Montebello City Council
August 28, 2024

87 CHAPTER 3 | OUTREACH

3.2.3 BRANDING/SOCIAL MEDIA
In order to be consistent with the City’s branding and
graphic requirements, a similar type of branding style
was used for this Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

The project’s branding was used in all outreach ma-
terials, including flyers, surveys, maps, and outreach
materials.

The City’s social media was used to share updates
and events such as the project survey and an educa-
tional video about how to participate and give feed-
back in the FMLM. The City of Montebello also creat-
ed a landing page on their website for the project to
post project information, upcoming outreach efforts,
and the project survey.

3.2.4 SURVEY

OBJECTIVE
A survey was created and administered by the pro -
ject team to allow public input and to help identify
barriers that affect access to and from public transit.

Findings will be used to inform recommendations for
infrastructure improvements to improve first / last
mile connections to transit stops.

METHODOLOGY
The survey was open to the public for a series of five
months (October 2022-February 2023). Respond-
ents were asked to identify any specific barriers or
challenges that they have encountered while ac-
cessing public transit in the City of Montebello. Ad-
ditionally, respondents were asked to provide loca-
tions and transit route information to accurately pin
where these problems exist. A trilingual flyer (English, Spanish, and Mandarin) was created to distribute the
survey to residents around the City. It was posted
in local libraries, Montebello City Hall, and multiple
community centers and is shared in Appendix C.

Additionally, the project team targeted Montebello
Unified School district and school principals to help
distribute the survey to families. The flyer was also
posted on Montebello social media channels and on
the project website. Two sets of social media graph-
ics were used to consistently promote the flyer over a
series of weeks. The flyer and the social media graph-
ics used is shown in Appendix D.

88 CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
Question 1: Do you experience any
problems walking, cycling or accessing
transit at a particular location or along a
particular route?
Question 2: Please provide location
and route information (where you’ve
experienced problems walking, cycling or
accessing transit) in the fields below.

Question 3: Please note problems
associated with the previously mentioned
location. Please check ALL that apply.

Yes No
61%
39%
The three most common corridors mentioned were
Beverly Boulevard, Whittier Boulevard, and Wash-
ington Boulevard. These are some of the impor -
tant thoroughfares that go through the City of
Montebello. The most common bus routes that
were mentioned were the 10, 20, and 40 routes.

Question 4: Is there ANOTHER location
where you experience problems walking,
cycling or accessing transit? If not, and you
would like to finish the survey, click NO.

Yes No
15%
85%

51.5% Lack of bicycle routes & parking

50.5% Automobile traffic

48.4% Personal safety

45.5% Difficult intersection / street crossing

35.3% Walking impediments

34.3% Missing sidewalks

22.2% Missing curb ramps

19.1% Lack of car parking at parks / rides

17.1% Long distance / poor connectivity

7.0% Lack of matching bus stop

89 CHAPTER 3 | OUTREACH
Question 5: Please provide location
and route information (where you’ve
experienced problems walking, cycling or
accessing transit) in the fields below.

Question 6: Please note problems
associated with the previously mentioned
location. Please check ALL that apply.

The three most common corridors mentioned were
Garfield Avenue, Whittier Boulevard, and Montebel-
lo Boulevard. These are some of the important thor -
oughfares that go through the City of Montebello.

Question 7: Is there ANOTHER location
where you experience problems walking,
cycling or accessing transit? If not, and you
would like to finish the survey, click NO.

Yes No
72%
28%
Question 8: Please provide location
and route information (where you’ve
experienced problems walking, cycling
or accessing transit) in the fields below.

The three most common corridors mentioned were
Whittier Boulevard, Montebello Boulevard, and Wil-
cox Ave.

17.1% Long distance / poor connectivity

68.7% Lack of bicycle routes & parking

43.7% Automobile traffic

43.7% Personal safety

43.7% Difficult intersection / street crossing

12.5% Walking impediments

25.0% Missing sidewalks

0.0% Missing curb ramps

12.5% Lack of car parking at parks / rides

12.5% Long distance / poor connectivity

6.2% Lack of matching bus stop

90 CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
Question 9: Please note problems
associated with the previously mentioned
location. Please check ALL that apply.

Question 10: Is there ANOTHER location
where you experience problems walking,
cycling or accessing transit? If not, and you
would like to finish the survey, click NO.

Question 11: Please provide location
and route information (where you’ve
experienced problems walking, cycling
or accessing transit) in the fields below.

Yes No
53% 47%
The three most common corridors mentioned were
Beverly Boulevard, Whittier Boulevard, and Monte -
bello Boulevard.

66.6% Lack of bicycle routes & parking

50.0% Automobile traffic

33.3% Personal safety

50.0% Difficult intersection / street crossing

33.3% Walking impediments

16.67% Missing sidewalks

8.3% Missing curb ramps

0.0% Lack of car parking at parks / rides

0.0% Long distance / poor connectivity

8.3% Lack of matching bus stop

91 CHAPTER 3 | OUTREACH
Question 12: Please note problems
associated with the previously mentioned
location. Please check ALL that apply.

Question 13: Is there ANOTHER location
where you experience problems walking,
cycling or accessing transit? If not, and you
would like to finish the survey, click NO.

Yes No
67%
34%
Question 14: Please provide location
and route information (where you’ve
experienced problems walking, cycling
or accessing transit) in the fields below.

The three most common corridors mentioned were
Whittier Boulevard, Montebello Boulevard, and Gar -
field Avenue,

80.0% Lack of bicycle routes & parking

40.0% Automobile traffic

30.0% Personal safety

60.0% Difficult intersection / street crossing

20.0% Walking impediments

10.0% Missing sidewalks

20.0% Missing curb ramps

0.0% Lack of car parking at parks / rides

30.0% Long distance / poor connectivity

10.0% Lack of matching bus stop

92 CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
Question 15: Please note problems
associated with the previously mentioned
location. Please check ALL that apply.

Question 16: Is there ANOTHER location
where you experience problems walking,
cycling or accessing transit? If not, and you
would like to finish the survey, click NO.

Question 17: Do you have other ideas for
improving access to transit services? If so,
please provide them in the text box below.

Yes No
50% 50%

66.6% Lack of bicycle routes & parking

66.6% Automobile traffic

44.4% Personal safety

55.5% Difficult intersection / street crossing

22.2% Walking impediments

0.0% Missing sidewalks

0.0% Missing curb ramps

0.0% Lack of car parking at parks / rides

22.2% Long distance / poor connectivity

11.1% Lack of matching bus stop

93 CHAPTER 3 | OUTREACH
Results
At the end of the survey period, a total of 209 re -
sponses were collected. Respondents were asked if
they have experienced any problems with walking,
cycling, or accessing transit at any specific locations.

Respondents reporting experiencing an array of is-
sues from poor connectivity, personal safety, sidewalk
gaps, broken infrastructure, and lack of parking at
park and rides. Long crossing distances and difficult
intersections were also a commonly noted concern.

Recommendations ranged of the addition of bike
lanes (especially on major corridors like Bever -
ly Boulevard, Whittier Boulevard, and Montebello
Boulevard), the addition of benches and shelters at
bus stops throughout Montebello, and the widening
of existing sidewalks. Along with the widening of
sidewalks, the request for sidewalks where they are
missing was also suggested.

Vision and
Goals4

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
96 4.1 VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES,

AND IMPLEMENTATION

STRATEGIES
This FMLM Plan will guide the development of first
last mile infrastructure to improve connections to and
from transit user’s origins and destinations. Through
data analysis and stakeholder engagement, the fol-
lowing vision statement and goals were shaped with
supporting implementation strategies that serve as
action items to help achieve the overarching vision
and work towards implementation of recommended
solutions.

Vision Statement
To enhance the commuter experience for ex -
isting transit users while attracting new riders
through safe, convenient, and comfortable bus
stop amenities and first last mile infrastructure.

Goals
To realize this vision, it was necessary to develop
goals, representing ideal outcomes that encourage
high performance.

Objectives
In support of each goal are objectives, or clear and
measurable targets representing a step toward
achieving a goal.

Strategies
Each objective is supported with strategies that rep -
resent a tangible activity working towards attaining
an objective; whether it be through policy develop -
ment, infrastructure treatments, programmatic imple-
mentation, or technology.

Goal 1: Provide Safe and Attractive
Bus Stops
Objective 1.1: Understand the needs and
concerns of transit users.
» Strategy 1.1.1: Develop an annual satisfaction
survey and conduct surveys to gather feedback
on bus service, bus stops and the Metrolink Sta-
tion. Provide QR codes at bus stops and transit
centers to direct users to the MBL website to take
surveys to obtain regular feedback. (MBL)
Objective 1.2: Identify improvement needs
at bus stops and the Montebello/Commerce
Metrolink Station.
» Strategy 1.2.1: Develop a bus stop assessment
checklist to assess the condition of high use and/
or high complaint bus stops. (MBL)
» Strategy 1.2.2: Conduct annual bus stop assess-
ments to prioritize bus stops in need of mainte -
nance. (MBL)
» Strategy 1.2.3: Coordinate assessment of needs
and maintenance with the City of Commerce and
LA Metro on the Montebello/Commerce Metrolink
Station. (MBL)
» Strategy 1.2.4: Regularly update GIS data with
amenities. (MBL)
» Strategy 1.2.5: Coordinate with Public Works on
corridor improvement projects that may assist
with installing bus shelters and improving access
to transit. (MBL and Public Works)
» Strategy 1.2.6: Ensure equitable distribution of
transit amenities across MBL’s system where
they have the decision-making authority and are
within their jurisdiction to do so. (MBL)
Objective 1.3: Enhance streetscape along
bus routes.
» Strategy 1.3.1: Streetscapes should be utilized to
provide visually attractive and physically comfort-
able environments that are integrated with sim-
ilar environments of adjacent private property.

Cultural, environmental, and historical consider -
ations should be acknowledged when developing
a streetscape. (Public Works)
» Strategy 1.3.2: Utilize the streetscape to estab -
lish a character or theme for special areas, his-
toric districts, activity centers, neighborhoods, or
scenic drives and gateways. Refer to Montebello
Municipal Code1993 on landscape requirements.
(Public Works)
Objective 1.4: Make bus stops a secure
environment for customers, both from a
traffic safety and from a personal safety
perspective.
» Strategy 1.4.1: Maintain visible level of system-
wide security presence and surveillance cover -
age which may include unarmed security and

CHAPTER 4 | VISION + GOALS
97 activating spaces. (Police Department and Public
Works)
» Strategy 1.4.2: Maintain and provide direct ac-
cess to Metrolink shuttles, Dial-A-Taxi, buses and
transit facilities. Avoid blind spots such as land-
scaping, fencing and/or structures blocking sur -
roundings to ensure overall visibility of the bus
stop from the street and surrounding areas. (MBL
and Public Works)
» Strategy 1.4.3: Maintain/provide additional light -
ing at all bus stops. Continue to install solar lights
at bus stops throughout the MBL system. (MBL)
» Strategy 1.4.4: Support long-term storage/park -
ing for bicycles and micromobility options at tran-
sit stations or options for safely bringing devices
on-board. (MBL and LA Metro)
Goal 2: Provide Safe, Comfortable,
and Convenient Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Non-motorized
Access to Bus Stops and Metrolink
Station
Objective 2.1: Conduct annual bicycle and
pedestrian safety assessments.
» Strategy 2.1.1: Annually review pedestrian colli-
sion data within a one half-mile and bicycle colli-
sion with three-miles of bus stops and Metrolink
Station using data such as the SWITRS or Trans-
portation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). (MBL
and Public Works)
» Strategy 2.2.2: Analyze the collected bicycle and
pedestrian collision data to identify hot spot loca-
tions and trends to develop countermeasures to
mitigate the causes of collisions. The safety ap -
proach will not be limited to hotspot mitigation.

Refer to this First Mile-Last Mile Plan for example
countermeasures and recommendations. (MBL
and Public Works)
» Strategy 2.2.3: Refer to the City’s Local Road
Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify high-injury corri-
dors and make recommendations. Pursue fund-
ing through the federal Highway Safety Improve-
ment Program (HSIP) or SS4A Grant Program to
further implement safety countermeasures. (MBL
and Public Works)
Objective 2.2: Provide a connected,
comfortable, and safe pedestrian and
bicycle network.
» Strategy 2.2.1: Develop an Active Transportation
Plan to build upon First Mile-Last Mile Plan com-
ponents. (MBL and Public Works)
» Strategy 2.2.2: Develop a bus stop access assess-
ment checklist to assist in assessing non-motor -
ized access to bus stops to complete station area
pedestrian, bicycle and micromobility improve -
ments to improve transit access and safety. (MBL)
» Strategy 2.2.3: Prioritize underserved neighbor -
hoods where walking, bicycling, and using the
bus is the primary mode of transportation. (MBL
and Public Works)
» Strategy 2.2.4: Build upon the First Mile-Last Mile
Plan and analyze the number of missing side -
walks and crossing locations within one quarter
mile of new bus stops, high ridership bus stops
and Metrolink Station to identify likely paths of
travel to bus stops that connect neighborhoods
and destinations. (MBL and Public Works)
» Strategy 2.2.5: Improve pedestrian linkages be -
tween residential, commercial, and community
facilities and schools to bus stops by providing
direct and continuous access. (MBL and Public
Works)
» Strategy 2.2.6: Implement well defined cross-
walks at intersections, and mid-block crossings to
increase safe access to bus stops and local desti-
nations. (Public Works)
» Strategy 2.2.7: Pursue funds to implement ac-
tive transportation improvements through grants
programs such as the Caltrans Active Transpor -
tation Program, Safe Streets and Roads for All
and Prop 68 Urban Greening Program. (MBL and
Public Works)
Objective 2.3: Implement Complete Streets
projects to provide multi-modal access to
bus stops and the Metrolink Station.
» Strategy 2.3.1: Develop a Complete Streets Corri-
dor Plan with first and last mile to transit compo-
nents for high need, high collision rate corridors.
(MBL and Public Works)
» Strategy 2.3.2: Identify improvements aimed at
enhancing the safety of existing roadway us-

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
98 ers (e.g. traffic signal coordination, traffic circles, roundabouts, bicycle facilities, etc.). (MBL and
Public Works)
» Strategy 2.3.3: Utilize minimum turning radii and/
or curb extensions as a traffic calming technique
at locations that street character, as defined by
land use and street classification, calls for slower
speeds and enhanced pedestrian environments.

Traffic calming measures should:

1. Promote safe and attractive conditions for
motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and resi-
dents on neighborhood streets;

2. Mitigate the impact of vehicular traffic, in-
cluding excessive speed and collisions.

3. Discourage cut-through traffic in residential
areas

4. Provide a visually attractive environment for
those who use the bus or travel by active
transportation modes through an area by in-
creasing landscaping and gateway opportu-
nities. (Public Works)
» Strategy 2.3.4: Expand the Capital Improvements
Program to includes numerous other programs
and projects like the Associated Capital Mainte -
nance Program, Bus Stop Improvement Project,
CAD/AVL Passenger Information System Project
(PISP), Enterprise Asset Management System,
Facility Improvements, Hybrid Bus Repower, Pico
Rivera Transit Center, Support Vehicles, Technol-
ogy and Equipment Support, Transit Coach Tires,
Universal Fare System, Vehicle Replacement
Project. (MBL and Public Works)
Objective 2.4: Explore Transportation
Network Companies (TNCs) and
micromobility options to access bus stops
and the Metrolink Station.
» Strategy 2.4.1: Work with ride sharing / ride hail-
ing private companies such as Uber and Lyft to
provide valuable and discounted on-demand first
and last mile connection to the Metrolink Station.

Explore equitable or discounted fees for the un-
derserved. (MBL)
» Strategy 2.4.2: Integrate micromobility parking
at high-use bus stops and the Metrolink Station
for the expanding use of scooters and bike share.

