CA Active Transportation Program Funding Unchanged for Next Two Years

This Complete Streets plan in Albany, CA, won a grant from the Active Transportation Program in 2014. Image: Wallace Robers & Todd, via City of Albany
The Complete Streets plan for San Pablo Avenue in Albany, CA, won a grant from the Active Transportation Program in the 2014 allocation. Image: Wallace Roberts & Todd, via City of Albany

Although Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed FY 2015 budget showed a decrease in the line item for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Caltrans Budget Chief Steven Keck assured the California Transportation Commission at its meeting last week that the change was technical and the funding level would be the same as last year’s.

Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty later confirmed that “as of today going forward, our plan is: no change in the ATP budget.”

While the funding is not being cut from 2014 levels, there is still concern that the need to improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists is far greater than the funding provided in the ATP.

And the commissioners seem to agree.

Commissioner Yvonne Burke expressed surprise that there wasn’t more of a fuss kicked up at the meeting. Commissioner Carl Guardino was the only speaker who called attention to the program’s paltry funding, noting that the need for it “greatly outstrips the amount of funding available.”

The ATP allocates most of the state’s funding targeted at increasing walking and bicycling. It was created by statute [PDF] in 2013, combining state and federal funding for bicycle infrastructure, Safe Routes to Schools, and other similar funds into a single pot. In its first two-year cycle, it awarded a total of a little over $350 million for 267 projects throughout the state.

Tracing the sources of money in the ATP can be tricky. Early budget proposals typically incorporate some uncertainty about funding levels, since calculating the state’s revenues from taxes can be an inaccurate science. Other budgetary practices, like last year’s repayment of $9 million that had been borrowed from the ATP’s precursor, the Bicycle Transportation Account, further muddy the waters.

Whatever the reasons for it, the confusion over an issue as simple as “how much money will the state be spending on walking and bicycling infrastructure” adds to the impression that Caltrans is not a very transparent organization.

At last week’s meeting, commission staff presented and discussed draft revisions to the program guidelines [PDF] for the second two-year cycle of funding, set to begin in June.

The main changes being made involve deleting requirements for matching funds and adopt the CalEnviroScreen definition of disadvantaged communities to be consistent with other programs with similar requirements to assure that a portion of their funds go to communities most in need.

Several people at the meeting expressed concern about the ways projects are credited with benefiting disadvantaged communities. Erika Whitcomb of PolicyLink recommended adding a geographical component to the definition, requiring projects that claim to help disadvantaged communities to show how they connect those communities with amenities and services.

The tension between rural and urban needs was apparent, as it is in other funding programs. Philip Chu of San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) said that only three percent of the last round of funding went to rural agencies.

He and other commenters also emphasized the importance of including funds for planning in the program, saying that many areas have bicycle plans but very few have pedestrian plans. Staff had decided to limit planning funds to a maximum of five percent of the ATP budget, and to award such funds only to disadvantaged communities that lack a bicycle or pedestrian plan.

Commissioner Guardino said, “If a community can’t even afford to plan, then how will they build anything?” Citing the small amount of funding available, he said he would not support a move to increase the amount of planning funds to more than five percent.

Wendy Alfsen of California Walks requested what seems like a subtle word change but could have a profound impact on the program. She recommended changing the name of the public work group to “Program Implementation and Application Evaluation Committee.”

The statute that established the ATP [PDF] requires the formation of a workgroup that includes, but is “not limited to, representatives of government agencies and active transportation stakeholder organizations with expertise in pedestrian and bicycle issues, including Safe Routes to School programs.”

Alfsen noted that the wording of the guidelines “makes it sound like [these experts] are only involved in project review,” and not in formulating the program or its guidelines. Changing these few words would allow a broader participation of experts and the public in the program’s formulation, and help create ongoing public participation and transparency.

A single public workshop was held on the guideline revisions in Los Angeles on January 8.  Staff “may hold another workshop in February if there are substantial new changes proposed,” according to staff member Laurel Janssen.

Comments on the revisions are still being accepted until the end of February–you can submit them here or mail letters to:

California Transportation Commission
Executive Director Will Kempton
1120 N Street, MS-52
Sacramento, CA 95814

Staff expect to present the guidelines for final approval at the next CTC meeting on March 25.

Email tips, alerts, press releases, ideas, etc. to melanie@streetsblog.org.

For social media coverage focused on statewide issues, follow Melanie @currymel on Twitter or like our Facebook page here.

2 thoughts on CA Active Transportation Program Funding Unchanged for Next Two Years

  1. Minor editing note: SANBAG is San Bernardino Associated Governments, not Association of Governments.

    The ATP is great. But we should really be doing a great deal more to a get bike and pedestrian accommodations part of standard practice that are part of routine maintenance. In that environment, ATP funding can certainly be helpful and maybe provide for a better option than the baseline would’ve allowed. But there wouldn’t be the case of “well, it turns out that we can’t put the bike lane in because there’s no money for paint” anymore. State law already explicitly states that bike-specific concerns are a lawful use of highway funds, so it’s way past time for agencies to stop the “there’s no money” excuse and include those projects and maintenance in their budgets. Additionally, there are other programs such as Cap-and-Trade, the AQMDs, and various CMPs that could all be used to fund better bikeways as part of comprehensive solutions to the problems that they are looking to address.

  2. Thanks for the correction. And of course you’re right: state policy requires consideration of all users when building or repairing any road in CA. Whether that happens on the ground remains to be seen–and we all need to be vigilant about individual projects to make sure it does happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

CA Budget Details: Active Transportation Gets Less Money

|
Last Friday, Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed 2015-16 budget. The 270-page summary [PDF] included a passing reference to $360 million previously allocated for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), as part of state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging more bicycling and walking. But the budget summary offered no details about future funding, […]

120 Groups Call for More Funding for Active Transportation Program

|
A broad coalition of organizations called today for California to increase funding for walk and bike projects. More than 120 organizations signed a petition urging the state to increase its investment in the Active Transportation Program (ATP), citing cost savings and health benefits from better bike and pedestrian infrastructure and the low level of funding […]

CA Seeks Input on 2015 Active Transportation Program Guidelines

|
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is seeking input on revised guidelines for the Active Transportation Program (ATP). The ATP is the main source of state funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects, mostly through federal transportation grants to local cities. The proposed changes to the ATP guidelines are mostly minor, but include eliminating the requirement for matching […]

Technical Assistance Available for CA Active Transportation Program

|
The guidelines for the second cycle of California’s Active Transportation Program, which funds projects that encourage bicycling and walking, are in their final stage of revision. Staff will present the guidelines to the California Transportation Commission for approval at the commission’s next meeting on March 25 and 26. The call for projects is expected to […]