CTC previews Cycle 8 Active Transportation Program updates; NI guidance, scoring and funding rules clarified

The California Transportation Commission (CTC) held its fourth Cycle 8 active transportation workshop Oct. 1, where staff previewed proposed edits to the 2027 Active Transportation Program (ATP) guidelines, outlined updates to non‑infrastructure (NI) guidance and discussed funding‑commitment rules, scoring clarifications and next steps for applicants.

"My name is Anya Allenbacher, and I'm the active transportation program manager at the CTC. This is our fourth central workshop for the 2027 active transportation program," said Anya Allenbacher as the workshop opened. Staff told attendees they anticipate approximately $550 million in ATP funds for Cycle 8, distributed across fiscal years 2027‑28 through 2030‑31.

Why it matters: the ATP is a major discretionary source for walking and bicycling projects in California. The guidelines set eligibility, scoring and post‑award requirements that shape which projects are funded and how those awards are implemented. Changes staff previewed affect project sponsors’ application strategies, allowable NI costs and how projects report outcomes after award.

Key changes and staff guidance

Caltrans and CTC staff emphasized that the draft edits are clarifications and streamlining rather than policy overhauls. Anya Allenbacher said the edits aim to align guideline language with current practice (for example, how Caltrans‑implemented projects are programmed) and to make requirements clearer for applicants.

Non‑infrastructure guidance: Emma Maloney, the ATP NI acting program manager, walked through the existing NI guidance and several proposed updates. She said NI supports education, encouragement and planning activities and that some eligibility clarifications and cost‑cap increases are under consideration because the guidance was last updated in March 2022.

"The NI program supports education and encouragement activities that further the ATP program's purpose and goals," Emma Maloney said. She listed common eligible NI items (staff time, consultant services, training, equipment used for teaching, supplies, and incentives) and ineligible costs (paid volunteers, out‑of‑state travel, certain equipment such as laptops, permanent infrastructure, and gift cards as incentives). Maloney noted specific caps currently in the guidance — for example, children's helmets at $30 and adult helmets at $35 — and said staff are seeking feedback on raising those caps to reflect current prices.

Caltrans and ATRC role: Alador Westbrook of the Active Transportation Resource Center at Caltrans answered questions about whether outreach tied to future infrastructure project development fits NI. "Historically that has not been funded through the NI component of the ATP," Westbrook said, explaining NI has typically funded education/encouragement and demonstration projects rather than project‑delivery phases.

Committed and uncommitted funds: staff clarified how ATP treats partner funds that are not yet programmed. The guidelines retain two situations in which projects may show uncommitted funds: (1) MPO component projects at the funding cutoff where MPO apportionments have been exhausted, and (2) large infrastructure applications that request only preconstruction funding in the current cycle while later phases are left uncommitted for future cycles.

Attendees raised a specific issue about the commission's Local Partnership Program (LPP) formula funds and timing when program cycles do not align. Carl Anderson (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) and others urged flexibility where formula cycles do not match ATP years; staff said they will review STIP/other guidance language and consider similar flexible wording.

Performance metrics, benefit‑cost tool and PSR equivalency

Staff reiterated that successful applicants must provide performance metrics after programming. Commission staff said they will switch to the California Active Transportation Benefit‑Cost Tool (the ATP benefit‑cost tool) for benefits reporting and will no longer use the AHSC calculator. Use of the ATP tool is optional in applications for Cycle 8, but staff encourage sponsors to use it where helpful.

Staff also reminded applicants that PSR (project study report) equivalency is required for allocation of construction funds and that the commission will not allocate construction (except in limited Caltrans implementations) without PSR equivalency.

Scoring and application guidance

Staff previewed language changes to scoring criteria and application questions. The guidelines retain the same scoring topics and point totals but simplify and clarify question prompts and attachments. Notable points: - Disadvantaged community benefits and severity tiers remain a central scoring element; applicants must show direct benefit and supporting evidence. - "Need" and "safety" questions require applicants to document connectivity to destinations, health or safety concerns, and selected countermeasures; safety narratives should include collision history where available. - Public participation is scored for depth and meaningful engagement; staff encouraged applicants to document outreach methods and results. Staff also acknowledged concerns about in‑person outreach for vulnerable populations and said virtual and nontraditional engagement approaches are acceptable to document if sponsors explain why in‑person outreach posed risks. - Large‑project applicants will be asked to demonstrate cost effectiveness and plan‑to‑construction consistency; Caltrans subject‑matter staff will assist in evaluating scope and engineer’s estimates. - The guidance retains a past‑performance screen: poor past performance (for example, adverse audit findings or failure to use previously committed funds) can reduce points or affect future eligibility.

Process, outreach and timeline

CTC staff reiterated outreach opportunities — branch workshops, site visits, application debriefs and upcoming central workshops (next: Oct. 16 in Merced; PSR equivalency workshop Dec. 4 in Riverside). Emma Maloney said a feedback form for NI guidance suggestions will remain open through Oct. 31, 2025.

On timing for the fund estimate, an attendee asked whether the draft fund estimate is typically available before January. Judy Weber asked about the schedule; staff replied that the draft fund estimate and draft guidelines are expected at the January 2026 commission meeting and the final fund estimate and guidelines adopted in March 2026, before the call for projects opens.

What staff will do next

Staff said they will: gather feedback on NI cost caps and eligible expenses (survey due Oct. 31), refine the committed/uncommitted funds language (to address LPP formula timing), finalize performance‑metrics instructions, and publish the draft fund estimate and draft guidelines in January 2026. Staff noted the aim is clarification and alignment with current practice rather than major policy changes.

Closing and how to comment

Maloney and other staff urged practitioners who run NI projects to submit real cost examples, citing that NI costs have risen since 2022 and that practitioner input will inform updated caps and examples. "We really would love to hear from you all. You're the folks delivering NI projects," staff said.

For those who want to comment on NI guidance, staff asked that the CTC NI feedback form be completed by Oct. 31; the ATP NI inbox and staff contact details are on the CTC website.

Ending note: staff reiterated that the Cycle 8 draft fund estimate will appear with the draft guidelines at the January commission meeting and that the final documents will come to the commission in March 2026.