Explore equitable or discounted fees for the un-
derserved. (MBL)
» Strategy 2.4.3: Plan and design mobility hubs at
civic centers, regional shopping centers, schools
and other areas where needed. (MBL and Plan-
ning & Community Development)
Goal 3: Coordinate Land Use and
Transit Planning
Objective 3.1: Encourage coordination
of land development to promote active
transportation and bus use.
» Strategy 3.1.1: Utilize a collaborative planning
process such as project Technical Advisory Com-
mittees and Development Review Committees
to encourage the integration of non-motorized
transportation modes in new and redevelopment
projects and corridor studies with existing and
future bus routes. As part of these discussions,
encourage designing safe and pleasant bus stops
near activated locations to provide more visibility
around the bus stops. (MBL)
» Strategy 3.1.2: Continue coordination between
LA Metro, SCAG, and neighboring cities on future
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) hubs to be
included in future planning. (MBL and Planning &
Community Development)
» Strategy 3.1.3: Plan and install bus stops to
coordinate with the community and regional
multi-modal transportation system and support
existing land uses such as mixed-use develop -
ment and high density housing. Providing bus
stops in activated locations provides additional
visibility and lighting around bus stops. (MBL)
» Strategy 3.1.4: Locate and concentrate land uses
and urban design to promote and facilitate safe
pedestrian and bicycle access to public transpor-
tation and installation of new bus stops or im-
proving existing ones. Design adjacent bus stops
to provide increased bus stop access and safety
while providing additional safety features at the
bus stop itself such as shelters and additional
lighting. (MBL and Planning & Community Devel-
opment)
» Strategy 3.1.5: Coordinate the development of
land use, transit and active transportation strat -
egies in areas expecting growth. (MBL and Plan-
ning & Community Development)

CHAPTER 4 | VISION + GOALS
99 Objective 3.2: Improve the street-land use
relationship to provide additional visibility
and amenities for bus stops.
» Strategy 3.2.1: Along bus routes, locate new
buildings within a reasonable walking distance
from the right of way line to allow easy access
for bus and Metrolink users. In placing buildings
along arterial or major collector streets, accom-
modate for the required space for bus shelters
with adequate sidewalk and parkway widths.
(MBL and Planning & Community Development)
» Strategy 3.2.2: Minimize parking and maximize
land-use density within close proximity to bus fa-
cilities to provide additional visibility around the
bus stop. (MBL and Planning & Community De -
velopment)
» Strategy 3.2.3: Minimize walking distances be -
tween developments and bus stops, especially
those with walls or gates, to provide better ac-
cess to transit. Where applicable, provide addi-
tional safety measures such as additional lighting
and aesthetics such as an improved streetscape.
(MBL and Planning & Community Development)
Goal 4: Programs to Encourage
Transit Use and Promote Safety,
Comfort, and Accessibility
Objective 4.1: Continue to improve public
awareness of safety practices.
» Strategy 4.1.1: Foster a culture of traffic safety
by developing and conducting annual public out-
reach events to encourage and educate on safely
accessing bus stops and bus stop safety. (MBL)
» Strategy 4.1.2: Partner on regional safety cam-
paigns to improve driver awareness of the needs
and rights of vulnerable road users. (MBL)
» Strategy 4.1.3: Pair major infrastructure chang-
es and enforcement activities with messaging to
communicate to community members the impor-
tance of traffic safety. (MBL and Public Works)
Objective 4.2: Advocate public
transportation and enhance the image of
MBL.
» Strategy 4.2.1: Continue the ongoing campaign
to promote the sale of Transit Access Pass (TAP)
and MBL Bus Tokens. (MBL)
» Strategy 4.2.2: Continue the partnership with lo -
cal business through a MBL Day Pass Program
to jointly promote transit and local businesses.
(MBL)
» Strategy 4.2.3: Coordinate with multiple school
districts to promote transit services and the ben-
efits of student monthly passes; as well as a part-
nership with the Montebello Unified School Dis-
trict Parent Teacher Association to promote the
Student Monthly Pass. (MBL)
» Strategy 4.2.4: Continue partnership with The
Shops at Montebello. (MBL)
» Strategy 4.2.5: Participate in the (LIFE) Low in-
come Fare is Easy Program led by Metro. This pro-
gram provides fare subsidies that allow low-in-
come patrons to redeem toward transit passes for
eligible riders including adult regular fare, Senior/
Disabled/Medicare, K-12, and college/vocational
students who meet the criteria. (MBL)
» Strategy 4.2.6: Continue ongoing meetings with
the Transportation Citizen Advisory Committee
to receive input from patrons of Montebello Bus
Lines and the Dial-A-Taxi services. (MBL)
» Strategy 4.2.7: Work with the City’s Council Ad
Hoc Committee for future programming efforts.
(MBL)
» Strategy 4.2.8: Continue to grow and expand
MBL’s social media outreach program (Facebook
& Instagram) and in bus marketing to promote
ridership. (MBL) Goal 4: Programs to Encourage
Transit Use and Promote Safety, Comfort, and
Accessibility

4.2 TRANSIT AGENCY INTERVIEWS
The project team interviewed six various transit
agencies or municipal jurisdictions. The purpose of
this exercise was to uncover lessons learned and best
practices that can be applied to this Plan through pol- icy development and design. The interview questions
can be found in Appendix E.

1. KING COUNTY METRO
June 22nd at 2:30pm
Interviewed: Malva Slachowitz, Senior Transportation
Planner, Bike & Walk Program
King County Metro (Metro) serves the County as a
transit agency but does not have control of the rights-

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
100
of-ways (ROW), which are overseen primarily by
municipalities. Advantages of Metro is their focus on
equitable mobility and therefore is in a position to de- velop ways to evolve and experiment with its service
models and capital investments. Disadvantages in-
clude no control of the ROW, funding limitations, and
expectations for parking. On-demand services have
challenges for outsourcing, labor relations, technolo - gy, and equitable access. A key takeaway is that a bus
stop warrants a shelter when there are 50 boardings
per day in Seattle or 25 per day outside of Seattle.

2. LA METRO
July 11, 2023 at 1:45pm
Interviewed: Jacob Lieb, Senior Director and Chris Moor - man, Senior Transportation Planner
LA Metro’s First/Last Mile Planning Division (Metro)
has a team of five people and only two which focus on
securing funding. Metro has a strong suit in commu-
nity engagement, with strong standing relationships
for Community Based Organizations. Challenges
Metro faces are blurred responsibilities between oth-
er agencies such as on the design and maintenance
of streets. Metro has programs to evaluate passenger
safety and comforters well as safe access to and from
bus stops. Metro shared valuable resources such as
their Metro Strategic Plan, their project prioritization methodology, Bike/Bus Interface Study to use as ref-
erence in the development of the City of Montebello’s
First Mile Last Mile Master Plan.

3. Long Beach Transit
July 11, 2023 at 4:00pm
Interviewed: Jessica Cignarella - Manager of Transit Ser - vice Planning; Marisol Barajas - Manager of Government
Relations
Long Beach Transit (LBT) does not have any staff
dedicated to secure first last mile project funding.

A challenge for LBT is integrating schedules of dif -
ferent service providers, meaning riders may have a
long wait during transfers. Another challenge is there
is a lot of grandfathered-in infrastructure leading
to inconsistent ADA compliance across cities. They
are currently working on how to prioritize bus stops
that are ADA non-compliant as well as SCAG’s High
Quality Transit Areas. LBT has introduced GoPASS
for K-12 students and select universities which has
resulted in an increased youth/student ridership.

4. FOOTHILL TRANSIT
July 13, 2023 at 2:30pm
Interviewed: Josh Landis, Planning Manager
Foothill Transit (FT) has a dedicated grant coordina-
tor who secures first last mile and active transporta-
tion funding. Challenges the agency faces is limited
bus access to neighborhoods with narrow streets
for the 40’ long buses. FT has 100% ADA compli-
ance and has removed all non-compliant stops or
made improvements to make them compliant. This
both minimizes lawsuits as well as guarantees ADA
compliance for riders. Stop Diets have also increased
convenience for riders by limiting one bus stop per
quarter mile except in downtowns and commercial
centers to shorten commute times. Bus stop priori-
tization typically comes from customer requests and
ADA compliance is always the first factor consid-
ered. FT has good relationships with each jurisdiction
which streamlines coordination system-wide.

5. BERKELEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
August 9, 2023 at 9:30am
Interviewed: Eric Anderson, Principal Transportation
Planner
When it comes to implementing countermeasures,
Berkeley looks to their Vision Zero Action Plan. Rath-
er than focusing on hot spots after they become a
problem area, they take a proactive approach and
view vision zero as a systemic issue. They implement
countermeasures with similar roadway or bus stop
characteristics as the existing problem areas to pre -
vent serious injuries or fatalities. For larger infrastruc- ture such as bus shelters with real time display, this
is handled by the bus agency, ACT with JPA. The City
helps with smaller amenities such as bus benches,
trash receptacles, and streetscape elements.

6. OMNITRANS
August 18, 2023 at 1:00pm
Interviewed: Anna Jaiswal, Development Planning Man-
ager
The greatest concern for Omnitrans is the safety of
riders, especially while waiting at bus stops. Simi-
lar to other transit agencies interviewed, Omnitrans
does not have control of the ROW which limits in-
volvement of first last mile improvements, especially
for ADA compliance, which is another big challenge
for the agency. Omnitrans maintains the immediate
station area but everything else is the City’s respon-
sibility. Coordination between all 16 jurisdictions is

CHAPTER 4 | VISION + GOALS
101
challenging and requires a lot of permitting. Bikeshare and scootershares have been discussed but deemed
too challenging with the inter-jurisdictional coordina- tion. Omnitrans does have a Bus Stop Improvement
Plan and Connect Transit Plan to prioritize amenities
and projects, highest ridership receiving the largest
priority.

Common Themes
Transit agencies do not typically have control of right- of-ways which significantly limits their involvement
on first last mile infrastructure projects. Across the
agencies we interviewed, each has different ways
of prioritizing projects and transit stops from rider - ship volumes, ADA compliance, and MPO guidance.

Multi-jurisdictional agencies typically have more dif - ficult times implementing systemwide changes and
good relationships and regular communication is rec-
ommended to help streamline improvements.

Policy
Development5

104

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN

5.1 BEST PRACTICES AND

RECOMMENDED POLICIES
This section focuses on the best practice first-last
mile policies to improve access and safety to bus
stops, improve safety and amenities at bus stops and
develop complete streets to encourage transit use.

This section summarizes key regional and local plan-
ning policies, the programs, and practices necessary
to improve safety for all roadway users, with a focus
on those walking, bicycling and taking transit. The
best practice policy examples and actions are aimed
to instill collaboration between the various City de -
partments, community partners, and regional agen-
cies. These best practice policies help to implement
infrastructure, amenities, strategies, and programs to
encourage travel by walking, bicycling, transit, and
integrate many policies from the City’s latest 2023
Draft General Plan.

The best practice policies recommended for Monte -
bello, as shown in the subsequent pages, were de -
termined by analyzing policies, goals, objectives, and
recommendations from other jurisdictions, stake -
holders and community feedback. These recom-
mendations are meant to further guide improving
the infrastructure around bus stops to better serve
MBL’s riders. The actions items are a combination of
first-last mile specific action items, along with actions items from the 2023 General Plan.

To understand the action items, those that begin with
“GP” are action items directly pulled from the 2023
General Plan that relate to the policy. These provide a strong framework and consistency with the General
Plan. The “FLM Action” represents action items spe -
cific to this plan, or first-last mile recommendations, to strengthen the policies. There are numerous other
policies and action items related to Complete Streets,
transit, active transportation, transit oriented devel- opment, and location specific policies in the General
Plan for more information.

Policy 1. Support and promote
walking, biking, and other non
vehicular modes as an alternative
to driving within Montebello.
(General Plan P4.1)
This first policy is directly pulled from the 2023
General Plan and provides the guidance to promote
non-vehicular modes throughout the City. These ac-
tion items facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use as key mobility options to improve accessibility and
overall quality of life.

General Plan Policies:

GP A4.1a: Prepare and adopt an active transporta-
tion plan (ATP) with bicycle and pedestrian improve-
ments built upon the San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments (SGVCOG) recommendations.

GP A4.1b: Balance the provision of on-street bike
lanes and regional bikeways along arterial roads with
on-street bike routes/boulevards and local-serving
bikeways along residential streets.

GP A4.1c: Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to
ensure that the City’s bikeways are connected and
consistent with existing and planned bikeways at the
City limits.

GP A4.1d: Facilitate non-motorized connectivity to
key destinations in the city through bicycle and pe -
destrian-oriented wayfinding signage.
» Coordinate to provide the opportunity for wayfin-
ding customization, themes, and consistent de -
sign quality to promote connectivity to bus stops,
the Montebello Metrolink Station, park and ride
lots, and other local and regional activity centers.

GP A4.1e: Improve access to the Rio Hondo River
Trail by opening additional access points and posi-
tioning wayfinding between the trail and key destina-
tions in Montebello.

GP A4.1f: Require new development projects to pro-
vide adequate bicycle and pedestrian access, plus the
provision of safe and secure bicycle parking.

GP A4.1g: Enhance the pedestrian and bicycle expe-
rience in the Downtown Specific Plan area and oth-
er key destinations through amenities such as wide
sidewalks, low-stress bikeways, landscaping, pedes-
trian-oriented lighting, high-visibility crosswalks, and other improvements.

105
CHAPTER 5 | POLICY
GP A4.1h: Establish citywide mode split goals and
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) threshold targets as a
means to reduce traffic congestion, support healthy
communities, and improve accessibility by transit-de-
pendent populations.

Policy 2. Provide clean, safe, and
comfortable bus stops and bus
stop access to encourage transit
use.

Passenger comfort, safety, and convenience are all
impacted by bus stop features that are located off the
street or roadway, commonly referred to as curbside
improvements. This section provides policy guidance
on how the City can provide the appropriate bus stop
amenities to make transit use safe and comfortable.

For any transit system, expanded amenities beyond
the standard bench or shelter are typically warranted.

According to the City’s latest General Plan, one of the key findings related to transit conditions was that the city could benefit from improved passenger amenities
at bus stops outside the downtown area. Challenges
may include having adequate sidewalk space to in-
stall shelters. The following best practice policies are aimed to help Montebello Bus Lines on how to cre -
ate attractive bus stops that are safe and comfortable
places to board and alight.

GP A4.2d: Enhance bus stops in the city incorporat -
ing high-quality transit stop design and amenities
that create a simple, legible, and pleasant experience
at the bus stop.
» Provision of comfortable shelter and seating can
significantly improve perception of wait time and
rider satisfaction. Ensure the waiting passengers
can be seen from outside by using glass or open
design for the back wall. Include lighting in the
shelter, or locate shelters in a well-lit area. Signs
at bus stops must indicate critical information in-
cluding the stop name, route number, stop num-
ber, direction or destination, and system logo.

GP A4.2e: Coordinate with Metrolink to enhance the
Montebello/Commerce Station’s passenger ameni-
ties, bus transfer facilities, parking facilities, and other elements to encourage rail ridership in the City.

GP A4.2h: Improve connectivity within growth
neighborhoods, areas of opportunity and for tran-
sit-dependent populations to enhance access to local
and regional transit services.

GP A4.3c: Create small-scale mobility hubs at key
multimodal transfer points.
» Mobility Hubs can serve as focal points for local
micromobility and wayfinding networks, with
amenities such as: transit and bike route infor -
mation; bike repair stations; shade; and pedestri-
an-scaled lighting and wayfinding.

FLM Action 2.1: Provide or encourage clean, lighted,
and convenient bus shelters that are within walking
and biking distance of major activity areas, residential neighborhoods, and arterial roadways.

FLM Action 2.2: This Plan recommends installing
shelters and benches where they are missing. If re -
sources are limited then develop a ranking method-
ology to prioritize bus shelter locations. Criteria might include the following, but not limited to:
» Passenger volume
» Traffic volume and circulation
» Demographic analysis such as areas in low-in-
come neighborhoods, minority populations, tran-
sit dependent neighborhoods with low vehicle
ownership in accordance with SCAG’s definition
of Disadvantaged Communities
FLM Action 2.3: The City and private developers
should provide and maintain street trees and other
landscape treatments along corridors near bus stops
within the public right-of-way to provide sufficient
shade canopy and promote pedestrian comfort with-
out impeding bus access or opportunities to install
shelters.

FLM Action 2.4: Encourage the development of ad-
jacent businesses near major bus stops to activate
the space and make these facilities safer and more
pleasant. The City can offer incentives to new devel-
opment projects and existing businesses.

