CTC staff proposed using a mid‑cycle fund estimate to redistribute savings recovered from canceled projects and lapsed project phases in the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and to formalize contingency lists at the time projects are programmed. The proposal was presented as a way to ensure recovered funds are redistributed according to the program's statutory funding split.

Why it matters: the ATP directs significant federal and state reimbursement funding to biking, walking and other active‑transportation projects. How recovered savings are handled can affect which projects are ultimately programmed, which sponsors receive funds, and whether projects on the funding “line” move forward in a given cycle.

At the workshop, staff described the mechanics of the suggestion: in August of odd‑numbered years, project savings, including funds recovered from lapsed project phases and canceled projects, would be redistributed per the statutory funding split through a mid‑cycle fund estimate approved by the Commission. Staff said projects adopted to component contingency lists could be programmed into the current cycle subject to available funds; if a contingency list project could not be fully funded in that mid‑cycle estimate, the savings would be held for the subsequent program cycle. Staff also proposed that funds recovered for the MPO component be made available only in the MPO component’s subsequent cycle because MPOs manage contingency lists differently.

Stakeholder reaction: Kenneth Kao of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission told the Commission the proposal “is a good way of recognizing that, you know, savings can be redistributed via the formula that's in statute,” but asked whether a project that is “on the line” would be left unfunded under the new approach, or whether sponsors would be asked to supply local or other funds to make projects whole. Staff outlined three options: under‑program and wait for mid‑cycle savings, allow sponsors to identify additional funds to fully fund a project, or fund only preconstruction phases and leave construction funding for a future cycle.

Other stakeholders pressed for more operational detail. One participant suggested allowing limited over‑programming to give project sponsors greater certainty, while another recommended applying a historical failure/savings rate to set program capacity instead of adding a mid‑cycle step. LA Metro asked whether projects taken off a contingency list could change requested ATP years or shift distributions; staff said timeline constraints (for example, the close of programming in a given cycle) limit such shifts and that contingency projects would need to reapply in the following cycle if not funded.

Next steps: staff captured an action item to revisit the mid‑cycle redistribution proposal, including the question of limited over‑programming, at a future workshop and invited written feedback from stakeholders. Staff also listed upcoming workshops (including Dec. 4 site visits and a Dec. 10 virtual session) for further discussion.