwise eligible project may not be eligible. For information on ineligible components, see the Department’s Local Assistance/ATP website. • Development of new bikeways and walkways that improve mobility, access, or safety for non-motorized users. • Improvements to existing bikeways and walkways, which improve mobility, access, or safety for non-motorized users. o Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways and walkways. o Preventative maintenance of bikeways and walkways with the primary goal of improving the active transportation operations/usability extending the service life of the facility. • Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. • Safe Routes to School projects that improve the safety of children walking and bicycling to school, in accordance with Section 1404 of Public Law 109-59. • Safe routes to transit projects, which will encourage transit by improving biking and walking routes to mass transportation facilities and school bus stops. • Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, rail and transit stations, and ferry docks and landings for the benefit of the public. • Bicycle-carrying facilities on public transit, including rail and ferries. • Establishment or expansion of a bike share program. • Recreational trails and trailheads, park projects that facilitate trail linkages or connectivity to non-motorized corridors, and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors to trails. • Development of a community wide bike, pedestrian, safe routes to schools, or active transportation plan in a disadvantaged community. • Education programs to increase bicycling and walking, and other non-infrastructure investments that demonstrate effectiveness in increasing active transportation. Components may include but are not limited to: o Development and implementation of bike-to-work or walk-to-work school day/month programs. o Conducting bicycle and/or pedestrian counts, walkability and/or bikeability assessments or audits, or pedestrian and/or bicycle safety analysis. o Conducting pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs. o Development and publishing of community walking and biking maps, including school route/travel plans. o Development and implementation of walking school bus or bike train programs. o Components of open streets events directly linked to the promotion of a new infrastructure project or designed to promote walking and biking on a daily basis. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 9 o Targeted enforcement activities around high pedestrian and/or bicycle injury and/or fatality locations (intersections or corridors). These activities cannot be general traffic enforcement but must be tied to improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety. o School crossing guard training. o School bicycle clinics. o Development and implementation of programs and tools that maximize use of available and emerging technologies to implement the goals of the Active Transportation Program. 12.14. Minimum Request for Funds In order to maximize the effectiveness of program funds and to encourage the aggregation of small projects into one larger comprehensive project, the minimum request for Active Transportation Program funds that will be considered is $250,000. This minimum does not apply to non-infrastructure projects, Safe Routes to Schools projects, Recreational Trail projects, and plans. MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, may use a different minimum funding size. Use of a minimum project size greater than $500,000 must be approved by the Commission prior to an MPO’s call for projects. 13.15. Project Type Requirements The Active Transportation Program, as conceived in SB 99, only specifies one funding distribution requirement beyond the funding split between the three program components. That is for at least 25% of funds must benefit disadvantaged communities in each of the program components. However the Active Transportation Program includes many other project categories that must meet certain requirements. Below is an explanation of the requirements specific to those project categories. As discussed in the Funding Distribution section (above), State and Federal law segregate the Active Transportation Program into multiple, overlapping components. Below is an explanation of the requirements specific to these components. A. Disadvantaged Communities For a project to contribute toward the Disadvantaged Communities funding requirement, the project must clearly demonstrate, with verifiable information, a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to a disadvantaged community. To count as providing a benefit, a project must fulfill an important need of low-income people in a way that provides a significant benefit and targets its benefits primarily to low-income people while avoiding substantial burdens on a disadvantaged community. For a project to qualify as directly benefiting a disadvantaged community, the project must be located within or in reasonable proximity and have a direct connection, to the disadvantaged community served by the project; or the project must be an extension or a segment of a larger project that connects to or directly adjacent to that disadvantaged community. It is incumbent upon the applicant to clearly articulate how the project benefits the disadvantaged community; there is no presumption of benefit, even for projects located within a disadvantaged community. To qualify as a disadvantaged community the community served by the project must meet at least one of the following criteria: California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 10 • The Median Household Income (Table ID B19013) is less than 80% of the statewide median based on the most current Census Tract (ID 140) level data from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (<$49,191). Communities with a population less than 15,000 may use data at the Census Block Group (ID 150) level. Unincorporated communities may use data at the Census Place (ID 160) level. Data is available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml • An area identified as among the most disadvantaged 25% in the state according to the CalEPA and based on the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool 3.02.0 (CalEnviroScreen 3.02.0) scores (score must be greater than or equal to 36.62). This list can be found at the following link under SB 535 List of Disadvantaged Communities: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/ • At least 75% of public school students in the project area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program. Data is available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filessp.asp. Applicants using this measure must indicate how the project benefits the school students in the project area. Project must be located within two miles of the school(s) represented by this criteria. • Other: o If a project applicant believes a project benefits a disadvantaged community but the project does not meet the aforementioned criteria due to a lack of accurate Census data or CalEnviroScreen data that represents a small neighborhood or unincorporated area, the applicant must submit for consideration a quantitative assessment, to demonstrate that the community’s median household income is at or below 80% of that state median household income. o Regional definitions of disadvantaged communities as adopted in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) by an MPO or RTPA per obligations with Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, such as “environmental justice communities” or “communities of concern,” may be used in lieu of the options identified above. o Projects located within Federally Recognized Tribal Lands (typically within the boundaries of a Reservation or Rancheria). MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, may use different criteria for determining which projects benefit Disadvantaged Communities if the criteria are approved by the Commission prior to an MPO’s call for projects. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 11 B. Large Project, Infrastructure only or Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure Projects with a total project cost of greater than $5 million will be considered a Large Project and must use the Large Project application. Any project requesting over $10M in ATP funding will required an onsite field review with Caltrans and CTC staff. C. Medium Project, Infrastructure only or Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure Projects with a total project cost between $1.5 million to $5 million will be considered a Medium Project and must use the Medium Project application. D. Small Project, Infrastructure only or Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure Projects with a total project cost less than $1.5 million will be considered a Small Project and must use the Small Project application. E. Small Project, Non-infrastructure Only F. Small Project, Plan G. Safe Routes to School Projects For a project to qualify for Safe Routes to School designation, the project must directly increase safety and convenience for public school students to walk and/or bike to school. Safe Routes to Schools infrastructure projects must be located within two miles of a public school or within the vicinity of a public school bus stop and the students must be the intended beneficiaries of the project. Other than traffic education and enforcement activities, non-infrastructure projects do not have a location restriction. H. Recreational Trails Projects Trail projects that are primarily recreational should meet the federal requirements of the Recreational Trails Program as such projects may not be eligible for funding from other sources (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/). I. Active Transportation Resource Center Typical Active Transportation Resource Center roles include: • Providing technical assistance and training resources to help agencies deliver existing and future projects and to strengthen community involvement in future projects including those in disadvantaged communities. • Assisting with program evaluation. The Commission intends to fund a state technical assistance center by programming funds to the Department, who will administer contracts to support all current and potential Active Transportation Program applicants. J. Active Transportation Plan for Disadvantaged Communities Move this to a “Guidance for Plans” addendum A city, county, county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district, or transit district may prepare an active transportation plan (bicycle, pedestrian, safe-routes-to-school, or comprehensive). An California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 12 active transportation plan prepared by a city or county may be integrated into the circulation element of its general plan or a separate plan which is compliant or will be brought into compliance with the Complete Streets Act, Assembly Bill 1358 (Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008). An active transportation plan must include, but not be limited to, the following components or explain why the component is not applicable: • The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan. • The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan. • A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations. • A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities, including a description of bicycle facilities that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the five Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of bicycling to school. • A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. • A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments. • A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, bicycle parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. • A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities, including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the five Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of walking to school. Major transit hubs must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings. • A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations. • A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, ADA level surfaces, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting. • A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting effect on collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 13 • A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities. • A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan. • A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation. • A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses. • A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan. • A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located. A city, county, school district, or transit district that has prepared an active transportation plan may submit the plan to the county transportation commission or transportation planning agency for approval. The city, county, school district, or transit district may submit an approved plan to Caltrans in connection with an application for funds for active transportation facilities which will implement the plan. Additional information related to active transportation plans can be found in the sections on Funding for Active Transportation Plans and Scoring Criteria. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 14 Project Selection Process 14.16. Project Application ATP project applications will be available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/index.html. There will be five different applications available for applicants to complete depending on the project type and size. It is incumbent on the applicant to complete the application appropriate for their project. The four application types are: • Large Project, Infrastructure only or Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure • Medium Project, Infrastructure only or Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure • Small Project, Infrastructure • Small Project, Non-infrastructure • Small Project, Plan A project application must include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant’s governing board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, documentation of the agreement between the project applicant and implementing agency must be submitted with the project application. A project application must also include documentation of all other funds committed to the projects. Information on how to submit project application will be posted at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/index.html and www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm prior to the call for projects. A copy of the project application must also be sent to the Regional Transportation Planning Agency or County Transportation Commission within which the project is located and to the MPO (a contact list can be found at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/). The copy may be hard copy or electronic – check with your regional agency or county commission for their preference. 15.17. Sequential Project Selection All project applications, except for applications submitted through an optional MPO supplemental call for projects, must be submitted to Caltrans for consideration in the statewide competition. The Commission will consider approval of a competitive grant only when it finds that the grant request meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of any supplementary funding needed for a full funding plan. Projects not selected for programming in the statewide competition must be considered in the large MPO run competitions or the state run Small Urban and Rural competitions. A large urban MPO may elect to have a supplemental MPO specific call for projects. The projects received in this call must be considered along with those not selected through the statewide competition. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 15 16.18. MPO Competitive Project Selection As stated above, projects not selected for programming in the statewide competition must be considered by the MPOs in administering a competitive selection process. An MPO choosing to use the same project selection criteria and weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and definition of disadvantaged communities as used by the Commission for the statewide competition may delegate its project selection to the Commission. An MPO delegating its project selection to the Commission may not conduct a supplemental call for projects. An MPO, with Commission approval, may use a different project selection criteria or weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and/or definition of disadvantaged communities for its competitive selection process. Use of a minimum project size of $500,000 or less, or of a different match requirement than in the statewide competitive program does not require prior Commission approval. An MPO may also elect to have a supplemental MPO specific call for projects. The projects received in this call must be considered along with those not selected through the statewide competition. In administering a competitive selection process, an MPO must use a multidisciplinary advisory group to assist in evaluating project applications. The Commission will provide a checklist to the MPOs that includes what the MPO Following its competitive selection process, an MPO must submit with its programming recommendations to the Commission along with the following: • Project applications that were not submitted through the statewide program • List of the members of its multidisciplinary advisory group • Description of unbiased project selection methodology • Program spreadsheet with the following elements o All projects evaluated o Projects recommended with total project cost, request amount, fiscal years, phases, state only funding requests, amount benefiting disadvantaged communities o Project type designations such as Non-infrastructure, Safe Routes to School, etc. • Board resolution approving program of projects • Updated Project Programming Requests (PPRs) 17.19. Screening Criteria Nominations will receive an initial screening by the Commission for completeness and eligibility, before moving to the evaluation process. Incomplete or ineligible applications may not be evaluated. Before evaluation, project applications will be screened for the following: • Consistency with an adopted regional transportation plan. • Use of appropriate application. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 16 • Supplanting Funds: A project that is already fully funded will not be considered for funding in the Active Transportation Program. ATP funds cannot be used to supplant other committed funds. • Eligibility of project: Project must be one of the four types of projects listed in Section 11 of these guidelines. 18.20. Scoring Criteria Proposed projects will be scored and ranked on the basis of applicant responses to the below project type criteria below. Project programming recommendations may not be based strictly on the rating criteria given the various components of the Active Transportation Program and requirements of the various fund sources. To Be Determined Small Project -– Plan Small Project – Non-infrastructure Small Project – Instructure and Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure Medium Project – Instructure and Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure Large Project – Infrastructure and Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure 19.21. Project Selection between Project Applications with the Same Score If two or more projects applications receive the same score that is the funding cut-off score, the following criteria will be used to determine which project(s) will be funded: • Construction ready infrastructure projects • Highest score on Question 1 • Highest score on Question 2 20.22. Project Evaluation Committee Commission staff will form a multidisciplinary Project Evaluation Committee to assist in evaluating project applications. In forming the Project Evaluation Committee, staff will seek participants with expertise in bicycling and pedestrian transportation, including Safe Routes to Schools type projects, and in projects benefiting disadvantaged communities, and will seek geographically balanced representation from state agencies, large MPOs, regional transportation planning agencies, local jurisdictions in small urban and rural areas, and non-governmental organizations. Priority for participation in the evaluation committee will be given to those who do not represent a project applicant, or will not benefit from projects submitted by others. The Commission will consider approval of a competitive grant only when it finds that the grant request meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of any supplementary funding needed for a full funding plan. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 17 In reviewing and selecting projects to be funded with federal Recreational Trail program funds, the Commission and/or Caltrans staff will collaborate with the Department of Parks and Recreation to evaluate proposed projects. MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, must use a multidisciplinary advisory group, similar to the aforementioned Project Evaluation Committee, to assist in evaluating project applications. Programming 23. Program of Projects Following at least one public hearing, the Commission will adopt a program of projects for the Active Transportation Program, by April 1 of each odd numbered year. The Active Transportation Program must be developed consistent with the fund estimate and the amount programmed by fiscal year must not exceed the amount identified in the fund estimate. The program of projects for each fiscal year will include, for each project, the amount to be funded from the Active Transportation Program, and the estimated total cost of the project. In the case of a large project delivered in segments, include the total cost of the segment for which ATP funds are requested. Project costs in the Active Transportation Program will include costs for each of the following components: (1) permits and environmental studies; (2) plans, specifications, and estimates; (3) right-of-way; and (4) construction. The cost of each project component will be listed in the Active Transportation Program no earlier than in the fiscal year in which the particular project component can be implemented. 24. Committed/Uncommitted Funds The Commission will program and allocate funding to projects in whole thousands of dollars and will include a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of Active Transportation Program funds and other committed funds and uncommitted funds. Uncommitted funds may only be from the following competitive programs: Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, Local Partnership Program and the State Transportation Improvement Program, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, or 2017 and 2018 INFRA Grant. The applicant must indicate its plan for securing a funding commitment; explain the risk of not securing that commitment, and its plan for securing an alternate source of funding should the commitment not be obtained. If a project with uncommitted funds is programmed, all funding commitments must be secured prior to July 1 of the year in which the project is programmed or the project will be removed from the program. Projects programmed by the Commission in the Active Transportation Program will not be given priority in other programs under the Commission’s purview. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 18 The Commission will program and allocate funding to projects in whole thousands of dollars and will include a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of Active Transportation Program and other committed funding. The Commission will regard funds as committed when they are programmed by the Commission or when the agency with discretionary authority over the funds has made its commitment to the project by ordinance or resolution. For federal formula funds, including Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, and federal formula transit funds, the commitment may be by Federal approval of the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. For federal discretionary funds, the commitment may be by federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval. The Commission will only When proposeing to fund only preconstruction components for a project if the project is at the funding cut-off for an MPO in their MPO component and there are not enough available funds to fund the full project. , In this case, the applicant must demonstrate the means by which it intends to fund the construction of a useable segment, consistent with the regional transportation plan. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full capacity identified in the fund estimate for a given fiscal year, the balance will remain available to advance programmed projects. Subject to the availability of federal funds, a balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available for projects in the following fiscal year. The intent of the Commission is to consolidate the allocation of federal funds to as few projects as practicable. Therefore, the smallest projects may be designated, at the time of programming, for state-only funding. 25. Contingency List The Commission may identify a contingency list of project to be amended into the program in the event a programmed project has returned award savings or is deleted from the program. This contingency list will be in effect only until the adoption of the next programming cycle. Program/Project Amendments 26. Amendment Requests Project amendments will be considered for the Active Transportation Program as follows: • Scope Changes – The Commission may consider changes to the scope of the project only as described below. • Cost Changes – The Active Transportation Program will not participate in any cost increases to the project. If there is a change in the cost estimate, the implementing agency must notify Caltrans as described below. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 19 • Schedule Changes – Schedule changes to a project will not be considered unless a time extension was approved as specified in Section XX. Project amendments requested by implementing agencies shall receive the approval of all partner and funding entities before presentation to the Commission. Amendment requests should be submitted in a timely manner and include documentation that supports the requested change and its impact on the scope, cost, schedule and benefits. Caltrans shall coordinate all amendment requests and utilize the Project Programming Request to help document the change. Implementing agencies must notify Caltrans in writing of proposed project scope changes. This notification must include the following: • An explanation of the proposed scope change. • The reason for the proposed scope change. • The impact the proposed scope change would have on the overall cost of the project. • An estimate of the impact the proposed scope change would have on the potential of the project to deliver the project benefits as compared to the benefits identified in the project application (increase or decrease in benefit) and an explanation of the methodology used to develop the aforementioned estimates. Caltrans will review the proposed scope change and forward the proposed scope change with Caltrans’ written analysis and recommendation to the Commission for the Commission’s approval. Commission staff may also request that the Project Review Committee review and make a recommendation on amendment requests. Commission staff will present recommended scope changes deemed by staff to be minor changes, such as those with little or no impact to project benefits or which increase the benefits of the project, to the Commission as a part of the project allocation request. Staff will present recommendations to disapprove minor scope changes and recommendations to approve or disapprove more significant scope changes to the Commission as project amendments. Allocations When an agency is ready to implement a project or project component, the agency will submit an allocation request to Caltrans. The typical time required, after receipt of the request, to complete Caltrans review and recommendation and Commission allocation is 60 days. Caltrans will review the request and determine whether or not to recommend the request to the Commission for action. The Commission will consider the allocation of funds for a project when it receives an allocation with a recommendation from Caltrans. The recommendation will include a determination of project readiness, the availability of appropriated funding, and the availability of all identified and committed supplementary funding. When Caltrans develops its construction allocation recommendation, the Commission expects Caltrans to certify that a project’s plans specifications and estimate are complete, environmental and right-of-way clearances are secured, and all necessary permits and agreements are executed. In compliance with Section 21150 of the Public Resources Code, the Commission will not allocate funds for a non-infrastructure project or plan, or for design, right-of-way, or construction of an infrastructure project, prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act. As a matter of policy, the Commission will not allocate funds, other California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 20 than for the environmental phase, for a federally funded project prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Exceptions to this policy may be made in instances where federal law allows for the acquisition of right -of-way prior to completion of National Environmental Policy Act review. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, the allocation request must include a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the project applicant and implementing agency. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available and the allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted Active Transportation Program. If there are insufficient program funds to approve an allocation, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project, In order to ensure the timely use of all program funds, the Commission will, in the last quarter of the fiscal year, allocate funds to projects programmed in a future fiscal year on a first-come, first served basis. If there are insufficient funds, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project until the next fiscal year without requiring an extension. Should requests for allocations exceed available capacity, the Commission will give priority to projects programmed in the current-year. Allocation requests for a project in the MPO selected portion of the program must include a recommendation by the MPO. If an implementing agency requests an allocation of funds in an amount that is less than the amount programmed, the balance of the programmed amount may be allocated to a programmed project advanced from a future fiscal year. Any amount allocated for environmental may also be expended for design. In addition, a local agency may expend an amount allocated for environmental, design, right of way, or construction for another allocated project component, provided that the total expenditure shifted to a component in this way is not more than 20 percent of the amount actually allocated for either component. This means that the amount transferred by a local agency from one component to another may be no more than 20 percent of whichever of the components has received the smaller allocation from the Commission. Any scope changes must be presented to Caltrans for consideration prior to allocation. Caltrans will make a recommendation of approval to the Commission for final approval. Scope changes that result in a decrease of active transportation benefits may result in removal from the program. 27. FTA Transfers California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 21 Project Delivery 28. Letter of No Prejudice The Commission will consider approval of a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) to advance a project programmed in the Active Transportation Program. Approval of the LONP will allow the agency to begin work and incur eligible expenses prior to allocation. The Amended LONP Guidelines were adopted in October 2017 and are on the Commission’s website. 