FLM Action 2.5: Coordinate with other agencies,
not-for-profit organizations, and community groups
to improve the physical and built environment around
bus stops. Examples of improvements include uni-
versal design, gardens, green space and open space,
and access to parks and recreation amenities.

PLM Action 2.6: Partner with local public art pro -
grams and artists to create artwork that is visually
connected to the historical, environmental, or cultural aspects of the site.

106

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
Policy 3. Provide safety amenities
at bus stops.

Bus stops are critical connection points between
modes of transportation. Bus stops should be com-
fortable, safe, convenient, and designed for the local
context. They should complement the larger trans-
portation network and provide a sense of safety at all
times of the day. There are several strategies that can be explored to activate the space around bus stops
that experience crime, have high ridership, or experi-
ence regular complaints.

Bus stops with elements such as shelters, benches,
and in-shelter lighting increase the comfort, conve -
nience, and visibility of patrons and the stop itself.

This investment in infrastructure can raise the over -
all attractiveness of bus service and help meet MBL’s
targets for ridership growth.

GP A2.3b: Prioritize placemaking.
» Create a plaza at the future Greenwood Avenue
Station that features a variety of public amenities
that will increase the attractiveness of the station
and catalyze mixed-use development activity on
adjacent land. This new station would extend
the L Line east from its terminus at the Pomona/
Atlantic Station. Establishing an Enhanced In-
frastructure Financing District (EIFD) in the area
could also help capture increased value that
comes along with TOD adjacencies as well help
fund infrastructure needed for placemaking.

FLM Action 3.1: Encourage the provision of ameni-
ties such as seating, lighting, and signage (including
real-time arrival information), and bicycle parking
areas at bus stops, shuttle stops, and the Metrolink
Station to increase rider comfort, safety, convenience
and future light rail station.

FLM Action 3.2: Install additional lighting at bus
stops (solar preferred) and cameras at high stops
where high incidents of crime of complaints have oc-
curred. Explore the installation of blue light emergen- cy phones as additional safety amenities. Coordinate
with the Police Department on monitoring and main-
taining surveillance cameras and blue light emergen-
cy phones.

FLM Action 3.3: Work with local businesses and
property owners that are adjacent to the stops with
high complaints to develop viable solutions such as
providing security cameras or additional lighting. Bus
stop relocation or shelter removal is a last resort be - cause it inconveniences customers, and a new loca-
tion may not be viable.

Policy 4. Utilize complete street
strategies to improve bus stop
accessibility.

Interconnected pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
with transit provides viable transportation choices for everyone and this contributes to the health, equity,
and quality of life of Montebello residents. It was not- ed in the General Plan that walking and biking con-
nectivity to the Metrolink Station should be improved.

Embracing Complete Streets strategies into redevel-
opment and roadway improvements go a long way
toward achieving a truly Complete Street.

GP A4.5a: Develop and formally adopt a citywide
Complete Streets Ordinance.

GP A4.5b: Utilize a Complete Streets approach that
acknowledges all users when improving existing
transportation facilities or designing new transporta-
tion facilities in the city.

FLM Action 4.1: Use a Complete Streets approach
that is best suited to meet the goals of the corridor
or area to maximize the number of people walking or
biking to transit. Improve bicycle transportation in-
frastructure and conditions along preferred corridors
three miles from a transit station or bus stop and half- mile for pedestrian infrastructure.
» A Complete Street may include, but not be limit -
ed to, sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoul-
ders), special bus lanes, bus turnouts, comfort -
able, safe, and accessible public transportation
stops, frequent and safe crossing opportunities,
median islands, accessible pedestrian signals,
curb extensions, narrower travel lanes, and
roundabouts.

FLM Action 4.2: Utilize Complete Streets concepts
to accommodate and optimize new technologies and
micromobility devices, first-last mile connections to
transit, and curbside management strategies, to pro-
vide safe and accessible choices to increase active
transportation and transit use.

FLM Action 4.3: Dedicate funding to implement im-
provements related to Complete Streets policies and
implementation.

FLM Action 4.4: Prioritize a network of Complete
Streets designed for users of all ages and abilities to

107
CHAPTER 5 | POLICY
access bus stops and the Metrolink Station and future
light rail station. Focus the designs first and foremost on critical areas, which are usually the intersections, before expanding it to the entire network.

FLM Action 4.5: When redesigning roadways, pri-
oritize safety over motor vehicle capacity. All streets should be designed to be accessible for walking, bik-
ing, and accessing bus stops and Metrolink Station.

FLM Action 4.6: Test bold, creative approaches to
safer street design. Improving street design is neither an insurmountable nor expensive challenge. Coor -
dinate with SCAG on their Go Human campaign to
test low-cost, short-term interventions to create saf - er streets. When a solution is implemented, measure
the results to gauge the impact of their projects to
work toward permanent solutions.

FLM Action 4.7: Explore policies that prohibit street
widening projects that negatively impact pedestrians,
bicyclists and transit users’ level of service.

Policy 5: Utilize traffic calming
and safety countermeasures to
improve accessibility to bus stops
and the Metrolink Station.

This policy explores the principle of traffic calming
to provide a full range of treatments to slow vehicles
as they move through commercial corridors and res-
idential neighborhoods. The benefit for pedestrians
and bicyclists is that vehicles drive at speeds that are safer and more compatible with walking, biking, and
accessing bus stops. Traffic calming can take on many
forms and costs, such as paint and bollards to traffic
circles and roundabouts. It will be key to integrate bus stop access into traffic calming projects to provide the transit users with safe access to their destinations.

GP A4.6e: Monitor residential streets and implement
traffic calming as needed to discourage cut-through
traffic, developing strategies in conjunction with the
neighborhood at large.

GP A4.7b: Explore opportunities to provide
grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings at
locations where railroad tracks serve as a barrier to
direct walking and bicycling connectivity, such as res- idential streets cut off by railroad tracks.

FLM Action 5.1: Provide pedestrian-friendly safety
improvements, such as crosswalks and pedestrian
signals near bus stops and the Metrolink Station.

FLM Action 5.2: Where feasible, implement prov -
en traffic calming measures, such as speed humps,
speed tables, curb extensions, roundabouts, and traf-
fic circles, to slow vehicular speeds and improve bicy- cle and pedestrian safety.

FLM Action 5.3: Implement floating bus stops to fa-
cilitate buses moving in and out of traffic and to re - duce bus travel time, increasing convenience and at -
tractiveness of transit use.

FLM Action 5.4: Where feasible, implement full street
improvements, including paving, curbs, gutters, and
sidewalks are to be encouraged where necessary for
public health, safety, and welfare.

FLM Action 5.5: Where feasible, separate pedestri-
an and bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic on major
roadways to protect the safety of roadway users.

Driveways and minor roads should have raised bicy -
cle and pedestrian crossings and intersections should
be protected to mitigate right hook conflicts.

Policy 6: Develop programs to
encourage transit use and safety.

Shifting the daily commute from cars to sustainable
transport modes, like public transportation, walking,
and biking, incorporates physical activity into every - day commuting and can improve health and happi-
ness. Programs should be explored with local and
regional employers to encourage transit use by pro -
viding incentives and education on the benefits of al-
ternative transportation.

GP A1.5a: Develop incentives and adopt regulatory
standards to reduce transportation emissions. In ad-
dition to reducing the number of miles driven, the fuel efficiency and emissions standards of vehicles must
also improve. Working in collaboration with local, re - gional, and state agencies, Montebello will seek to
increase use of clean fuels in public and private au-
tomobile fleets, consider new legislation, and imple -
ment educational programs.

GP A1.5b: Promote use of alternate modes of trans-
portation in the City of Montebello, including pedes-
trian, bicycling, public transportation, car sharing pro- grams and emerging technologies.

GP A1.5e: Require and incentivize projects to incor -
porate Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
techniques.
» Encourage major employers to reduce vehicular

108

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
trips by offering incentives such as, but not limited
to, free or reduced-fare transit passes, transit sti-
pends, and company-wide contests and events.

GP A4.4d: Update the City’s parking code to allow
shared parking arrangements, flexible parking stan-
dards such as unbundled parking and parking in-
lieu fees in mixed-use areas and/or in proximity of
high-quality transit.

GP A4.5i: Utilize educational strategies to improve
awareness of safe walking, biking, and driving habits.

Work with community-based organizations to devel-
op and implement these strategies.

GP A4.8e: Monitor and evaluate the development of
new mobility technologies.

FLM Action 6.1: Collaborate to develop back-to-
school marketing campaigns to promote bus, car -
pool, walking, and biking to school. The marketing
campaign can include suggested route maps, safety
education materials, volunteer opportunities, event
calendars, and traffic safety enforcement notices.

FLM Action 6.2: Avoid high intensity uses in loca-
tions with minimal transit service.

Policy 7: Develop programs to
encourage safety at bus stops and
the Metrolink Station.

Safety features at bus stops are the highest priority to improve transit rider safety, such as additional light - ing, activating the space around the bus stops, and
providing shelter from environmental elements. As
part of encouraging the use of transit and the safety
issues at some bus stops, programs are an important
part to help mitigate some of those concerns. This
section summarizes some of the best practices that
are being employed regionally and statewide that can
be explored.

FLM Action 7.1: Develop a safety awareness cam-
paign to include short instructional videos, newspa-
per ads, social media, and community engagement.

Engage local community-based organizations to plan
and develop these campaigns.

FLM Action 7.2: Support Neighborhood Watch pro -
grams. Members should all be given training to en-
sure that racial bias is not used during neighborhood
watch activities.

FLM Action 7.3: Continue to provide community pro-
grams that develop positive relationships between
the Montebello Police Department and community
members to provide a safe and secure environment
for bus and transit users.

FLM Action 7.4: Establish a uniformed and unarmed
security presence on buses and at bus stops such as
a “Transit Ambassador’’ program used by LA Metro in
the Los Angeles region.
» This program is believed to have helped to sig-
nificantly improve security where it has been em-
ployed. These ambassadors receive additional
de-escalation and anti-bias training before being
deployed. These ambassadors will be dedicated
to riding transit which in turn helps represent a
new shift in the deployment strategies of Metro
armed security agents. Across the country, these
approaches are helping transit agencies provide
additional passenger security and comfort, while
allowing sworn, armed police officers to focus
their efforts on more serious criminal activity. Pri-
or to implementing a full-scale deployment, a pi-
lot program should be considered to evaluate and
refine the program.

FLM Action 7.5: Prioritize stops that routinely draw
complaints of illicit or unwanted activity for Transit
Ambassadors to regularly monitor to deter illicit be -
havior.

FLM Action 7.6: Install surveillance cameras at some
of the higher ridership bus stops and bus stops with
the most complaints.

109
CHAPTER 5 | POLICY
This page is left intentionally blank.

Projects6

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
112

6.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND

MONITORING GUIDE
This chapter focuses on the key outcomes of the Plan:
the recommendations and initial project implementa-
tion to support first-last mile connections in Monte -
bello. Section 6.2 showcases a toolbox of first last
mile treatments to increase safety, comfort, and ac-
cess at transit stops for people using transit. Some of these treatments are applied to the priority projects
and others can be used as a guide for additional en-
hancement projects. Section 6.3 covers what criteria
guided the selection of the priority projects and lists additional corridors recommended for study in the fu-
ture. Section 6.4 includes the specific intersection de- signs and corresponding cut sheets that show initial
project recommendations and what measures should
be implemented at each location. The callouts on the
aerial photos are intended to be used to pursue grant
funding for implementation. Section 6.5 discusses
the benefits of implementing the proposed first last
mile treatments. Finally, section 6.6 includes metrics
to be used to measure progress of implementation of
first-last mile treatments in Montebello.

6.2 FIRST MILE LAST MILE

TOOLBOX
This chapter includes project recommendations
meant to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety at
and around bus stops. The recommendations are de-
signed to help the City of Montebello allocate funds
as they become available and compete for grant
funds as opportunities arise. The chapter begins with
an overview of the different types of built infrastruc- ture that have been designed throughout California.

This “Street Toolkit” includes active transportation
recommendations for bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic
calming treatments.

6.2.1 BICYCLE FACILITIES
Class I: Multi-Use Paths
Class I multi-use paths (frequently referred to as “bi- cycle paths”) are physically separated from motor ve-
hicle travel routes, with exclusive rights-of-way for
non-motorized users like bicyclists and pedestrians.

They require physical buffers to ensure safety and
comfort of the user.

Class II: Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle lanes are one-way facilities that carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as the adjacent motor ve- Class I: Multi-Use Path
Class II: Bicycle Lane
Class III: Bicycle Route
Class IV: Separated Bike Path

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
113
hicle traffic. They are typically located along the right side of the street (although can be on the left side)
and are between the adjacent travel lane and curb,
road edge, or parking lane. They are not physically
separated from motor vehicle traffic.

Class III: Bicycle Routes
A bicycle route is a suggested bicycle corridor marked
by signs designating a preferred street between desti-
nations. They are recommended where traffic volumes
and roadway speeds are 35 mph or less.

Class IV: Separated Bikeways
Separated Bikeways, sometimes called cycle tracks,
are on-street bicycle facilities with a physical sepa-
ration between the bikeway and vehicle travel lanes
usually with flexible posts, planters, or poured con-
crete. Often times, Class IV bikeways are parking-pro-
tected, where parked cars offer a buffer from travel-
ing cars. Typologies for designing Class IV Separated
Bikeways at bus stops can be found in Appendix G.

Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”)
The shared lane marking is commonly used where
parking is allowed adjacent to the travel lane. It is
now common practice to center them within the typ-
ical vehicular travel route in the rightmost travel lane to ensure adequate separation between bicyclists
and parked vehicles. Many cities install sharrows over
a green background to enhance visibility.

Neighborways
A neighborway, sometimes called a bicycle boule -
vard, is an approach to reduce traffic, slow car speed, and improve safety for those biking, walking, and
rolling on quiet residential streets. They are typical- ly located on more narrow, slow speed streets and
combined with other traffic calming infrastructure like speed tables.

Green-Colored Transition Striping
Intersection or mid-block crossing markings indicate
the intended path of bicyclists. Colored striping can
be used to highlight conflict areas between bicyclists
and vehicles, such as where bicycle lanes merge
across motor vehicle turn lanes.

Edge Lane Road
An edge lane road is a preferred space for bicyclists
and motorists to operate on narrow streets that
would otherwise be a shared roadway. Roads with
Sharrow
Edge Lane Road
Bike Box
Signage and Wayfinding

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
114
Traffic Circle
Signals and Warning Devices
Speed Display
Traffic Diverter
advisory bike lanes accommodate low to moderate
volumes of two-way motor vehicle traffic and provide
a safer space for bicyclists with little or no widening of the paved roadway surface. Due to their reduced
cross section requirements, advisory bike lanes have
the potential to open up more roadways to accom-
modate comfortable bicycle travel.

Bike Boxes
A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicy -
clists a safe and visible way to wait ahead of queuing
traffic during the red signal phase. This positioning
helps encourage bicyclists traveling straight through
not to wait against the curb for the signal change.

Signage and Wayfinding
Signage and wayfinding on all streets and bicycle
routes are intended to identify routes to both bicy -
clists and drivers, provide destination information and branding, and to inform all users of changes in road-
way conditions.

6.2.2 TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment,
installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut-through motor vehicle
traffic volumes. The intent of traffic calming is to alter driver behavior and to improve street safety, livability, and other public purposes. Other techniques consist of
operational measures such as police enforcement and
speed displays. More information from the Montebello
Fire Department on their priority corridors where ver-
tical traffic calming should be avoided can be found in Appendix H.

Roundabouts/Traffic Circles
A roundabout is a circular intersection with yield control at its entry that allows a driver to proceed at controlled speeds in a counter-clockwise direction around a central island. Roundabouts are designed to maximize motor-
ized and non-motorized traffic through their innovative design that includes reconfigured sidewalks, bikeway
bypasses, high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian flashing beacons, and other traffic measures. Roundabouts can
be implemented on most streets but may require addi-
tional right-of-way.

