Transportation Commission reviews Cycle 8 ATP scoring rubrics, confirms $619.3M draft fund estimate and key deadlines

The Transportation Commission held a Cycle 8 central workshop on Feb. 5 to walk through proposed edits to the 2027 Active Transportation Program (ATP) scoring rubrics, review the draft fund estimate and lay out application and evaluator timelines.

Jaden, a staff member leading logistics for the webinar, opened the session by explaining captioning, language options and how participants could use the raise-hand and Q&A functions before turning the presentation to the rubric leads.

Alika, a presenter for the Commission, told attendees the Cycle 8 rubric changes are mainly clarifications and rewording intended to align rubrics with recent application edits and prior workshop feedback: “We are not proposing any significant changes,” Alika said, adding that most edits focus on clearer instructions for evaluators and more detailed prompts for applicants.

Why it matters: the rubrics guide how evaluators score applications and therefore influence which projects receive funding. Commission staff emphasized the changes are intended to help applicants craft narratives that make evaluators’ work more consistent and transparent.

Key rubric changes and guidance - Disadvantaged-community identification: Alika said the draft removes two federal screening tools—the climate and economic justice screening tool and the USDOT equitable transportation community explorer—from rubric guidance but retains other Cycle 7 qualifiers and tiering. Staff told applicants to keep referencing disadvantaged-community populations throughout their narratives so evaluators can find supporting evidence. - Direct benefit and documentation: The revised guidance urges applicants to document how projects meet an important need of disadvantaged-community residents and to show evidence that those residents requested or support the project. - Need question and connectivity: Staff clarified the three elements evaluators should consider—lack of connectivity, limited mobility for nonmotorized users, and local health concerns—and added explicit prompts (for example, how community members access destinations and which mobility challenges they face). - Safety and bikeway details: The safety rubric now includes prompts for appropriate bikeway selection and, for combination projects, how non-infrastructure programs (education, encouragement) complement built improvements.

On rural projects and missing crash data, Alika said evaluators understand some jurisdictions lack crash records; applicants may submit supplemental attachments such as community surveys, enforcement tallies, social-media reports of near-misses, or other documentation to substantiate safety claims.

Funding and schedule Sonya, a moderator for the session, gave the draft fund estimate and timing: “At this time, we have $619,321,000 available for Cycle 8, and that is over 4 years,” she said. Commission staff broke that total into components during the presentation: about 40% for the MPO component (approximately $247.7 million), $61.9 million for the small urban and rural component, and $309.6 million for the statewide component.

Staff said the commission hopes to adopt final guidelines and the fund estimate at its March meeting; the call for projects (NOFO) is expected to be released immediately after adoption (March 19–20, subject to the commission’s agenda timing). Important dates staff highlighted include: - Call for evaluators: March 1 - Submittable training (how to use the application portal): March 26 - Evaluator trainings: May–June - Project application deadline: June 22 - Staff recommendations posted: Nov. 2 - Adoption of statewide and small urban/rural components: December - MPO component adopt: June (following year)

Evaluator recruitment and process Alika described who can serve as an evaluator: people involved in active transportation in California with knowledge of transportation infrastructure or non-infrastructure programs, willing to attend a mandatory three-hour training and to submit a conflict-of-interest form. Evaluators work in paired teams, perform individual scoring, then produce a consensus score form. Commission staff perform check scores and hold debriefs with evaluator teams to resolve discrepancies before staff recommendations are finalized.

On the use of AI, staff said applicants may use AI as a writing aid but that evaluators will be trained to spot responses that are not project-specific or inconsistent across an application; evaluators themselves will not be allowed to use AI to generate review scores.

Stakeholder questions and follow-up Attendees raised questions about how to document need in places without crash data, anti-displacement scoring, whether to combine non-infrastructure and infrastructure elements into a single application, and how to request site visits. Staff encouraged applicants to use the new secondary-attachment field to provide surveys, maps or other evidence, to request site visits via links on the ATP Cycle 8 web page, and to consult posted sample successful applications from prior cycles.

Next steps and materials Staff said slides and recordings from this and prior workshops will be posted on the ATP website under the Cycle 8 tab after guideline adoption. The Commission invited attendees to submit follow-up questions and to sign up as interested evaluators via the posted intake form.

The Commission closed the workshop after a final offer to stay online for additional questions; staff reiterated contact options and where to find presentation materials.