Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
CTC refines Cycle 8 ATP scoring rubrics, removes two federal screening tools and clarifies disadvantaged-community guidance
Loading...
Summary
California Transportation Commission staff presented Cycle 8 Active Transportation Program rubric edits that remove two federal screening tools, emphasize clearer evaluator instructions and direct-benefit documentation, and add guidance to help rural applicants without crash data.
California Transportation Commission staff on Feb. 5 outlined proposed edits to the Cycle 8 Active Transportation Program (ATP) scoring rubrics, saying most changes are clarifications rather than major policy shifts. The presentation highlighted the removal of two federal screening tools and tightened guidance on how evaluators should assess disadvantaged-community benefits.
The changes focus on wording and additional instructions for evaluators and applicants rather than on altering the rubric tiers. “We are not proposing any significant changes,” Alika, a CTC staff presenter, said when introducing the rubric session. Staff singled out the removal of two federal screening tools — the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and the USDOT Equitable Transportation Community Explorer — and said other disadvantaged-community qualifiers and the Cycle 7 tier structure will remain the same.
Why it matters: applicants that seek disadvantaged-community points will now need to rely on the remaining state qualifiers and clearer narrative evidence. Staff emphasized that to receive full points on the direct-benefit component applicants must “clearly and convincingly describe how the improvements meet an important need of the disadvantaged community” and document community support for the project. For combination applications (infrastructure plus non‑infrastructure), staff added prompts requiring applicants to explain how programs will be accessible to disadvantaged-community members and how non‑infrastructure activities will complement infrastructure investments.
Staff also addressed a frequent concern from rural jurisdictions that lack crash data: evaluators will be instructed to accept alternative supporting materials such as community surveys, near‑miss reports, speed‑enforcement tallies, social‑media reports of near misses, and other attachments. To that end, the commission added a secondary attachment field so applicants can upload nontraditional evidence to support safety claims.
Supporting documents and next steps: staff said draft versions of the revised scoring rubrics will be posted after the call for projects is released; guidance and examples will be provided in evaluator training and in the Submittable materials. The rubrics' special-instructions section will include explicit prompts tied to subquestions (C1–C5) so evaluators score consistently and applicants know what evidence to provide.
The workshop concluded with an offer for follow-up site visits and one‑on‑one clarification for applicants who need additional guidance.