A traffic circle is a small-scale traffic calming measure commonly applied at uncontrolled intersections on low
volume, local residential streets. They lower traffic speeds on each approach and typically avoid or reduce right-

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
115
Chicanes
Speed Table
Truck Aprons
Hardened Center Lines
of-way conflicts because the overall footprint is smaller compared to roundabouts. Traffic circles may be installed using simple markings or raised islands but are best ac- companied with drought-tolerant landscaping or oth-
er attractive vertical elements.

Signals and Warning Devices
Traditional pedestrian signals with countdown timers
remain the gold standard for high quality pedestrian
crossings, although some cases warrant new signal
technologies. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) and
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are
special signals used to warn and control traffic at un- signalized locations to assist pedestrians in crossing
a street via a marked crosswalk. PHBs include a “red
phase” requiring vehicles to come to a full stop while
RRFBs are yield stops. Either of these devices should
be installed at locations that have pedestrian desire
lines and that connect people to popular destina-
tions such as schools, parks, and retail. Research has
shown that PHBs tend to have a 90 percent motorist
compliance rate versus RRFBs, which tend to have
an 80 percent motorist compliance rate. Traditional
pedestrian signals with countdown timers at signal-
ized intersections tend to have a near 100 percent
compliance rate. Signals and warning devices should
be paired with additional pedestrian improvements
where appropriate, to mitigate multiple threat crash-
es on multi-lane roadways.

Lead Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs)
LPIS give pedestrians about 3-7 seconds of a head
start to enter the crosswalk at an intersection before
vehicles get a green light.

Speed Displays
Speed displays measure the speed of approaching
vehicles by radar and inform drivers of their speeds
using an LED display. Speed displays contribute to
increased traffic safety because they are particularly
effective in getting drivers traveling ten or more miles per hour over the speed limit to reduce their speed.

Traffic Diverters
A traffic diverter is a roadway design feature placed
in a roadway to prohibit vehicular traffic from entering into or exiting from the street, or both.

Chicanes
Chicanes are a series of narrowings or curb exten-
sions that alternate from one side of the street to the

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
116
Neckdowns
Enhanced Crosswalk Markings
Curb Extension
Mid-Block Crossing with Refuge Island
other forming an S-shaped path. Chicanes reduce
drivers’ speeds by causing them to shift their horizon- tal path of travel.

Speed Tables/Raised Crosswalks
Speed tables are flat-topped road humps, often con-
structed with textured surfacing on the flat section.

Speed tables and raised crosswalks help to reduce
vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety.

Truck Aprons
Truck aprons allow large vehicles, such as: trucks,
buses, and recreational vehicles, to turn without
striking people walking, rolling, or bicycling, or fixed objects. They are located between the road surface
and the sidewalk, or inner circle of a roundabout. The
pavement is raised slightly to encourage light vehi-
cles on the main road surface.

Reflective Border on Signal Heads
Reflective borders on signal heads improves visibility
of signal heads with a backplate and is made even
more conspicuous by framing it with a yellow retro -
reflective border. These are more visible in both day - time and nighttime conditions.

Hardened Center Lines
Hardened centerlines are small rubber barriers next
to crosswalks that require people driving to make
slower, squarer left-hand turns. This small change
has been proven to significantly slow down vehicle
speeds at crosswalks and improve safety for people
in the crosswalk.

Neckdowns
Neckdowns narrow a street by extending the side -
walk or widening the landscape area to give the per-
ception that speeds should be reduced.

6.2.3 PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS
Enhanced Crosswalk Markings
Enhanced crosswalk markings are designed to both
guide pedestrians and to alert drivers of a crossing lo- cation. The bold pattern is intended to enhance visual
awareness. Cities in Southern California often install
“Continental” style or “Ladder” style markings due to
their higher contrast on a roadway.

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
117
Bus Shelter
Well Lit Bus Stop
Real Time Bus Information
Parklets
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions extend the curb line outward into the
travel way, reducing the pedestrian crossing distance.

Typically occurring at intersections, they increase pe- destrian visibility, reduce the distance a pedestrian
must cross, and reduce vehicular delay. Curb exten-
sions must be installed in locations where they will
not interfere with bicycle lanes or separated bike -
ways. If both treatments are needed, additional de -
sign features such as ramps, or half-sized curb exten-
sions should be considered. For snow maintenance,
curb extensions can be designed with tapered front
ends and vertical delineators to allow snow plows to
clear and move over the curbs.

Refuge Islands
Refuge islands provide pedestrians and bicyclists a
relatively safe place within an intersection and mid-
block crossing to pause and observe before crossing
the next lane of traffic.

Mid-Block Crossings
Mid-block crossings provide convenient locations for
pedestrians and bicyclists to cross thoroughfares in
areas with infrequent intersection crossings or where
the nearest intersection creates substantial out-of-di- rection travel. Mid-block crossings should be paired
with additional traffic-control devices such as tra-
ditional Pedestrian Signals, PHBs, RRFBs, LED en-
hanced flashing signs, and/or refuge islands.

Senior Zones
Designated senior zones can be enhanced with
street signage, increased crossing times at traffic sig- nals, benches, bus stops with shelters, and pedestri-
an lighting.

Transit Stop Amenities
Transit stop amenities such as shelters with overhead
protection, seating, trash receptacles, and lighting are essential for encouraging people to use public transit.

Special Intersection Paving and Crosswalk
Art
Special intersection paving and crosswalk art pro -
vide unique opportunities at intersections to highlight crossings or key civic or commercial locations, while
breaking the visual monotony of asphalt. Intersection
paving treatments and crosswalk art can integrate
context-sensitive colors, textures, and scoring pat -
terns.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
118
Community Art
Street Furnishings
Paving treatments and crosswalk art do not define a
crosswalk and should not be seen as a safety mea-
sure. Standard transverse or longitudinal high visibili- ty crosswalk markings are still required.

Lighting
Pedestrian-scale lighting provides many practical
and safety benefits, such as illuminating the path and
making crossing walkers and bicyclists more visible
to drivers. Lighting can also be designed to be fun,
artistic, and interactive.

6.2.4 TRANSIT STOP AMENITIES
Transit stop amenities such as shelters with overhead
protection, seating, trash receptacles, and lighting are essential for encouraging people to make use of pub-
lic transit.

Real-Time Bus Information
Real-time bus information allows riders to predict
their journey and manage their time more effectively.

This increases the convenience of transit for riders by providing accurate, updated location of their bus.

6.2.5 PLACEMAKING
Parklets
Parklets are made by converting one or two parking
stalls into spaces for outdoor seating, public art, or
other outdoor amenities that improve the streetscape
experience.

Community Art
Displaying community art is a great way to engage
the Reservation. Community art projects can include
wall murals, intersection murals, creative crosswalk
art, sidewalk chalk art, or sculptures.

Furnishings and Public Art
Transit shelters, bicycle racks, seating, and public art provide important amenities for functionality, design,
and vitality of the urban environment. They announce
that the street is a safe and comfortable place to be
and provide visual detail and interest.

Wayfinding Signage
Wayfinding signage is a fundamental element of a
comprehensive bicycling, walking, and trail network.

Effective wayfinding systems communicate designat-
ed corridors, destinations, and other points of interest Wayfinding
Monument Sign

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
119
throughout a community. Wayfinding signage should
be designed with local design aesthetics in mind.

Monument Sign
Monument signs can serve as powerful tools that
welcome people to visit, engage, and enjoy a space
or area in a unique way. These signs often reflect the
character or personality of the culture and are usually located near popular points of interest or at interme - diary gathering spaces along a corridor.

6.2.6 ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Community outreach initiatives should start by lis-
tening to residents, families, business owners, local
leaders, and working with existing community orga-
nizations. These critical relationships should allow for purposeful, ongoing engagement opportunities.

Electronic Newsletter
Distribution of an online newsletter is a great way to
engage the public. Distribution should be researched
and considered prior to utilizing this outreach meth-
od. This form of media can be used to display project
and contact information as well as ways for readers
to get involved.

Hotline
A hotline is a great way for community members to
call in, leave comments, or talk to someone directly
about the project or program. A hotline should be
considered as a support tool of an overall communi-
ty engagement strategy. In order to guarantee a ho -
tline’s success, it should be staffed and have the right person at the receiving end. Depending on the target
audience, it may be necessary to have a multi-lingual
person staffing the hotline. A hotline number is rela-
tively low cost and requires little effort to maintain.

Surveys and Questionnaires
Surveys and questionnaires can also be created to
identify the needs and views of a large number of
people. Surveys are effective when a limited number
of short and concise questions are used to gather in-
formation and feedback.

6.2.7 EQUITY PROGRAMS
Encourage Public Involvement
Collaboration with the community is an integral part
of the planning process. Individuals, especially those
belonging to traditionally underserved communities,
need to be empowered to participate in the trans-
portation planning processes and have their needs
heard.

Prioritize Projects in Light of Equity
Considerations
Agencies can aim to implement improvements in ar -
eas that are disproportionally affected by health and
safety burdens, acknowledging that policies and de -
signs that improve conditions for vulnerable groups
can benefit everyone in the community.

Consider the Transportation Needs of
Traditionally Underserved Populations
Recognize the importance of addressing the barriers
that prevent trips from being safe, especially for the
younger and underserved populations who cannot
afford, operate, or choose not to drive vehicles.

Examine Organizational Practices and
Policies
Existing practices and policies may have unintended
consequences when it comes to transportation eq-
uity. A systematic review of its practices should be
performed to identify potential equity issues and op -
portunities.

6.2.8 ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
A variety of engineering tools can be used to make
sure that the roadways are safe for people walking,
bicycling, and accessing transit. These tools include
street design techniques that are intended to de -
crease vehicular speeds and others to enhance pe -
destrian and bicycle safety and comfort. Some ex -
amples are traffic control signs, parking controls, and traffic safety monitoring.

6.2.9 ENCOURAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Vehicle usage can be decreased in part by actively
encouraging residents and visitors to bike, walk, and
ride transit for a variety of trips and purposes. Encour- agement is all about making bicycling, walking, and
transit more fun, healthy, and easy to do. To achieve
this, the City, along with Montebello Bus Lines and
other local organizations, can organize a series of ac- tivities and events that promote alternate modes of
transportation and healthier lifestyles.

Pilot Commuter Program
Provide employees with a temporary transit pass, for
at least one-month, to test out transit in a trial period

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
120
to get familiar with their route and encourage com-
mitment to using transit.

Free Ride Day
Encourage residents to take transit by offering an
annual Free Ride Day. This can be held in conjunc-
tion with California’s Clean Air Day, to emphasize the
benefit of replacing car trips and improving air quality.

The City, along with Montebello Bus Lines and other
local organizations, can organize pop-up events to
provide transit information and encourage riders.

Open Streets Events
Open streets events are a citywide event that closes
a street completely to cars. They provide residents an
opportunity to walk, bike, skateboard, or roller skate
own streets in their city free of cars.

National Bike Month in May
During the month of May, cities across the country
organize events and campaigns to educate people
about biking and to encourage them to bike more to
their destinations. Activities such as Bike Week, Bike
to Work, and Bike Fridays can be organized and pro-
moted to encourage first last mile transportation op -
tions.

Demonstration Project
Over the past decade Tactical Urbanism or “Demon-
stration Projects” has become an international move-
ment, bringing about a shift in how communities
think about project development and delivery. These
demonstration projects include low-cost, temporary
changes to the built environment intended to improve
local neighborhoods and gathering places. In South-
ern California, these projects have loosely emulated
a planned and designed project to allow residents to
experience what the project may look like and how
it affects traffic, active transportation modes and
transit. These events are aimed to educate and gain
support from the community to move towards imple-
mentation. The City of Montebello can utilize SCAG’s
GoHuman campaign to facilitate these demonstration
projects as needed. Items such as the protected bike
lane or curb extensions promote a more comfortable
and safe experience for non-motorists.

6.2.10 EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Student Safety Assemblies
Safety assemblies can be organized as interactive
gatherings or festivals that consist of various stations throughout a school gymnasium or park. Each station
can have a bicycle, pedestrian, and teen driver safe -
ty component that allows students to participate in
various activities while learning the basics of “on the road” safety.

Bike Commuting Workshops
A class intended to build habits and cover essential
skill for bike commuters. This class will cover what to wear, how to pack, and how to use transit with a bike.

6.2.11 EVALUATION PROGRAMS
Create City Staff Active Transportation
Evaluator Position
An active transportation evaluator position would
assist the City’s current active transportation coor -
dinator in reviewing project plans and built projects
as well as ensuring consistency and cooperation be -
tween city departments. The evaluator would also
assist with completing grant applications, maintain-
ing a prioritized list of improvements, researching
appropriate funding sources, and updating cost esti-
mates. This investment in staff is often returned since this position is usually responsible for securing State and federal funding.

First Mile Last Mile Advisory Committee
The City can explore creating an First Mile Last Mile
Advisory Committee that can provide oversight. Many
municipalities have developed bicycle and pedestri-
an, or active transportation advisory committees to
address issues and opportunities related to walking,
bicycling, and transit. This group can act as a com-
munity liaison and support City staff, volunteers, and
advocate efforts to address issues and help evaluate
the progress of improvements in this Plan.

Conduct Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts and
Review Collision Data
Conduct regular bicyclist and pedestrian counts
throughout the City to determine baseline mode
share and subsequent changes. Conducting counts
would allow the City to collect information on where
the most bicycling and walking occur. This assists in
prioritizing and justifying projects when funding is so- licited and received. Counts can also be used to study
bicycling and walking trends throughout the City and
overlaid with boarding and alighting data.

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
121

6.3  PRIORITIZED PROJECT LIST
Five projects have been recommended for first last
mile funding. To determine the top 5 projects, the
team considered boardings and alightings, equitable
access and connections to key destinations, feedback
from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), com-
munity input, bicycle and pedestrian Level of Stress
(LOS), crash history, and professional judgment. Sec-
tion 6.4 details why each location was selected.
5 SELECTED

PROJECTS
Boardings &
Alightings
Key
Destinations
SAG
FeedbackCommunity
Input Professional
Judgement
LOS
Analysis
Crash
Analysis

6.4 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
Through the community engagement process, stake-
holder input, and data analysis, five priority projects have been identified with recommendations for bi-
cycle, pedestrian and traffic calming treatments to
improve transit access to and from the selected bus
stops. These five projects are focused at high-volume
and high-need transit stops which can be replicated
at other locations.

The following pages show the five priority projects
for Montebello First Mile Last Mile projects, their rec- ommendations, and expected cost. A breakdown of
the costs can be found in Appendix F.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
122
Figure 6-1: Beverly Boulevard and Maple Avenue Crash Diagram Priority Project 1. Beverly
Boulevard and Maple Avenue
COST ESTIMATE: $149,700
There is currently one bus stop at the northeast cor -
ner at the intersection of Beverly Boulevard and Ma-
ple Avenue. The 40 bus travels southeast-northwest
along the Beverly Boulevard corridor connecting res-
idents of Montebello and Whittier to Downtown Los
Angeles. There are several key destinations within a
short walk of this bus stop, such as Maple Avenue
School, Washington Elementary School, Montebello
Library, City Hall, Acuna Park, and businesses.

Transit Ridership
The boarding and alighting total for each stop at this
intersection makes up 0.3% of all Montebello tran-
sit ridership. While only less than 1% of City rider -
ship, this bus stop was selected as a priority project
because of a pedestrian fatality and its proximity to
schools and key destinations. With first last mile im-
provements, this location may experience an increase
in ridership.

Collision Typologies
Figure 6-1 depicts the types of crashes that occur
at this intersection between the years 2011-2021.

There has been one pedestrian fatality just west of
the intersection from a vehicle traveling straight down Beverly. Additional pedestrian injury crashes include
two from right turning vehicles, one from a left turn-
ing vehicle and one from a vehicle traveling straight.

Bicycle injury crashes include two from left turning
vehicles and two from vehicles traveling straight.

Beverly Blvd
Maple Ave
16th St

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
123
Figure 6-2: Beverly Boulevard and Maple Avenue Recommendations Maple AvenueMaple Avenue
Beverly BoulevardBeverly Boulevard
Where space permits, provide
lighting, trash cans, mobility
parking options and public art
Add high visibility cross-
walks to all four sides
1 Add reflective border
on signal heads to all
four sides
5 Add “Pedestrian Nose” at median
refuge islands to two sides
3 Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing
4 Add truck aprons to
all four corners
6 Recommendations
To increase connections to the bus stop at
Beverly Boulevard & Maple Avenue, the
following recommendations are proposed.
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Pedestrian nose at medians
• Truck aprons
• Bicycle and pedestrian-friendly signal timing
• Reflective border on signal heads
• Lighting, trash cans, public art, and mobility
parking options, where space permits.

