CTC workshop finalizes edits to 2027 ATP guidelines, leaves cycle 8 savings redistribution unchanged

Anya, a CTC staffer, told attendees on Jan. 14 that commission staff will present the draft 2027 Active Transportation Program (ATP) guidelines to commissioners at the January meeting and that staff recommends no change to the cycle‑8 process for redistributing recovered project cost savings.

"Basically, it's that we continue with cycle 8, without any changes from the current process," Anya said, adding that staff will take more time to propose updates for Cycle 9 and will work with the ATP Technical Advisory Committee and stakeholders during that later engagement. She told participants staff expects about $25 million in recovered funds to be added to the Cycle 8 fund estimate for redistribution.

Why it matters: the ATP is a primary state program for active‑transportation investments, and recovered funds can expand the pool of projects funded. Keeping the Cycle 8 distribution method in place means applicants and regions will prepare under the same rules for this funding round while staff develops redistribution options for a later cycle.

What staff presented and why it changed

CTC staff walked through a set of guideline and application edits intended to reduce duplication in Submittable forms, tighten reporting guidance and add clarity for applicants and evaluators. Key items included:

- Reporting and user accounts: staff consolidated program evaluation and project reporting into a single "reporting" section and moved the previously adopted CTC user‑account policy into the guidelines to improve collection of post‑construction counts and quarterly reporting, staff said.

- Non‑infrastructure appendix: the draft now includes a new appendix with guidance and templates for non‑infrastructure projects; Caltrans staff noted modest updates to cost guidance for items such as helmets and bicycles.

- Application simplification: to shorten the online form, staff proposed removing the in‑application project schedule and the full funding table (these data will remain in the Project Programming Request, or PPR, which evaluators will review). Staff said this aims to reduce redundant data entry without removing substantive information from the evaluation record.

- Accessibility and student prompts: the application will add more inclusive language asking applicants to consider wheelchair users, people with visual impairments and students; staff proposed adding about 100 words of additional response space in applicable narrative fields so applicants can address those considerations.

- New unscored question for class‑3 bikeways/sharrows: the application will include a non‑scored Part A checkbox that expands into follow‑up prompts if an applicant proposes class‑3 bike routes or sharrows. Alika (CTC staff) said the follow‑up questions are required by statute and include speed‑limit‑based conditional prompts.

Q&A highlights and unresolved items

Participants raised several technical and policy questions. Emmanuel Martinez of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments asked whether ATP can be used to cover a cost increase for an active‑transportation element of a project primarily funded elsewhere; Anya answered that staff's initial position is not to allow cross‑program funding for such cost increases and recommended continuing the discussion offline.

On construction completion and post‑construction counts, staff and engineering staff said ATP considers construction complete only after required post‑construction counts are performed, and that CTC has not finalized an approach to reimbursing five‑year post‑construction counts. Theresa (ATP engineering) said staff will continue internal work to determine how to handle long‑term count reimbursements.

Numbers and timing

Staff said the Cycle 8 fund estimate will be presented alongside the draft guidelines; Anya said the commission will receive materials on Friday, Jan. 16, and commissioners will consider the draft guidelines at the Jan. 29–30 meeting. Staff gave an early Cycle 8 estimate of roughly $576,000,000 for four years of programming and said recovered savings to be redistributed this cycle are about $25 million.

Next steps

CTC staff listed action items including clarifying the construction‑completion language in the guidelines, expanding word counts for the added accessibility prompts, posting a track‑changes version of the application, clarifying non‑infrastructure prompts and considering raising the small‑project cap for Cycle 9. The final central workshop on scoring rubrics is scheduled for Feb. 5, and staff encouraged agencies to register for regional branch workshops in February and request virtual site visits.

The draft guidelines and the Cycle 8 fund estimate will be posted on the CTC website on Jan. 16, and the guidelines are scheduled for presentation to the California Transportation Commission on Jan. 29–30.