29. Timely Use of Funds Active Transportation Program allocations must be requested in the fiscal year of project programming, and construction allocations are valid for award for six months from the date of allocation unless the Commission approves an extension. The Commission may extend the deadline only once for allocation and only if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies the extension. The extension will not exceed the period of delay directly attributed to the extraordinary circumstance and cannot exceed twelve months. If extraordinary issues exist that require a longer extension, the implementer may request up to 20 months for allocation only. Extension requests for a project in the MPO selected portion of the program must include a recommendation by the MPO, consistent with the preceding requirements. Funds allocated for project development or right-of-way costs must be expended by the end of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. The implementing agency must invoice Caltrans for these costs no later than 180 days after the fiscal year in which the final expenditure occurred. The Commission may extend the deadline only once for contract award and only if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies the extension. The extension will not exceed the period of delay directly attributed to the extraordinary circumstance and cannot exceed twelve months. After award of the contract, the implementing agency has up to 36 months to complete (accept) the contract. At the time of fund allocation, the Commission may extend the deadline for completion of work and the liquidation of funds if necessary to accommodate the proposed expenditure plan for the project. The Commission may extend the deadlines for expenditures for project development or right-of- way, or for contract completion no more than one time, only if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies the extension. The extension will not exceed the period of delay directly attributed to the extraordinary circumstance and cannot exceed more than 12 months for project completion and 12 months for expenditure. Except for the allocation of funds, the request to extend the deadline for any of the above must be received by Caltrans prior to the expiration date. For allocation of funds, the time extension must be approved by the Commission by June 30th of the year the funds are programmed; otherwise the funds will lapse as specified in this section. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 22 Where a project component will not be ready for allocation as programmed in the current fiscal year, the implementing agency should request an extension of the allocation deadline rather than a project amendment. Projects must commence right-of-way acquisition or actual construction with-in 10 years of receiving pre-construction funding through the Active Transportation Program, or the implementing agency must repay the Active Transportation Program funds. Repaid funds will be made available for redistribution in the subsequent programming cycle. If there are insufficient funds, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project until the next fiscal year without requiring an extension. The implementing agency must enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans and, if the project is federally funded, obligate the federal funds within six months. It is incumbent upon the implementing agency to develop accurate project cost estimates. If the amount of a contract award is less than the amount allocated, or if the final cost of a component is less than the amount allocated, the savings generated will not be available for future programming. Caltrans will track the delivery of Active Transportation Program projects and submit to the Commission a semiannual report showing the delivery of each project phase. 30. Delivery Deadline Extensions The Commission may extend a delivery deadline, as described in Section XX, upon the request of the implementing agency. No deadline may be extended more than once. However, there are separate deadlines for allocations, contact award, expenditures, and project completion. Each project component has its own deadlines. The Commission may consider the extension for each of the deadlines separately. All requests for project delivery deadline extensions shall be submitted directly to Caltrans for processing prior to the expiration date. The extension request should describe the specific circumstance that justifies the extension and identify the delay directly attributable to the circumstance. Caltrans will review and prepare a written analysis of the proposed extension requests and forward the written analysis and recommendation to the Commission for action. 21.31. Federal Requirements Unless programmed for state-only funding, project applicants must comply with the provisions of Title 23 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and with the processes and procedures contained in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual and the Master Agreement with Caltrans. Below are examples of federal requirements that must be met when administering Active Transportation Program projects. • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and documentation is required on all projects. Refer to Chapter 6, Environmental Procedures, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual for guidance and procedures on complying with NEPA and other federal environmentally related laws. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 23 • Project applicants may not proceed with the final design of a project or request "Authorization to proceed with Right-of-Way" or "Authorization to proceed with Construction" until Caltrans has signed a Categorical Exclusion, a Finding of No Significant Impact, or a Record of Decision. Failure to follow this requirement will make the project ineligible for federal reimbursement. • If the project requires the purchase of right of way (the acquisition of real property), the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 apply. For more information, refer to Chapter 13, Right of Way, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. • If the project applicant requires the consultation services of including, but not limited to, architects, landscape architects, land surveyors, or engineers, the procedures in the Chapter 10, Consultant Selection, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual must be followed. The naming of a Partner in the application does not negate this requirement. • Contract documents are required to incorporate applicable federal requirements such as Davis Bacon wage rates, competitive bidding, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises/Equal Employment Opportunity provisions, etc. For more information, refer to Chapter 9, Civil Rights and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, and Chapter 12, Plans, Specifications & Estimate, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual • Failure to comply with federal requirements may result in the repayment to the State of Active Transportation Program funds. 22.32. Design Standards Streets and Highways Code Section 891 requires that all city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted utilize all minimum safety design criteria established by Caltrans, except that an agency may utilize other minimum safety design criteria if specific conditions are met, as described in Streets and Highways Code Section 891(b). Chapter 11, Design Standards, of the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual describes statewide design standards, specifications, procedures, guides, and references that are acceptable in the geometric, drainage, and structural design of Local Assistance projects. For capital projects off the state highway system, the project applicant will be responsible for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility. If another entity agrees to assume responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the request for allocation. All facilities constructed using Active Transportation Program funds cannot revert to a non-Active Transportation Program use for a minimum of 20 years or its actual useful life as documented in the project application, whichever is less, without approval of the Commission. 