Figure 6-2 illustrates where at the intersection the
treatments are proposed to improve safe and con-
venient access to transit for people walking and roll-
ing, bicycling, and using micromobility for all ages and abilities.

Lead Pedestrian Interval
Pedestrian nose
High-visibility crossing
Truck apron
2

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
124
Figure 6-3: Whittier Boulevard and Garfield Avenue Crash Diagram Priority Project 2. Whittier
Boulevard and Garfield Avenue
COST ESTIMATE: $157,700
There are four bus stops at the intersection of Whit -
tier Boulevard and Garfield Avenue. The 10, 18,
30, and 70 routes connect users north to Alhambra
and San Gabriel, south to South Gate and southern
portion of Montebello, east to Whittier, and west to
Downtown Los Angeles and Koreatown. Within a
short walk of this intersection are key destinations
such as Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School,
Montebello High School, Saybrook Park, and shops.

Transit Ridership
The boarding and alighting total for each stop com-
bined at this intersection makes up 7.4% of all transit ridership in Montebello. This bus stop was selected
as a priority project because of its high number of col- lisions, ridership volumes, and proximity to key desti- nations.

Collision Typologies
Figure 6-3 depicts the types of crashes that occur at
this intersection between the years 2011-2021. It has
two fatal pedestrian crashes from vehicles traveling
straight down Whittier Blvd, one at the intersection,
and the other farther east where the raised median is
missing. Additional pedestrian injury crashes include
two from right turning vehicles, two from left turn-
ing vehicles and five from vehicles traveling straight.

Bicycle injury crashes include two from left turning
vehicles and two from vehicles traveling straight and
one from a bicyclist colliding with a stopped vehicle.

Whittier Blvd
Via Vista
Garfield Ave

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
125
Recommendations
To increase connections to the bus stop at
Whittier Boulevard and Garfield Avenue, the
following recommendations are proposed.
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Pedestrian nose at medians
• Truck aprons
• Bicycle and pedestrian-friendly signal timing
• Reflective border on signal heads
• Lighting, trash cans, public art, and mobility
parking options, where space permits.

Figure 6-4 illustrates where at the intersection the
treatments are proposed to improve safe and con-
venient access to transit for people walking and roll-
ing, bicycling, and using micromobility for all ages and abilities.

Pedestrian nose
High-visibility crossing
Truck apron
Figure 6-4: Whittier Boulevard and Garfield Avenue Recommendations Garfield AvenueGarfield Avenue
Whittier BoulevardWhittier Boulevard
Add high visibility cross-
walks to all four sides
1 Where space permits, provide
Enhanced Bus Facilities: seat-
ing options, shade shelters,
lighting, trash cans, mobility
parking options, real-time
transit and wayfinding
signage, route maps, push-
to-talk assistance button and
public art
2 Add “Pedestrian Nose” at
median refuge islands to two
sides
3 Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing
4 Add reflective border on sig-
nal heads to all four sides
5 Add truck aprons to
all four corners
6 Lead Pedestrian Interval

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
126
Whittier Blvd Montebello Blvd
Figure 6-5: Whittier Boulevard and Montebello Boulevard Crash Diagram Priority Project 3. Whittier and
Montebello Boulevards
COST ESTIMATE: $139,700
There are four bus stops at the intersection of Whit -
tier Boulevard and Montebello Boulevard. The 10
route runs east-west along Whittier Boulevard, con-
necting Whittier to Monterey Park. The 20 route runs
north-south along Montebello Boulevard, connecting
San Gabriel and Rosemead to the southern edge of
Montebello. This central intersection is located next
to major shopping centers with CVS, medical centers,
and the west end of Downtown.

Transit Ridership
The boarding and alighting total for each stop com-
bined at this intersection makes up 7.5% of all Mon-
tebello transit ridership. This bus stop was selected
as a priority project because it is the highest-volume
intersection for transit use, its location at the edge of the Downtown Montebello corridor, and high number
of bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

Collision Typologies
Collision injuries near the intersection of Whittier
Blvd and Montebello Blvd include one fatal pedestri-
an crash from a vehicle traveling straight down Whit-
tier Blvd near the Spruce St intersection. Additional
pedestrian injury crashes include one from right turn-
ing vehicles and four from vehicles traveling straight.

Bicycle injury crashes include three from right turning vehicles and three from vehicles traveling straight and one from a bicyclist colliding with a stopped vehicle.

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
127
Recommendations
To increase connections to the bus stop at
Whittier Boulevard and Montebello Boulevard,
the following recommendations are proposed.
• Hardened centerlines
• Pedestrian nose at medians
• Truck aprons
• Bicycle and pedestrian-friendly signal timing
• Reflective border on signal heads
• Lighting, trash cans, public art, and mobility
parking options, where space permits.

Figure 6-6 illustrates where at the intersection the
treatments are proposed to improve safe and con-
venient access to transit for people walking and roll-
ing, bicycling, and using micromobility for all ages and abilities.

Pedestrian nose
Hardened centerlines
Truck apron
Lead Pedestrian Interval
Figure 6-6: Whittier Boulevard and Montebello Boulevard Recommendations Montebello BoulevardMontebello BoulevardWhittier BoulevardWhittier Boulevard Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing
4 Add reflective border on sig-
nal heads to all four sides
5 Add truck aprons to
all four corners
1 Add hardened centerlines
3 Where space permits, provide
Enhanced Bus Facilities: seat-
ing options, shade shelters,
lighting, trash cans, mobility
parking options, real-time
transit and wayfinding
signage, route maps, push-
to-talk assistance button and
public art
2 Add “Pedestrian Nose” at
median refuge islands to two
sides
6

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
128
Whittier Blvd Montebello Blvd
Figure 6-7: Washington Boulevard and Greenwood Avenue Crash Diagram Priority Project 4. Washington
Boulevard and Greenwood Avenue
COST ESTIMATE: $174,900
There are four bus stops at the intersection of Wash-
ington Boulevard and Greenwood Avenue. The 50
route stretching far west to Downtown Los Angeles
and far east to La Mirada provides an east-west route
through southern Montebello. The 20 route stretches
north to San Gabriel and south to the southern edge
of Montebello. The 70 route zigzags north-south
along the eastern edges of Montebello. From this in-
tersection, Greenwood Elementary School is a short
walk, numerous small businesses, and the Chet Holif-
ield Library and Park.

Transit Ridership
The boarding and alighting total for each stop com-
bined at this intersection makes up 3.6% of all Monte-
bello transit ridership. This bus stop was selected as a priority project because it is adjacent to the proposed Metro E Line station on the southwest corner. Upon
implementation of the Metro Rail extension, this in-
tersection will become a hub for transit transfers and
first last mile connections.

Collision Typologies
This location has seen two fatal pedestrian crashes:
one from a vehicle turning right at the intersection and another vehicle traveling straight down Washington
where the raised median is missing. Bicycle injury
crashes include three from vehicles traveling straight
and one from a bicyclist colliding with a stopped ve -
hicle.

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
129
Figure 6-8: Washington Boulevard and Greenwood Avenue Recommendations Greenwood Greenwood AvenueAvenue
Washington BoulevardWashington Boulevard
Recommendations
To increase connections to the bus stop at
Washington Boulevard and Greenwood Avenue,
the following recommendations are proposed.
• Hardened centerlines
• Pedestrian nose at medians
• Truck aprons
• Bicycle and pedestrian-friendly signal timing
• Reflective border on signal heads
• Lighting, trash cans, public art, and mobility
parking options, where space permits.

Figure 6-8. illustrates where at the intersection the
treatments are proposed to improve safe and con-
venient access to transit for people walking and roll-
ing, bicycling, and using micromobility for all ages and abilities.

Pedestrian nose Truck apron
High-visibility crossing
Lead Pedestrian Interval
Add high visibility cross-
walks to all four sides
1 Add “Pedestrian Nose”
where raised medians are
provided
3 Include bicycle/pedestri-
an friendly signal timing
4 Add truck aprons to
all four corners
7 Add hardened centerlines
where raised medians are
not provided
6 Add reflective border
on signal heads to all
four sides
5 Where space permits, provide
lighting, trash cans, mobility
parking options and public art
2

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
130
Midblock Neckdown Wayfinding Signage
Edge Lane Road
Speed Cushions
Priority Project 5. Madison Avenue
Neighborway
COST ESTIMATE: $332,000
A neighborway is an approach to reduce traffic, slow
car speed, and improve safety for those biking, walk-
ing, and rolling on quiet residential streets.

This priority project prioritizes bicycle connections be- tween the Rio Hondo Bike Path to across north Mon-
tebello and passes schools, shopping centers, and is
nearby Montebello City Park and Beverly Hospital.

Transit Ridership
The neighborway runs on parallel streets to the 10,
20, 40, 70, and 90 bus lines to provide a lower stress
route while maintaining transit access by bike.

Recommendations
The proposed recommendations along this neighbor-
way include speed cushions to slow down automo -
bile traffic, edge lane roads that prioritize bicyclists over cars, and wayfinding signage to keep cyclists on
the pathway and point out key destinations.

Figure 6-9 illustrates where at the intersection the
treatments are proposed to improve safe and con-
venient access to transit for people walking and roll-
ing, bicycling, and using micromobility for all ages and abilities.

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
131
Figure 6-9: Neighborway with Edge Lane Road Markings and Speed Cushions 21st St21st St
Madison AveMadison Ave
Whittier BlvdWhittier Blvd
Beverly BlvdBeverly Blvd
Montebello BlvdMontebello Blvd
7th St7th St
Cleveland AveCleveland Ave
2nd St2nd St
Los Angeles AveLos Angeles Ave
Bluff RoadBluff Road
Rio Hondo Bike PathRio Hondo Bike Path
Roosevelt AvenueRoosevelt Avenue
Add speed cushions along
this route
1 Add Edge Lane Road mark-
ings along this route
2 South Bluff Rd will have
emergency vehicle-friendly
neck-downs as it is an
emergency vehicle access route
3

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
132

6.5 EXPECTED BENEFITS OF

PROPOSED PROJECTS
The five priority projects are geographically dispersed across Montebello. These recommendations can be
replicated at additional transit stops for a systemic
impact.

Benefits as a result of this plan may include:
» Increased perception of comfort and safety
amongst transit riders
» Level of equitable first mile/last mile access to bus stops and nearby destinations
» Expected reduction in pedestrian and bicycle fa-
talities and serious injuries within 1/4 mile of en-
hanced intersections.
» Expected health benefits from increased activity
levels and reduction in greenhouse gasses as a
result of vehicle miles replaced.
» Expected economic development benefits from
increased foot traffic near transit stops
» Increased transit ridership

6.6 MAKING AND MEASURING

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
The following are best practice performance mea-
sures, each of which are meant to quantify the impact
and effectiveness of First Last Mile projects and pro - grams with a Vision Zero lens. Identifying and em-
ploying several strategies will help the City update
the public on progress and advance efforts for the
upcoming year. The City must decide on the metrics
that it deems the most important to allocate limited
resources towards to improve first last mile connec-
tions to bus stops as well as reduce fatalities and se- rious injuries amongst bicyclists and pedestrians.

The principles articulated through the “Six Es”, devel- oped by the Safe Routes Partnership (Engagement,
Equity, Engineering, Encouragement, Education, and
Evaluation), can help create and sustain successful
programs throughout Montebello.

It is recommended that the City tracks the following
data points annually. Below are examples the City
can use to assist with developing performance mea-
sures, organized by the Six Es.

Education
» Number of students taught about bus safety
» Number of people reached from an educational
campaign on how to ride the bus, take a bicycle
on a bus, and the significance of replacing car
trips
Encouragement
» Percentage of mode split for transit
» Number of events to promote quick-build instal-
lations at or near transit stops
» Number of people reached in a marketing cam-
paign
» Percentage of students or school staff who take
transit to and from school
Equity
» Percentage of transit stops that meet ADA com-
pliance
» Number of grants funded per year that address
equity-related access issues
» Percentage of schools, parks, and medical build-
ings that are within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
» Number of improved pedestrian infrastructure
projects installed within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
» Number of intersections where signals have been
optimized for people with disabilities and active
transportation within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
Evaluation
» Total number of pedestrian collisions, fatalities,
and serious injuries within 1/2 mile of a transit
stop
» Total number of bicycle collisions, fatalities, and
serious injuries within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
» Reduction of fatalities or serious injuries caused
by collisions involving people walking and bicy -
cling within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
» Percentage of new street projects that are
multi-modal within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
» Number of Boardings and Alightings with City
limits

CHAPTER 6 | PROJECTS
133
Enforcement
» Number of vehicles ticketed for parking in a bus
loading zone
» Number of vehicles ticketing for parking in bicycle
lanes within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
» Percentage of streets where speed surveys have
been conducted within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
» Number of sting operations conducted to enforce
yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks within 1/2
mile of a transit stop
» Number of sting operations conducted to enforce
motorists complying with No Right Turn On Red
within 1/2 mile of a transit stop
Engineering
» Number of quick-build installations at or near bus
stops
» Percent of total citywide street mileage dedicated
to active transportation facilities (such as bicycle
parking, street closures, Class I, II, & IV bicycle fa- cilities, and complete sidewalk networks)
» Percent of sidewalk and bicycle network gaps
closed
» Number of CIP projects funded per year that ad-
dress bicycle and pedestrian access to bus stops
or ADA compliance
» Percent of bicycle and sidewalk repairs complet -
ed, focusing on areas within 1/2 mile of a transit
stop
» Percent of streets and intersections with traffic
calming measures installed within 1/2 mile of a
transit stop
» Percent of streets where posted speed limits
have been reduced, focusing around transit stops,
schools, and parks
» Total miles of on-street bicycle facilities defined
by streets with clearly marked or signed bicycle
accommodations
» Total miles of streets with pedestrian accommo -
dations
» Number of missing or non-compliant curb ramps
along City Streets

Financial
Strategy7

136

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN

7.1 FUNDING SOURCES
Federal, state and local government agencies invest
billions of dollars every year in the nation’s transpor - tation system. Only a fraction of that funding is used
to develop policies, plans and projects to improve
conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Even though
appropriate funds are available, they are limited and
often hard to find. Desirable projects sometimes go
unfunded because communities may be unaware of
a fund’s existence or may apply for the wrong type of
grant. In addition, there is competition between mu-
nicipalities for the limited available funds.

Whenever federal funds are used for bicycle and pe-
destrian projects, a certain level of state and/or local matching funding is generally required. State funds
are often available to local governments on similar
terms. Almost every implemented active transpor -
tation or complete street program and facility in the
United States has had more than one funding source
and it often takes a good deal of coordination to pull
the various sources together.

According to the publication by the Federal High-
way Administration (FHWA), An Analysis of Current
Funding Mechanisms for Bicycle and Pedestrian Pro-
grams at the Federal, State and Local Levels , where
successful local bicycle facility programs exist, there is usually an active transportation coordinator with
extensive understanding of funding sources. Cities
such as Seattle, Portland, and Tucson are prime ex -
amples. City staff are often in a position to develop
a competitive project and detailed proposal that can
be used to improve conditions for cyclists within their jurisdictions. Some of the following information on
federal and state funding sources was derived from
the previously mentioned FHWA publication.

Table 7-1 identifies potential funding opportunities
that may be used from design to maintenance phases
of projects. Due to trends in Low Impact Development
(LID) and stormwater retention street designs, fund-
ing sources for these improvements not only increase
the chances for first and last mile improvements, but
can also be incorporated into streetscape and devel-
opment projects. The sources are arranged by fed-
eral, state, local, and private, and the uses that the
funds may address.

137
CHAPTER 7 |FINANCIAL STRATEGY
Table 7-1: Federal and State Funding Sources
Funding Source Funding Origin Active
Transportation
Project Examples
Inf. NI Plan
Federal Funding Sources
Land and Water
Conservation Fund
(LCWF)
U.S. National Park
Service/ California
Dept. of Parks and
Recreation
x x
• Recreational fields and park amenities
• Construction of new trails and off-street ADA compliant parking
• Landscaping/ irrigation
Urban and
Community Forestry
Program
U.S. Forest Service
x
• Supports urban tree-planting, urban forest planning
and management, and related activities, particularly in disadvantaged communities.

Transportation
Alternatives (TA)
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
x
• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas • Community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation management
• Environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity
• Recreational trails
• Safe routes to school projects
• Vulnerable road user safety assessments
Recreational Trains
Program (RTP)
Non-motorized
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
x
• Construction of Class I trails to close gaps
• New hiking trails, drainage crossings, retaining walls, fencing, and signage, landscaping
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
x
• Safety improvements at signalized and non-signalized
intersections
• Pedestrian, bike, and roadway safety improvements
EPA Brownfields
Program
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency x • Brownfield cleanup
Community
Development Block
Grants
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
x
• Construction of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, streets, neighborhood centers, and the conversion of school buildings for eligible purposes Choice
Neighborhoods
Planning Grants
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) x
• Develop community driven plans to revitalize HUD-
assisted housing, increase investment in the surrounding neighborhood, and increase opportunities for all residents Safe Streets and
Road for All
U.S. Department of
Transportation
x x
• Development of a comprehensive safety action plan (Action Plan)
• Implement projects and strategies identified in Action Plan to address a roadway safety problem
Reconnecting
Communities and
Neighborhoods
Grant Program
(RCN)
U.S. Department
of Transportation/
Caltrans
x
• Prioritizing disadvantaged communities
• Aiming to improve access to daily needs such as jobs, education, healthcare, food, and recreation
• Fostering equitable development and restoration
• Reconnecting communities by removing, retrofitting, or mitigating highways or other transportation facilities that create barriers to community connectivity, including to mobility, access, or economic development

138

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
Funding Source Funding Origin Active
Transportation
Project Examples
Inf. NI Plan
Urbanized Area
Formial Grants
Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)
x x x
• Eligible activities include: planning, engineering, design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical
transportation-related studies
• Capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement, overhaul and rebuilding of buses, crime prevention and security equipment and construction of
maintenance and passenger facilities
• Capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, station infrastructure, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software
• In addition, associated transit improvements, workforce development activities, and certain expenses associated with mobility management programs are eligible under the program
• All preventive maintenance and some Americans with
Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service costs are considered capital costs.

Bus and Bus
Facilities Formula
Grants
Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)
x x
• Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses, vans, and related equipment, and to construct bus-related facilities, including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities.
• Workforce development training
Formula Grants for
Rural Areas
Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) x
• Eligible activities include planning, capital, operating, job access and reverse commute projects, and the acquisition of public transportation services
TOD Planning Pilot
Program
Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) x
• Planning or studies for transit-oriented development
• Encourages housing and mixed-us development near
existing or proposed transit
State Funding Sources
Sustainable
Communities
Planning Grants
Caltrans Division
of Transportation
Planning
x
• Safe Routes to School Plan
• Active Transportation Plan
• Bike/ped Trail/Path Feasibility Study
• Complete Streets Plan
• Sustainable Communities Plan
• Transit-Oriented Development Plan
• First/Last Mile Connectivity Plan
Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities
Program (AHSC)
Strategic Growth
Council and
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development
x x
• Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes
• Active transportation projects to encourage connectivity to transit networks
• Bikeways and sidewalks to affordable housing and transit center
• Install dedicated bicycle facilities
• Pedestrian facilities such as bulb-outs

139
CHAPTER 7 |FINANCIAL STRATEGY
Funding Source Funding Origin Active
Transportation
Project Examples
Inf. NI Plan
Urban Greening California Natural
Resources Agency
x
• Non-motorized urban trails that provide safe routes for both recreation and travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools
• Projects that expand or improve the usability of existing active transportation routes (e.g., walking or bicycle paths) or create new active transportation routes that are publicly accessible by walking
• Complete Green Streets
Transformative
Climate
Communities (TCC)
Strategic Growth
Council and
Department of
Conservation
x
• Bike share program
• Creating and considering active transportation corridors for better non-motorized connections
• Multi-use paths
• Urban greening for pedestrian facilities
Office of Traffic
Safety Grant
Program
CA Office of Traffic
Safety x
• Safety education and encouragement
• Campaigns to promote safety
• SRTS safety programs
Clean Mobility
Options
Air Resources Board
x
• Bikeshare programs
• “Quick build” right-of-way safety improvements for bicycles and scooters
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
(STEP)
Air Resources Board
x x x
• New bike routes (Class I, Class II, or Class IV) and
supporting infrastructure
• Publicly-accessible bike parking, storage, and repair infrastructure (e.g., bike racks, bike lockers, bike repair kiosks) • New walkways that improve mobility/access/safety of
pedestrians (non-motorized users)
• Street crossing enhancements, including accessible
pedestrian signals
• Plans
Transit and Intercity
Rail Capital
Program (TIRCP)
CalSTA and Caltrans
Division of Rail and
Mass Transportation x x x
• Pedestrian and bike trail
• First/last mile connections via bike lanes and separated paths
• Bike share programs
• Bike parking facilities
• Plans
Local Partnership
Program (LPP)
California
Transportation
Commission x
• Close sidewalk gap, install class II bike lanes and cycle track, curb extensions, pedestrian enhancements, improvements to lighting and signage
• Construct 4 single-lane and 1 multi-lane roundabouts, and improvements to street, pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Expressway pedestrian overcrossing
Local Streets and
Roads Program
(LSRP)
California
Transportation
Commission x
• Implement enhanced crosswalk signing and striping
• Create safety separation between motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians
• Design and construction of school access and safety
improvements to six schools (SRTS)
Solutions for
Congested
Corridors (SCCP)
California
Transportation
Commission
x
• Construct Class I and Class II bikeways
• Pedestrian improvements and plaza at a transit station • Intersection improvements

140

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
Inf - Infrastructure | NI - Non Infrastructure | Plan - Planning & Design Funding Source Funding Origin Active
Transportation
Project Examples
Inf. NI Plan
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Caltrans Local
Assistance/ FHWA x x
• Install hybrid pedestrian signals
• Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety at locations with uncontrolled crossings
• Plans
State Highway
Operations and
Protection Program
(SHOPP)
Caltrans Office
of SHOPP
Management x
• Upgrade sidewalks to ADA compliance
• Reconstruct damaged pavement
• Add bike lanes to updated corridors
• Upgrade pedestrian push buttons, refresh striping, and improve pedestrian and bicycle access
State Transportation
Improvement
Program (STIP)
California
Transportation
Commission x
• Bike/ped Overcrossing and Access Improvements and
bicycle and pedestrian bridge
• Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes
• Multi-Use paths
• Complete Streets improvements
Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality
Improvement
(CMAQ) Program
FWHA
x
• Travel Demand Management to promote clean commutes
• Public Education and Outreach
• Bicycle amenities; Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes
Active
Transportation
Program (ATP)
Caltrans
x x x
• Safe Routes to School Plan
• Transportation Alternatives Program
• Bicycle Transportation Account
Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities
(AHSC)
California Cap-and-
Trade Emissions
Reduction Program
/ Department
of Housing and
Community
Development
x
• Affordable housing developments (new construction or
renovation) and transportation infrastructure. This may include
• Sustainable transportation infrastructure, such as new transit vehicles, sidewalks, and bikeways
• Transportation-related amenities, such as bus shelters, benches, or shade trees
• Programs that encourage residents to walk, bike, and use public transit.

141
CHAPTER 7 |FINANCIAL STRATEGY
This page is left intentionally blank.

Appendices

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
144

LOCAL PLANS
City of Montebello, Circulation Element,
1973
The Circulation element designates the location and
extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares
and transportation routes by classifying street typol-
ogies and mapping their extents. The policies, prac-
tices, and programs related to first last mile include:
» The City should upgrade and improve Green-
wood Avenue and Montebello Boulevard as the
community’s major north-south connector.
» Improvement of Greenwood Avenue and Monte-
bello Boulevard should include widening, grade
separation structures and signalization.
» The City should seek to provide an adequate cir -
culation system in the hills which services major
regional traffic generators, yet preserves areas
which are attractive for residential, open space or
recreational development.
» Through-traffic in residential areas should be dis-
couraged.
» The City of Montebello should not be bisected by
a new freeway route.
» The City’s existing municipal bus lines should be
improved to accommodate and service new de -
velopment, as proposed in the land use element.
» Improvement in the bus system should include
the development of two new terminals along
Montebello Boulevard, one northeast of the in-
tersection with Victoria Avenue, the other either
within or adjacent to the regional town center.
» With the development of the regional town cen-
ter, an extension of the Montebello/Northridge
route through Monterey Park and a new route
from the town center along Paramount Boulevard
to Pico Rivera should also be considered.

City of Montebello Housing Element, 2022
Policy 1. Through Inclusionary Housing requirements
and Density Bonus incentive, the City will facilitate
development of affordable housing within high re -
sources areas.

Policy 2. Through General Plan update, development
of Downtown Montebello Specific Plan, and Parks
Master Plan, the City will expand transit, parks and
open spaces, public facilities, and jobs to under served areas of the City so existing and new housing units in
these areas will also have access to higher degree of
resources.

Policy 3. The City will avoid displacement of low-in-
come households and where necessary, ensure that
it is carried out in an equitable manner.

Montebello Bus Lines Short Range
Transportation Plan, FY2019-2021
» U-Pass Program - MBL has been partnered with
Rio Hondo Community College since 2007. Since
then the City of Montebello and other participat -
ing transit agencies joined the U-Pass program.

This fare subsidy program allows full-time Rio
Hondo students unlimited rides on LACMTA, the
Whittier Sunshine Shuttle, Norwalk Transit, Foot-
hill Transit, and MBL throughout the entire se -
mester. MBL is reimbursed $0.75 per rider from
TAP for each boarding throughout the semester.
» MBL Bus Tokens - In April 2010, MBL reintro -
duced bus tokens as an alternative to paying
cash. Tokens are sold for $1.00 each, offering
a $0.10 discount to MBL patrons. One token is
worth a one-way fare ($1.10) and is only accept-
ed on MBL. The agency continues to partner with
third-party vendors to promote the MBL tokens.
» Transit Access Pass (TAP) Program - In August
of 2008, MBL joined the Los Angeles County Mu-
nicipal Operator’s TAP program and replaced the
fare boxes onboard the MBL fleet with fare media
designed with the TAP technology. In 2020 MBL
Appendix A. Policies, Practices,
and Programs from Existing
Documents

APPENDICES
145
is upgrading its farebox technology with Cubic
Systems to promote a new fare methodology that
is more convenient to MBL patrons. TAP allows
patrons to load cash value or a fare product on a
chip enabled smart card. Each time patrons board
and tap their card on the farebox; the correct fare
is deducted or recorded as payment.
» Other Media - MBL also sells and accepts the EZ
transit pass, a regional pass that allows patrons
unlimited travel on participating agencies (16
regional municipal bus operators in Los Angeles
County). MBL is reimbursed an average cash fare
of $0.81 for each passenger that uses their EZ
transit pass to board its buses. In addition, MBL
also accepts Access Services cards as fare media
and receives reimbursement of $0.50 per ride.
» Proposition C 40% Discretionary – Forty percent
of the Proposition C Revenue is used to improve
and expand rail and bus transit services in Los
Angeles County. These monies are distributed
by LACMTA and are composed of Foothill Tran-
sit Mitigation, Transit Service Expansion, Bus
Service Improvement Program for overcrowding,
and the Municipal Operator Service Improvement
Program (MOSIP). Funds are allocated by formula
for each respective program.
» Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)
– LCTOP is funded by the State of California with
the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and achievement of other benefits. The program
is funded by auction proceeds from the California
Air Resource Board’s Cap-and-Trade Program,
with proceeds deposited into the Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Fund.
» Maintain zero tolerance graffiti abatement pro -
gram on fleet and upgrade bus stops within the
City of Montebello.
» Public Outreach Programs – MBL has continued
to advocate public transportation and enhance
the image of MBL through the following:
• Ongoing campaign to promote the sale of
TAP and MBL tokens.
• Partnership with local business through a
MBL Day Pass Program to jointly promote
transit and local businesses.
• Coordination with multiple school districts to
promote transit services and the benefits of
student monthly passes; as well as a partner-
ship with the Montebello Unified School Dis-
trict Parent Teacher Association to promote
the Student Monthly Pass.
• Continued partnership with The Shops at
Montebello.
• Participation in the (LIFE) Low-income Fare
is Easy Program led by Metro. This program
provides fare subsidies that allow low-income
patrons to redeem toward transit passes for
eligible riders including adult regular fare, Se-
nior/Disabled/Medicare, K-12, and college/
vocational students who meet the criteria.
• Ongoing meetings with the Transportation
Citizen Advisory Committee to receive input
from patrons of Montebello Bus Lines and the
Dial-A-Taxi services.
• Council Ad Hoc Committee
• Social media outreach program (Facebook &
Instagram)
• In Bus marketing to promote ridership
» Capital Improvements Program that includes
numerous other programs and projects like the
Associated Capital Maintenance Program, Bus
Stop Improvement Project, CAD/AVL Passenger
Information System Project (PISP), Enterprise As-
set Management System, Facility Improvements,
Hybrid Bus Repower, Pico Rivera Transit Center,
Support Vehicles, Technology and Equipment
Support, Transit Coach Tires, Universal Fare Sys-
tem, Vehicle Replacement Project.

Title VI Program Montebello Bus Lines,
November 2022
Title VI regulations assure equal access to transit ser- vices regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or income.

Montebello Bus Lines adopted the Title VI require -
ments into its programs, activities, and services.
» Transit Amenities. MBL has set a service policy to
ensure equitable distribution of transit amenities
across the system for all patrons.
» Vehicle Assignment. MBL’s service policies for
vehicle assignment are based on several factors,
including but not limited to the age, size, and type
of the vehicle. As a general service policy MBL
aims to assign vehicles with more capacity to
routes with higher ridership and/or during peak

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
146
periods, this includes assigning higher capacity
vehicles to MBL’s Major Local Service and Ex -
press Services lines.
» Disparate Impact Policy. The purpose of this pol-
icy is to establish a threshold which identifies
when adverse effects of a major service or fare
change are borne disproportionately by minority
populations. For this policy, a minority population
is defined as any readily identifiable group of mi-
nority persons who live in geographical proximi-
ty, and if circumstances warrant, geographically
dispersed/transient populations (such as migrant
workers.
» Disproportionate Burden Policy. This policy is to
establish a threshold which identifies when ad-
verse effects of a major service or fare change are
born disproportionately by low-income popula-
tions. Low-income population is defined as any
readily identifiable group or households who are
at or below 150 percent of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services Poverty Guide -
lines in the table below.

Montebello Bus Lines Zero Emission Bus
Rollout Plan, October 2021
The goal of the Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) Plan is to
transition to zero-emission technologies by 2040.

MBL will begin purchasing ZEBs in the first quarter of
2023 through 2040 and will not purchase non-ZEBs
after 2023. This purchasing strategy will coincide
with the disposition of conventional transit buses at
the end of their lifecycle expectancy.

MBL currently receives funding for the procurement
and maintenance of its fleet from the following fed-
eral grant programs: the Federal Transit Administra-
tion’s (FTA) Urbanized Area Formula, discretionary
grant programs such as the Bus and Bus Facilities
(B&BF) program, and Low or No Emission Vehicle
Deployment Program (LoNo). To secure funds for fu-
ture fleet procurement processes, MBL will seek ad-
ditional funding from state resources through grant
opportunities such as Senate Bill 1 – State of Good
Repair (SGR) and the Low Carbon Transit Operations
Program (LCTOP).