23.33. Project Inactivity Once funds for a project are encumbered, project applicants are expected to invoice on a regular basis (for federal funds, see 23 CFR 630.106 and the Caltrans' Inactive Obligation Policy). Failure to do so will result in the project being deemed "inactive" and subject to de-obligation if proper justification is not provided. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 24 34. Project Cost Savings Savings at contract award may be used to expand the scope of the project only if the expanded scope provides additional quantifiable benefits. The expanded scope must be approved by the Commission’s Executive Director prior to contract award. All other contract award savings will be returned proportionally. Savings at project completion must be returned proportionally except when an agency has, subsequent to project programming, committed additional funds to the project to fund a cost increase. In such instances, savings at project completion may be returned to other fund types first, until the proportions match those at programming. Any additional savings at project completion must be returned proportionally. Any amount allocated for environmental may also be expended for design. In addition, a local agency may expend an amount allocated for environmental, design, right of way, or construction for another allocated project component, provided that the total expenditure shifted to a component in this way is not more than 20 percent of the amount actually allocated for either component. This means that the amount transferred by a local agency from one component to another may be no more than 20 percent of whichever of the components has received the smaller allocation from the Commission. If an implementing agency requests an allocation of funds in an amount that is less than the amount programmed, the balance of the programmed amount may be allocated to a programmed project advanced from a future fiscal year. Project savings, including savings from projects programmed in the MPO component, will return to the overall ATP and be available to a programmed project advanced from a future fiscal year. 24.35. Project Reporting As a condition of the project allocation, the Commission requires the implementing agency to submit semi-annual reports on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project and a final delivery report. An agency implementing a project in the MPO selected portion of the program must also submit copies of its semi-annual reports and of its final delivery report to the MPO. The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the project is executed in a timely fashion and is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project. Within one year of the project becoming operable, the implementing agency must provide the following information to Caltrans to be included in a final delivery report to the Commission which includes: • The scope of the completed project as compared to the programmed project. • Before and after photos documenting the project. • The final costs as compared to the approved project budget. • Its duration as compared to the project schedule in the project application. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 25 • Performance outcomes derived from the project as compared to those described in the project application. This should include before and after pedestrian and/or bicycle counts, and an explanation of the methodology for conducting counts. • Actual use of the California Conservation Corps or qualified community conservation corps as compared to the use described in the project application. Please note that the final delivery report required by this section is in addition to the aforementioned Final Report of Expenditures. For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable when the construction contract is accepted or acquired equipment is received, or in the case of non-infrastructure activities, when the activities are complete. Caltrans must audit a selection of Active Transportation Program projects to evaluate the performance of the project, determine whether project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the executed project agreement or approved amendments thereof; state and federal laws and regulations; contract provisions; and Commission guidelines, and whether project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments thereof. A report on the projects audited must be submitted to the Commission annually. Roles And Responsibilities 25.36. California Transportation Commission (Commission) The Commission responsibilities include: • Adopt guidelines, policies, and application for the Active Transportation Program. • Adopt Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate. • Evaluate, score and rank projects, including forming and facilitating the Project Evaluation Committee. • In consultation with Regional Agencies and Caltrans, recommend and adopt a program of projects, including: o The statewide component of the Active Transportation Program, o The small urban & rural component of the Active Transportation Program, and o The MPO selected component of the program based on the recommendations of the MPOs. o Ensure that at least 25% of the funds benefit disadvantaged communities. • For the small urban & rural component, maintain a contingency list of projects to be amended into the program in the event a programmed project is delivered for less or fails, approve and recommend such amendments for Commission approval. This contingency list will be provided to the Commission and will be in effect only until the adoption of the next statewide program. • Post recommendations and final adopted list of approved projects on the Commission’s website. California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 26 • Allocate funds to projects. • Evaluate and report to the legislature. 26.37. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans has the primary responsibility for the administration of the adopted Active Transportation Program. Responsibilities include: • Provide statewide program and procedural guidance (i.e. provide project evaluation of materials and instructions), conduct outreach through various networks such as, but not limited to, the Active Transportation Program website, and at conferences, meetings, or workgroups. • Provide program training. • Solicit project applications for the program. • Perform eligibility and deliverability reviews of Active Transportation Program projects and inform the Commission of any identified issues as they arise. • Assist as needed in functions such as facilitating project evaluation teams and evaluating applications. • Notify successful applicants of their next steps after each call for projects. • Recommend project allocations (including funding type) to the Commission. • Track and report on project implementation, including project completion. • Perform audits of selected projects in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. • Serve as the main point of contact in project implementation, including administering the contract(s) for the Active Transportation Resource Center. 27.38. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) With Large Urbanized Areas MPOs with large urbanized areas are responsible for overseeing a competitive project selection process in accordance with these guidelines. The responsibilities include: • Ensure that at least 25% of the funds in each MPO benefit disadvantaged communities. • If using different project selection criteria or weighting, minimum project size greater than $500,000, match requirement, or definition of disadvantaged communities for its competitive selection process, the MPO must obtain Commission approval prior to the MPO’s call for projects. • If electing to have a supplemental MPO specific call for projects, the projects within the MPO boundaries that were not selected through the statewide competition must be considered along with those received in the supplemental call for projects. An MPO must notify the Commission of their intent to have a supplemental call no later than the application deadline. • In administering a competitive selection process, an MPO must use a multidisciplinary advisory group to assist in evaluating project applications. • In administering a competitive selection process, an MPO must explain how the projects recommended for programming by the MPO include a broad spectrum of projects to California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 27 benefit pedestrians and bicyclists. The explanation must include a discussion of how the recommended projects benefit students walking and cycling to school. • An MPO choosing to use the same project selection criteria and weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and definition of disadvantaged communities as used by the Commission for the statewide competition may delegate its project selection to the Commission. An MPO delegating its project selection to the Commission must notify the Commission by the application deadline, and may not conduct a supplemental call for projects. • If electing to have a contingency list of projects to be amended into the program in the event a programmed project is delivered for less or fails, approve and recommend such amendments for Commission approval. This contingency list will be provided to the Commission and will be in effect only until the adoption of the next statewide program. • Recommend allocation requests for a project in the MPO selected portion of the program. • Determine which projects to advance and make that recommendation to the Commission in consultation with Commission staff and Caltrans. • Submit an annual assessment of its portion of the program in terms of its effectiveness in achieving the goals of the Active Transportation Program. In addition, the following statutory requirements apply specifically to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): • SCAG must consult with county transportation commissions, the Commission, and Caltrans in the development of competitive project selection criteria. The criteria should include consideration of geographic equity, consistent with program objectives. • SCAG must place priority on projects that are consistent with plans adopted by local and regional governments within the county where the project is located. • SCAG must obtain concurrence from the county transportation commissions. 28.39. Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) Outside an MPO with Large Urbanized Areas and MPOs without Large Urbanized Areas These Regional Transportation Planning Agencies and MPOs (outside the nine large MPOs) may make recommendations or provide input to the Commission regarding the projects within their boundaries that are applying for Active Transportation Program funding. 29.40. Project Applicant Project applicants nominate Active Transportation Program projects for funding consideration. If awarded Active Transportation Program funding for a submitted project, the project applicant (or partnering implementing agency if applicable) has contractual responsibility for carrying out the project to completion and complying with reporting requirements in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and these guidelines. For infrastructure projects off the state highway system, the project applicant will be responsible for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility. If another entity agrees to assume responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of California Transportation Commission 2019 ATP Guidelines – Discussion Draft MayOctober 2017 28 Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the request for allocation. 41. Project Signage Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2038, by July 1, 2023, agencies receiving Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds will need to describe how projects will address participation and investment in new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs that focus on outreach to women, minority participants, underrepresented subgroups, formerly incarcerated individuals, and local residents to access employment opportunities. Therefore, this information should be included in the semi-annual reports submitted to Caltrans. The implementing agency must, for all projects, include signage stating that the project was made possible by SB 1 – The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. The signage should be in compliance with applicable federal or state law, and Caltrans’ manual and guidelines, including but not limited to the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Note: Is there a need to specify which projects are RMRA funded. Program Evaluation The Active Transportation Program will be evaluated for its effectiveness in increasing the use of active modes of transportation in California. Applicants that receive funding for a project must collect and submit data to Caltrans as described in the "Project Reporting" section. The Commission will include in its annual report to the Legislature a discussion on the effectiveness of the program in terms of planned and achieved improvement in mobility and safety and timely use of funds, and will include a summary of its activities relative to the administration of the Active Transportation Program including: • Projects programmed, • Projects allocated, • Projects completed to date by project type, • Projects completed to date by geographic distribution, • Projects completed to date by benefit to disadvantaged communities, and • Projects completed to date with the California Conservation Corps or qualified community conservation corps. Please note: Topics, dates and times for each workshops are subject to change October 26, 2017 Proposed 2019 Active Transportation Program Workshop Schedule Date and Time Location Main Topic October 26, 2017 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (confirmed) Sacramento Area Council of Governments Board Room 1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 • 2019 Active Transportation Program Kick-off • Discussion Draft Guidelines Review • Stakeholder input on other possible Guidelines revisions November 3, 2017 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (confirmed) Butte County Association of Governments Board Room 326 Huss Ln Chico, CA 95928 • Discussion Draft Guidelines Review • Stakeholder Input November 9, 2017 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (confirmed) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 • Discussion Draft Guidelines Review • Stakeholder Input November 16, 2017 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (confirmed) Alameda County Transportation Commission 1111 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94607 • Final Draft Guidelines • Draft Applications November 29, 2017 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (date and location confirmed, time is tentative) Fresno Council of Governments Board Room 2035 Tulare St. Suite 201 Fresno, CA 93721 • Draft Applications December 7, 2017 (tentative) San Bernardino • Draft Applications January 9, 2018 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (date and location confirmed, time is tentative) Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Frank J. Lichtanski Administrative Building Board Room, First Floor 19 Upper Ragsdale Dr., Suite 100 Monterey, CA 93940 • Draft Applications Week of January 22, 2018 (tentative) Sacramento • Guidelines and Applications Wrap-up • Scoring Rubrics • Evaluation Process ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE TEAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM – 2017-18 The Active Transportation Resource Team (“ATRT”) can provide technical assistance consultation (“Consultation”) to disadvantaged communities in Tulare and Riverside counties on issues relating to bicycle and/or pedestrian projects, programs or planning in your community. A limited number of consulting hours are available; most Consultations will be in the range of 10-30 total consulting hours per applicant. The ATRT will prioritize requests based on our evaluation criteria, which include our assessment of the need, our available hours, geographic diversity within the two