REGIONAL
SCAG: Connect SoCal, 2020
» SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan, titled, Con-
nect SoCal, has a vision to locate housing, jobs,
and transit closer together; increase investment
in transit and complete streets; and increase
mobility options to achieve a more sustainable
growth pattern. The policies, practices, and pro -
grams related to first last mile include:
» Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities
Program. This funding supports construction of
affordable housing and supporting infrastructure
in areas that are well served by transit and offer
opportunities for neighborhood scale mobility.
» Metro Joint Development Program. LA Metro
collaborates with developers to build affordable,
transit-oriented housing on Metro-owned prop -
erties.
» SCAG Mobility Go Zone & Pricing Feasibility
Study. This practice evaluates congestion pricing
and the range of impacts on traffic volumes, tran-
sit ridership, air quality and availability of funds
for transportation programs to reduce Vehicle
Miles Traveled.
» Regional Transit Agency Electric Buses. Purchase
hydrogen and battery electric buses.
» TAP Card Integration. Introduce one way to pay
for all regional transit systems, bikeshares, and
carshares.
» Micromobility Pilot Projects. Test on-demand
transit across the region.
» Sustainable Communities Strategy. Several ac-
tionable strategies employ GHG reductions and
broader goals of Connect SoCal including focus-
ing growth near destinations and mobility op -
tions, promote diverse housing choices, leverage
technology innovations, implementation of sus-
tainability policies to name a few.
» Livable Corridors. Plan and Zone for increased
density, redevelop single-story under-performing
retail with high-density, mixed-use centers. In-
clude transit improvements, active transportation
improvements, and land use policies.
» Transportation Demand Management. Reduce
vehicle miles traveled through ridesharing and

APPENDICES
147
providing first/last mile services. Redistribute or
eliminate vehicle trips during peak demand peri-
ods by supporting telecommuting and alternative
work schedules. Reduce single occupancy vehicle
trips through use of other modes such as transit,
rail, bicycling, walking, and micromobility modes.

Caltrans: City Best Practices to Improve
Transit, 2021
» Dedicated Transit Lanes or Transit Right of Way.

Planning for future implementation of dedicated
transit infrastructure requires several steps to ad-
dress appropriate ROW and determine transpor-
tation use.
» Transit Vehicle Access to Curbside Bus Stops.

Implement bus bulbouts, transit boarding islands,
and full-size curbside bus stops for safe boarding
and alighting.
» Bus Stop Location. Cities to plan and work with
transit agencies for new bus stops.
» City Involvement in Re-Siting an Existing Bus
Stop. Cities to work with transit agencies on the
relocation of an existing bus stop.
» Intersection and Traffic Signal Treatments. Re -
duce delays to transit vehicles, improve travel
time, and schedule maintenance through transit
signal priority, queue jump lanes, and transit-ori-
ented traffic signal coordination.
» Bus Layover Area. Layover spaces provide a place
for parked buses and operator breaks with access
to a restroom on either public or private property.
» Passenger Waiting Areas at Transit Stops on City
Sidewalks. City maintenance of bus stop ame -
nities, planning for improvement of passenger
waiting areas, ADA improvements at passenger
waiting areas all enhance the passenger waiting
experience.
» Passenger Access to Transit Stops and Stations.

Transit stops are major generators of walking and
bike trips. The provision, design and maintenance
of existing infrastructure, and planning for new
infrastructure, can improve bicycle and pedestri-
an access to transit stops and stations, including
sidewalks, bicycle parking, and lighting to name
a few.
» Traffic Impact Studies Consideration of Transit.

Best practice is for the City to have traffic impact
study (TIS) guidelines that require the following
assessments of public transit as part of the TIS of
a land development project or roadway changes
and for Transit Agency staff to be involved in the
Traffic Impact Study. Project mitigation measures
are recommended to reduce vehicles’ adverse im-
pacts on transit operations.
» Site Plan Review Including Special Events. Best
practice is for Transit Agency staff to be involved
in the site plan review process and that the proj-
ect is responsible for addressing impacts to tran-
sit stops and service.
» Developer Condition of Approvals/Project Miti-
gation. Cities can enact and enforce developer
conditions including improvement of transit stops
and stations serving a project site, improved
walking and bike access between project site and
transit stops, transit service to a project, requir -
ing TDM plan, and construction impacts to transit
stops and bicycle routes.
» Transit-Specific Activities by the City. Best Prac-
tice is for at least one city staff to have some level
of transit responsibilities. Best practice is to codify or institutionalize staff duties, follow transit-spe -
cific planning activities such as bus stop evalu-
ations, and adopt short and long-range transit
plans.
» Routine Transportation Planning Activities. De -
velop long-range transportation planning prac-
tices and documents like corridor plans and traf -
fic impact studies, integrate roadway and transit
planning such as a Complete Streets policy, in-
clude transit-related improvements in the scope
of work of all roadway reconstruction projects,
introduce transit ridership encouragement pro -
grams, and participate in public outreach efforts.
» Integration of Land Use Planning, Built Environ-
ment and Transit Planning. Given the connection
between land use and transportation, good prac-
tice is to consider the existing and future transit
network in land use and zoning decisions. This
typically applies to medium and large cities with
rapid transit, high-capacity transit service such as
rail, or locations that can otherwise be considered
transit dense.
» Funding. Improve local contribution to fund public
transit from general fund to development fees to
ensure that transit agencies receive the financial
support they need to provide excellent service.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
148
SCAG: LA County Vision Zero, 2019
» Establish a permanent funding source for the Vi-
sion Zero program.
» Evaluate the County Master Plan of Highways,
and the development and roadway design stan-
dards stipulated in the Los Angeles County Code
to ensure consistency with Vision Zero goals.
» Update the Public Works’ Highway Design Man-
ual to consider available tools and design stan-
dards, including those recommended by the Los
Angeles County Model Design Manual for Living
Streets, National Association of City and Trans-
portation Officials (NACTO) Guides, and other
best practices to enhance safety for both motor -
ized and non-motorized users.
» Finalize the Livable Communities Design Guide -
lines, which incorporate multi-modal safety de -
sign measures, and hold training to educate staff
and the public.
» Implement traffic safety enhancements to reduce
fatal and severe injury collisions involving pedes-
trians and bicyclists like high visibility crosswalks
or curb extensions.
» Implement training on traffic calming features
training to promote culture change among Coun-
ty staff and the public.
» Conduct regular data analysis on motor vehicle
collision injuries and deaths to identify popula-
tions impacted and trends.
» Conduct routine evaluation, research, and anal-
ysis to understand traffic safety trends and im-
pacts to Vision Zero projects.

Riverside Transit Agency (RTA): First and
Last Mile Plan, 2017
» Identify items on the city’s CIP list that can incor- porate recommended first and last mile improve-
ments.
» Integrate the first and last mile recommendations
into all applicable grant applications.
» Analyze if an environmental review is needed for
each project to determine the level of impact.
» Identify alternate sources of funding and include
additional assessment districts who will benefit
from the increased first and last mile improve -
ments, like Business Improvement Districts.
» Identify opportunities to incorporate first and last
mile recommendations into proposed redevelop -
ment projects.

LA Metro: First Mile Last Mile Strategic Plan,
2014
» Increase the average speed of active transporta-
tion users by decreasing wait times at intersec-
tions and increasing speed and capacity along
pedestrian routes.
» Decrease point to point distances with diagonal
routes, midblock crossings, and other strategic
short-cuts.
» Support multimodal transfer activity by providing
easily identifiable safe and efficient access routes
between modes.

APPENDICES
149

NAME ORGANIZATION
Adam Mitchell City of Montebello Police Department
Adrianna Kendricks Montebello Bus Lines
Alex Gillman Public Affairs and Information Technology
Alfredo Machuca Montebello Bus Lines
Alexis Lucero City of Montebello Public Works
Chris Moorman LA Metro
David Huang Metrolink
Gary Robinson City of Montebello Fire Department
Krista Yost SCAG
Horacio Perez Vail Continuation High School
Joe Forgiarini LA Metro
Jose Ornelas Adult School Principal
Laurie Aguilar City of Montebello Parks & Recreation
Leticia Alvidrez Montebello Unified School District
Naomi Sotelo Eastmont Intermediate School
Paul Parzik YMCA Metropolitan Los Angeles
Serena Liu Caltrans
Stephanie Hardaway Applied Technology Center High School Stephen Fox SCAG
Timothy Greensavitch Montebello Bus Lines
Appendix B. Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) Member List

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
150
Appendix C. Survey
The survey is
online at:
https://www.
surveymonkey.
com/r/5QV8XLD
Welcome to the City of Montebello First and Last Mile Survey! The purpose of this survey is to help identify physical barriers, such as those shown in the photos and maps below, that aff ect access to and from public transit. Thank you for helping us with this important study.

1. Do you experience any problems walking, cycling or accessing transit at a particular location or along a particular route? Yes ____ No ____

2. Please provide locations and route information (where you’ve experienced problems walking, cycling or accessing transit) in the fi elds below.

Locations (Street/Cross Street) _____________________________________________________________________________ City __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Transit Routes Used _____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Please note problems associated with the previously mentioned location. Please check ALL that apply. (continued on back)
____ Long Distances / poor connectivity
____ Intersections or streets diffi cult to cross____ Personal Safety ____ Automobile traffi c
We want to hear from you! Help identify improvements for accessing transit. ____ Missing sidewalks ____ Walking impediments: utilities, overgrown trees and street furniture

APPENDICES
151
The survey is
online at:
https://www.
surveymonkey.
com/r/5QV8XLD
(continued from front)

3. Please note problems associated with the previously mentioned location. Please check ALL that apply.

4. Do you have other ideas for improving access to transit services? If so, please provide them on the line below. (Please note: this study is about biking, walking and other modes to transit services, not transit operations.) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Please provide your name and contact information below. This is for survery follow-up and if you want to be on an e-distribution list.

First Name _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number and/or ____________________________________________________________________________________ Email Address __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ Missing curb ramps
____ Lack of matching bus stops ____ Lack of car parking at park and rides ____ Lack of bicycle routes & parking
Thank you for your participation!

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
152
Appendix D. Social Media Flyer

APPENDICES
153
Appendix E. Transit Agency
Interview Questions
Montebello First Mile Last Mile Plan
Transit Agency Interview Questions

1. Does your organization have dedicated staff that is focused on securing funds/grants for FMLM related projects and programs? If so, how many dedicated staff do you have?

2. What FLM aspects and issues are most important or perhaps challenging for a transit agency?

3. What are advantages and disadvantages for a transit agency to implement FLM, or work with a city within its service area to implement FLM?

4. Do you have a prioritized list of recommended project types (countermeasures) with the greatest effect on increased safety and participation with transit locations? a. If not raised by this open-ended question, the interviewers asked about the following topics:
i. Programs to evaluate and implement safe access to and from bus stops, e.g., well-placed crosswalks, traffic signals or other measures to help passengers cross the street, and well-lit sidewalks to access the bus stops ii. Programs to evaluate and improve passenger safety and comfort at bus stops on City sidewalks, and practices to work proactively with the transit agency to provide amenities such as bus shelters and benches.
iii. Other traffic engineering treatments

5. Are there specific policies or strategies that have been successful in implementing FLM?

6. Do you have a (prioritized) list of recommended program types (Federal to community) that have a notable increase in safety and participation rates with transit locations?

7. Have you had luck with fire departments allowing speed cushions - if the cushions are designed to allow fire trucks to pass without reducing speed?

8. How does the City handle conflicts between bike needs and bus needs? Is this an issue? Do bike lanes trump bus lanes for example?

9. Do you have a list of funding sources (Caltrans ATP, FHWA HSIP etc.) that have helped with projects or programs for transit safety and participation rates? Which funding source(s) have you received funding from?

10. What elements of bus stop design and maintenance are within City/local government purview?

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
154

COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTION UNIT COST UM QUANTITY COST
Concrete or Pavement Construction
Add "Pedestrian Nose" at median refuge
islands to two sides
Concrete curbs with concrete fill $10,000 EA 2 $20,000
Add truck aprons to all four corners Custom concrete slab pour, saw cut existing ashpalt
$15,600 EA 4 $62,400
Pavement Markings
Add high visibility crosswalks to all four
sides
Continental spaced to avoid vehicle
wheels
$5,800 EA 4 $23,200
Signs or Signal Infrastructure
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal
timing (adjust existing programming)
Adjusting programming in existing
controller
$1,600 INT
Controller
1 $1,600
Add reflective border on signal heads to
all four sides
Eight signal heads $2,500 INT / 8
signal heads
1 $2,500
Bus Stop Furnishings
Provide lighting, trash cans, mobility
parking options and public art
Two bus stops, add shelter with
lighting, mobility parking options,
public art
$20,000 EA 2 $40,000
UM = Unit Measured, INT = Intersection, EA = Each Total $149,700

COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTION UNIT COST UM QUANTITY COST
Concrete or Pavement Construction
Add "Pedestrian Nose" at median refuge
islands to two sides
Concrete curbs with concrete fill $10,000 EA 2 $20,000
Add truck aprons to all four corners Custom concrete slab pour, saw cut existing ashpalt
$15,600 EA 4 $62,400
Pavement Markings
Add high visibility crosswalks to all four
sides
Continental spaced to avoid vehicle
wheels
$5,800 EA 4 $23,200
Signs or Signal Infrastructure
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal
timing (adjust existing programming)
Adjusting programming in existing
controller
$1,600 INT
Controller
1 $1,600
Add reflective border on signal heads to
all four sides
Eight signal heads $2,500 INT / 8
signal heads
1 $2,500
Bus Stop Furnishings
Provide lighting, trash cans, mobility
parking options and public art
Four bus stops, add mobility parking
options, public art
$12,000 EA 4 $48,000
UM = Unit Measured, INT = Intersection, EA = Each Total $157,700 Appendix F. Project Cost
Breakdown
Project 1. Beverly Boulevard and Maple Avenue
Project 2. Whittier Boulevard and Garfield Avenue

APPENDICES
155

COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTION UNIT COST UM QUANTITY COST
Concrete or Pavement Construction
Add "Pedestrian Nose" at median refuge
islands to two sides
Concrete curbs with concrete fill $10,000 EA 2 $20,000
Add truck aprons to all four corners Custom concrete slab pour, saw cut existing ashpalt
$15,600 EA 4 $62,400
Pavement Markings
Add hardened centerlines Raised rubber centerline $2,600 EA 2 $5,200 Add high visibility crosswalks to all four
sides
Continental spaced to avoid vehicle
wheels
$5,800 EA 4 $23,200
Signs or Signal Infrastructure
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal
timing (adjust existing programming)
Adjusting programming in existing
controller
$1,600 INT
Controller
1 $1,600
Add reflective border on signal heads to
all four sides
Eight signal heads $2,500 INT / 8
signal heads
1 $2,500
Bus Stop Furnishings
Provide lighting, trash cans, mobility
parking options and public art
Four bus stops, add shelter with
lighting, mobility parking options,
public art
$20,000 EA 3 $60,000
UM = Unit Measured, INT = Intersection, EA = Each Total $174,900

COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTION UNIT COST UM QUANTITY COST
Concrete or Pavement Construction
Add "Pedestrian Nose" at median refuge
islands to two sides
Concrete curbs with concrete fill $10,000 EA 2 $20,000
Add truck aprons to all four corners Custom concrete slab pour, saw cut existing ashpalt
$15,600 EA 4 $62,400
Pavement Markings
Add hardened centerlines Raised rubber centerline $2,600 EA 2 $5,200 Signs or Signal Infrastructure
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal
timing (adjust existing programming)
Adjusting programming in existing
controller
$1,600 INT
Controller
1 $1,600
Add reflective border on signal heads to
all four sides
Eight signal heads $2,500 INT / 8
signal heads
1 $2,500
Bus Stop Furnishings
Provide lighting, trash cans, mobility
parking options and public art
Four bus stops, add mobility parking
options, public art
$12,000 EA 4 $48,000
UM = Unit Measured, INT = Intersection, EA = Each Total $139,700 Project 3. Whittier Boulevard and Montebello Boulevard
Project 4. Washington Boulevard and Greenwood Avenue

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
156

COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTION UNIT COST UM QUANTITY COST
Concrete or Pavement Construction
Add speed cushions along this route Asphalt cushions every 500 ft along 12,000 ft route
$5,500 EA 24 $132,000
Pavement Markings
Removal of yellow center line, addition of
Edge Lane Road markings along this
route
Dashed white lines along both side
of 12k ft of vehicle travel way,
remove existing yellow center line
$6.50 LF 24,000 $156,000
Signs or Signal Infrastructure
Wayfinding signage for cyclists Approximately 40 signs on metal posts
$1,100 EA 40 $44,000
Bus Stop Furnishings
not applicable
UM = Unit Measured, INT = Intersection, EA = Each, LF = Linear Feet Total $332,000 Project 5. Madison Avenue Neighborway

APPENDICES
157
Bus Stop Typology #1
Bus Stop Typology #2
Appendix G. Bus Stop Typologies
This is the most common type of bike facility at a bus stop, where buses and people biking share space at a bus stop. It is where a Class II bicycle facility exists between the curb and a general traffic lane, or in some cases there is just a shared lane marking (“Sharrow”) on the roadway. The shared bus-bike area is illustrated with green dashed conflict striping instead of solid green markings. The bus will encroach into the shared zone to board and alight passengers. Some places, like in Montreal, Canada, there are two sets of sharrows, allowing cyclists to ei- ther continue straight through the conflict zone or go left around a stopped bus. This is typically used when there is limited right of way available and if the preferred treatment is a bike lane or a shared lane.