counties, and whether the request is a good fit with the expertise offered by our team. We will begin offering Consultations in September 2017 and continue through spring 2018, and will accept applications on a rolling basis during that period. Please review the following guidance to determine if yo u are eligible. Eligible TA Requests: Our team can provide Consultation on a wide range of topics, but your request needs to be specific. We do not provide engineering services. The following list is intended to give you some ideas as to the types of topics that would be appropriate for this program: 1. Incorporating active transportation or trail planning, or Complete Streets policies into a general plan 2. How to get buy-in from policymakers, staff and/or the community for a project or policy 3. How to address community concerns about particular projects such as privacy, safety, property values, gentrification or traffic impacts 4. Reviewing existing conditions and providing recommendations for appropriate measures to address specific bicycle/pedestrian safety and mobility issues. This may include walk audits, site visits, etc. 5. Resources and best practices recommendations for bicycle projects (Class I – IV), multi-use trails and pedestrian projects 6. Developing effective community engagement strategies 7. Advice on securing funding to plan, build and/or maintain a project, including how to develop a competitive ATP application (e.g. how to effectively use data to make your case; how to determine if you meet the criteria for a disadvantaged community; etc. Note: our team does not prepare ATP applications) Consultations may include one or more of the following components: phone consultation; site visit and in-person consultation; document review; preparation of recommendations. Eligible Applicants: City or county agencies in Tulare or Riverside counties are eligible provided the project serves a community that meets one of the definitions of “disadvantaged” as defined in the Active Transportation Program (see definition here: ATP Guidelines 2017, see pages 8-9) Your jurisdiction may quality either because the community as a whole meets the definition, or the proposed project or plan will predominantly serve a disadvantaged area. We may also consider disadvantaged communities that are close to but not within the boundaries of those two counties. Community-based organizations serving disadvantaged communities are eligible, provided they are coordinating with the relevant local agency that would be responsible for developing the project or plan, and that agency has agreed to participate in the Consultation. How To Apply: Please fill out the online Consultations Request form. The applicant must: 1. Clearly describe the type of assistance requested 2. Agree to provide any requested background information to the ATRT team prior to the Consultation; and assemble all the relevant personnel to participate in the delivery of the Consultations, which may include conference calls, a site visit and/or in-person meetings. 3. Assign a designated local representative to coordinate with ATRT on planning, scheduling and conducting the Consultation and follow-up. 4. Provide meeting rooms as needed. 5. We expect that you will have secured permission from your department, agency or nonprofit organization to apply for this technical assistance Consultation. Questions? Please contact Barry Bergman at Rails-to-Trails Conservancy: barry@railstotrails.org; or call 510-992-4635 AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 20, 2017 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Martha Masters, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: Obligation Delivery Plan Update – FFY 2017/18 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC is responsible for ensuring that federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds apportioned to Riverside County are allocated and obligated in a timely manner to prevent funds from lapsing. Federal Obligation Authority (OA) for the region is provided on an annual basis and has to be used in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) it is provided. The Commission’s goal is to ensure that 100 percent of its OA is obligated. RCTC works closely with our local agencies and Caltrans to ensure projects on the Obligation Delivery Plan are obligated and delivered. Many of these projects are from the 2013 Multi -Funding Call for Projects, 2013 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP a.k.a STBG) Call for Projects, CVAG’s 2014 CMAQ Call for Projects, and various other projects that had been awarded CMAQ or STBG funds by the Commission. The attached obligation plan is an outline of the projects that have RSTP or CMAQ programmed in FFY 2017/18. The information provided in the attached obligation plan comes from milestone updates received from your agencies, discussions with project sponsors, and our monthly meetings with local assistance. As we continue into FFY 2017/18, it is recommended you begin your federal-aid process as soon as possible, and/or devote the resources needed to secure the federal approvals for obligation, en suring the timely obligation of the federal funds. In the attached FFY 2017/18 Obligation Plan, are the planned CMAQ and STBG obligations projects for the current year. If you anticipate a delay in obligating these funds this year, please notify RCTC staff with a project status update. It is critical that local agencies awarded federal funds meet the milestones established to ensure local OA does not lapse. RCTC will be reviewing agreement dates and contacting agencies that have made little to no progress to discuss alternatives for the federal award. RCTC staff is available to assist cities with the processing of the RFA submittals and the overall navigation through the federal-aid process. Attachment: FFY 2017/18 Obligation Plan DRAFT FFY 2017/2018 OBLIGATION PLAN As of 11/16/2017 Caltrans Staff Agency FPrJ Protect Location CfYW(} STP-L Funding Project Approvals RFA Subm. (Projected) D milestone Current Project PA&EO PA&Et] I Milestone Date Date RfW RfYV Date Milestone Date -.1.,c Planning Chigo Dike Calimesa CM 5460(008). 1.10/Cherry Valley lC 113.000 PA&ED Albert Vergel de Dios Riverside County TBD I-10 at Portola Ave 1,275.000 Con PA&ED Albert Vergel de Dios Palm Springs CML 5282(045) Gene Autry Trail and Vista Chino - Cons 2nd LT Ln.. 246,200 Con PA&ED Chigo Dike Riverside Adams St at 911C 935.000 Eng PSR Evita Premdas County of Riverside for Menifee STPLH 5956(262) 1.215/Scott Rd IC 8,000,000 Con PS&E Subtotal 689,200 10,210,000 — — X Chigo Dike Banning STPL5214(011) Ramsey St. Pavement Rehab 182,000 Con PA&ED Chigo Dike Beaumont 5209(009} 8th Street Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation 220,000 Con 8/25/2017 PS&E Chigo Hike Calimesa STPL 5460(009) Calimesa and Avenue L Pavement Rehab 54,000 Con Planning Albers Vergel de Dios Indian Wells STPL 5401(003) Cook Street Rubberized Overlay Pavement Rehab 135,000 Con Cleared 12/7/201S S/30/2016 Cleared 6/30/2016 1/2/2018 Con Albert Vergel de Dios Indio CML-5275(030) Paving of Four 14) residential roads in Indio 1, 132,000 Con Cleared 7 /12/2016 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2018 Design Page 1 of 2 DRAFT FFY 2017/2018 OBLIGATION PLAN As of 11116P017 Caltrans Staff Agency FPN Project Location CMAR STP-L Funding Phase Project Approvals RFA Subm. To CT DB (Projected) RFA Milestone Current Project Status PAGED PA&ED Date Milestone Date 1 RIVil RI1N Date Milestone Date Chigo Dike Moreno Valley CM-5441{06S) Various Locations Signal Synchronization (TCM) 1,542,000 Can PA&ED Chigo Dike Moreno Valley CML5441(063] Cactus, Alessandro and Day (Dynamic Message Signs) 341,000 Con PA&ED Albert Vergel de Dias Rancho Mirage CML 5412(015) Ramon Rd and Dinah Shore Dr Traffic Flow Imp & Sand Fencing 31,000 R/W PA&ED Chigo Dike Riverside STPL 5058(102) Magnolia Ave from Buchanan to Banbury (Widening 4.6 Ins) 2,620,600 Con PA&ED Eric CowlelEvita Premdas CVAG 6164(021) CVAG Regional Synch 5,315,000 Con Patti Roma Riv. Co. CML S056(241) Salt Creek Multi -Modal Trail 5,090,000 Con Subtotal 13,451,000 3,211,000 Total 14,140,200 13,421,000 Page 2 of 2