Where either a Class II bicycle facility or a Class IV bicycle facility exists, and there is not sufficient space to in- clude a Floating Bus Island (FBI). It is a constrained bus stop adjacent to a bike lane or separated bike lane where the bike lane is elevated to sidewalk height at the FBI. The bike lane is crossed by people walking to access the bus, and it does not have parallel parking on the street. The raised area reduces conflict with vehicle traffic, and there is a bicycle ramp to elevate bicyclists to sidewalk height. This typology provides a designated pedestrian crossing zone and bicycle yield area across the bicycle facility to reduce conflict with passengers boarding and alighting. This is typically used when there is limited right of way available and the preferred treatment is a sep- arated bike lane.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
158
Bus Stop Typology #3
Bus Stop Typology #4
This typology has some similarities with Typologies #1 and #2, with the key difference being that it has a FBI and there is parking on-street adjacent to the curb with a tapered bike lane between the parking and the general purpose lane. The bike lane jogs behind the floating bus stop and then jogs again at the on-street parallel parking.

This is typically used when there is a Class II bike facility instead of a Class IV bike facility.

With similar conditions to Typology #3, the key difference is that it has a buffered bike lane and there is no on- street parking in this typology. As in the previous typology, the bike lane jogs behind the FBI. This is typically used when there is plenty of right of way available and the preferred treatment is a buffered bike lane.

APPENDICES
159
Bus Stop Typology #5
Bus Stop Typology #6
With similar conditions as Typology #3, the key difference for this typology is that it's for a Class IV bike facility rather than a Class II bike facility. It also has on-street parking that provides a physical separation to the bicycle facility. The separated bike lane runs straight behind the FBI. This is considered the “best practice typology” for when conditions are ideal. The FBI can be permanent, typically made out of concrete, or it can be temporary, typ- ically made out of plastic, which is popular in Oakland, California, and several other cities.

With the same conditions as Typology #5, this typology also has a Class IV elevated bicycle facility that exists between the curb and the FBI. It also runs straight and there is parallel on-street parking that provides a physical separation to the bike facility. The main difference is that Typology #6 is for a two-way separated bike lane while Typology #5 is for a one-way separated bike lane. Two-way separated bike lanes have some benefits over one- way separated bike lanes, such as increased comfort and lower space requirements, but one-way separated bike lanes are more common. Two-way separated bike lanes include only about a third of the separated bike lanes in the United States.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
160
Bus Stop Typology #7
This typology has more similarities with Typologies 1 & 2 than with the other typologies. It is for constrained en- vironments where there is still sufficient space on the sidewalk to have a sidewalk-level bikeway next to ADA-ac- cessible sidewalk space. This typology does not have a FBI and there is no on-street parking next to the bike facility. Instead, the bus island is connected to the sidewalk and the bikeway goes from street level up to sidewalk level and then around and behind the bus island before ramping back down to street level. The bikeway is typi- cally either Class II or Class IV or in rare cases it consists of shared lane markings. This is not considered ideal but it is considered the most ideal of the three constrained typologies. That is because it removes the stress of the cyclist interacting with a bus stopped at the bus stop. Moreover, it also minimizes the interaction between people walking and people biking because, in theory, people waiting for the bus will already be on the street-side of the bicycle facility.

APPENDICES
161
Appendix H. Montebello Fire
Department Recommendations
for Traffic Calming

CITY OF MONTEBELLO FIRST MILE LAST MILE PLAN
162
Montebello Fire Department
Intersection and Streets to Avoid for Vertical Traffic Calming (That may Affect Response Time for the Fire Department) ­Roosevelt
­Beach
­Poplar Ave
­Poplar Way
­Maple
­Vail Rd.
­4Th St., 5th St,
6th th Street the Most Important)

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 1 Connect SoCal 2024 Sustainable Communities Program
Active Transportation & Safety
Program Guidelines
Contents
Sustainable Communities Program Overview ........................................................................................................................... 2 Program Goals .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2024 SCP Active Transportation & Safety Call for Applications ........................................................................................ 2 I. Overview .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 A) 2024 SCP-ATS Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 B) Community Engagement Integration .................................................................................................................... 3 II. Eligible Applicants ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 III. SCP-ATS Eligible Project Types ...................................................................................................................................... 4 A) Project Type: Community/Areawide Plans ........................................................................................................... 4 B) Project Type: Quick-Build Projects .......................................................................................................................... 6 IV. Funding .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 A) Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 B) Funding Allocation for Award Recipients ............................................................................................................. 8 C) Eligible Costs .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 D) Match Requirements ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 V. Application Process ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 A) Applications ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 B) Scoring Rubric & Criteria ............................................................................................................................................ 9 C) Evaluation Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 D) Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 VI. Schedule ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10 A) Timely use of funds/time extensions ................................................................................................................... 10 VII. Contact Information ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Attachment A: ATP Cycle 7 Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Attachment B: ATP Quick-Build Supplemental Guidance ................................................................................................. 13 Attachment C: Allowable Direct Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 14

ATTACHMENT C

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 2 Sustainable Communities Program Overview
The Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) is a grant program that provides technical assistance to support implementation of Connect SoCal, the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The SCP strengthens partnerships with local agencies and strategic partners who are responsible for land use and transportation decisions to help the region achieve its unified goals. The SCP provides local jurisdictions with multiple opportunities to seek funding and resources to meet the needs of their communities.

SCAG is committed to working in partnership with others to close the gap of racial injustice and better serve historically disinvested communities. On July 2, 2020, the SCAG Regional Council adopted Resolution 20-623-2, affirming its commitment to advancing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout Southern California and subsequently adopted the Racial Equity Early Action Plan in May 2021 to guide SCAG’s work in advancing equity. As part of these commitments, the SCP aims to prioritize resources where there is a demonstrated need.

Program Goals
The SCP aims to:
• Provide needed resources for local jurisdictions to advance the goals outlined in Connect SoCal 2024 in the areas of mobility, communities, environment, and economy. • Promote racial equity that is grounded in the recognition of the past and current harms of systemic racism and one that advances restorative justice.
• Integrate the region’s development pattern and transportation network to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable more sustainable use of energy and water . • Prioritize the most vulnerable populations and communities subject to climate hazards to help the people, places and infrastructure that are most at risk for climate change impacts. In doing so, recognize that disadvantaged communities are often overburdened. • Increase the region’s competitiveness for federal and state funds, including, but not limited to the California Active Transportation Program and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds. 2024 SCP Active Transportation & Safety Call for
Applications
I. Overview
Connect SoCal 2024 is defined by the mobility goal to build and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network (see page 12 in Connect SoCal 2024 Chapter 1). To achieve this goal, Connect SoCal 2024 identifies mobility policies organized into eight categories: System Preservation and Resilience, Complete Streets, Transit and Multimodal Integration, Transportation System Management, Transportation Demand Management, Technology Integration, Safety, and Funding the System/User Fees (see pages 88-89 and 114-116 in Connect SoCal 2024 Chapter 3).

The Connect SoCal 2024 SCP Active Transportation & Safety (SCP-ATS) Call for Applications represents one of multiple funding Calls through the Connect SoCal 2024 SCP. The SCP-ATS funds projects that primarily help advance the Connect SoCal 2024 mobility policies under Complete Streets, Transit and Multimodal Integration, and Safety. Selected projects will improve mobility across the region, increasing rates of walking and biking, advancing traffic safety, expanding opportunities for multimodal

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 3 transportation options, and competitively positioning local jurisdictions for implementation/grant funds.

The 2024 SCP-ATS Call solicits the follow project types:

• Develop a Community/Areawide Plan
• Develop and implement a Quick-Build Project

Applicants are encouraged to review Connect SoCal 2024 strategies to align project applications with regional planning priorities and concepts (see pages 124-128 in Connect SoCal 2024 Chapter 3 and Appendix 4: Connect SoCal 2024 Mobility Strategies of the Connect SoCal 2024 Mobility Technical Report). Competitive applications will advance multiple mobility goals and strategies, reflect understanding of context-based needs, utilize equity-centered planning practices, and result in planning products or programs that clearly tie community need with implementation. Collaborative public participation and engagement efforts that involve communities historically excluded from land use and transportation discussions and planning is required.

In the next four years, Southern California is expected to host several large-scale events that will impact the region’s transportation system: the World Cup in 2026, the Super Bowl in 2027, and the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2028. These events will be impactful for the entire Southern California region and particularly for the region’s transportation networks. Thousands of athletes and spectators will visit the region in compressed periods of time, needing to travel to and from a variety of venues. People from across the region may be traveling to these events themselves, either to glimpse the events as spectators or to work them, and goods will have to be delivered to the venues. Everyone else will still need to carry on with their lives while the events are occurring. A great deal of preparation will be needed.

A) 2024 SCP-ATS GOALS
The SCP-ATS aims to:
• Improve mobility across the region, especially for children and older adults, and people walking, biking, riding transit/rail, and using other forms of active transportation; • Strategically invest in communities most harmed by traffic injuries and fatalities, which include the historically disinvested communities that comprise the majority of the Regional High Injury Network;
• Support a more resilient transportation network, especially in anticipation of the large-scale events hosted by the region; and
• Support local efforts to increase competitiveness for state and federal funding.

B) COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INTEGRATION
SCAG’s active transportation safety and engagement program, provides a suite of community engagement resources, tools, and strategies. Planning and quick-build projects are expected to incorporate one or both of the following elements to facilitate meaningful community engagement. The Go Human elements are available at no cost; any costs would come from project-specific needs, such as local event/traffic permits or publicity/advertisements.

GO HUMAN KIT OF PARTS – The Go Human Kit of Parts (Kit) is a community engagement resource loaned at no cost to local partners that creates opportunities for community members, jurisdiction staff and consultant teams to experience improved traffic safety designs directly on the street. The Kit includes a set of durable, lightweight materials that, once assembled, demonstrate complete streets infrastructure components. The Kit also includes signage and evaluation tools that allow the applicant or their

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 4 consultant to facilitate community feedback as part of an inclusive planning process. The applicant or its consultant will be responsible for coordinating transportation of materials and preparation of a site and installation plan, subject to approval by SCAG. The applicant or its consultant will also be responsible for the set-up, break-down, and oversight of the Go Human Kit of Parts as part of the demonstration. SCAG staff will be available to provide feedback and guidance on planning for a successful d emonstration or event and direction on appropriate utilization of the Kit of Parts.

TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARENESS CAMPAIGN – Co-branded Go Human print and digital advertisements are available at no cost to cities or other local government agencies to implement a traffic safety awareness campaign, alongside project or plan outreach, in an effort to improve traffic safety for people walking and biking. Available designs include, but are not limited to, lawn signs, banners, postcards, billboard ads, bus shelter or bench ads, and social media graphics. SCAG provides select print materials, such as lawn signs and banners, to local partners at no cost.

II. Eligible Applicants
The following entities, within the six-county SCAG region, are eligible to apply for SCP-ATS funds:

• Local or Regional Agency : Examples include cities, counties, councils of governments, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies and County Public Health Departments. • Caltrans: Caltrans must submit documentation that local communities are supportive of and have provided feedback on the proposed Caltrans project. Caltrans must submit documentation to support the need to address the project with ATP funds, rather than other available funding sources, such as the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). • Transit Agencies: Any agency responsible for public transportation that is eligible for funds under the Federal Transit Administration.
• Natural Resources or Public Land Agencies: Federal, Tribal, State, or local agency responsible for natural resources or public land administration.
• Public schools or school districts
• Tribal Governments: Federally recognized Native American Tribes. • Private nonprofit, tax -exempt organizations that are responsible for the management of public lands : These organizations may only apply for projects eligible for Recreational Trails Program funds. Eligible project types include recreational trails and trailheads, park projects that facilitate trail linkages or connectivity to nonmotorized corridors, and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors to trails. Projects must benefit the general public, not only a private entity.

III. SCP-ATS Eligible Project Types
As described above, the 2024 SCP-ATS solicits two project types: community/area wide plans and quick- build projects. Applicants may apply for more than one project type and may submit multiple applications (and shall indicate priority of applications). SCAG staff is available to assist applicants in determining the most appropriate project type for their needs and goals.

A) PROJECT TYPE: COMMUNITY/AREAWIDE PLANS
The 2024 SCP-ATS will fund community/areawide planning projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. Eligible planning projects must meet one of the following conditions:
• Community plans must encompass, be located in, or overlap with a disadvantaged community.

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 5 • Areawide plans must encompass at least one disadvantaged community.

Connect SoCal 2024 defines a disadvantaged community as a Priority Equity Community (PEC): census tracts in the SCAG region that have a greater concentration of populations that have been historically marginalized and are susceptible to inequitable outcomes based on a combination of the socioeconomic factors listed below. See the Connect SoCal 2024 Equity Analysis Technical Report and a map of PECs in the SCAG region for additional details and to identify PECs. Factors include:

• People of color
• Low-income households
• Limited vehicle and transit access
• Vulnerable ages
• Single parent households
• People without a high school diploma
• People with disabilities
• Housing cost burdened households
• People with limited English proficiency

In addition to the PEC definition, the following criteria are eligible definitions for disadvantaged communities. See Attachment A, the ATP Cycle 7 Guidelines (Section 17.A, pages 11-12), for details about each of the disadvantaged community definitions.

• Median Household Income
• CalEnviroScreen
• National School Lunch Program
• Healthy Places Index
• Climate and Environmental Justice Screening Tool
• USDOT Equitable Transportation Community Explorer
• Native American Tribal Lands

The maximum award for Community/Areawide Plan projects is $500,000. There is no required minimum funding request, and applicants may submit multiple applications. Awards for Community/Areawide Plans shall take the form of technical assistance, with a SCAG-procured consultant leading the project development and seeking reimbursement directly from SCAG. See Section IV.B (Funding Allocation for Award Recipients) for more information. Applicants are encouraged to include a letter of support from their county transportation commission in their application.

PROJECT EXAMPLES
Examples of eligible community/areawide plans include, but are not limited to:
• Active Transportation Plan
• Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Master Plan
• First/Last Mile Plan (focused on active transportation) • Safe Routes Plan (e.g., to school, for seniors, etc.) • Transportation Safety-Focused Plan (e.g., Local Road Safety Plan or Safe System Plan with a focus on active transportation)

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 6 REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED PLAN COMPONENTS
The final deliverable for all plans must include, but not be limited to, the required components identified in Appendix A of the ATP Cycle 7 State Guidelines (see Attachment A) or explain why the component is not applicable. Examples of required components include mode share, existing bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, collision analysis, funding considerations, and an implementation plan. , The following components are strongly encouraged:
• Framework to systematically analyze, identify, and prioritize traffic safety issues and corresponding recommendations, including proven roadway safety countermeasures. The framework should also identify roadway safety risks to support a jurisdiction’s ability to proactively address crash risks. • Multi-faceted community engagement, such as:
o Walk or bike audits
o Media/Advertisement campaigns (e.g., Go Human Co-Branded Awareness Campaign) o Temporary demonstration projects (e.g., Kit of Parts)

B) PROJECT TYPE: QUICK-BUILD PROJECTS
A quick-build is an interim capital improvement project that requires minor construction activity (e.g. , does not require excavation) and uses durable, low- to medium-cost materials to pilot and iterate through project designs with community feedback. Quick-build projects are identified through community engagement and/or an existing plan and provide the opportunity to immediately respond to a community safety need. Quick-build projects are typically installed for one to five years, depending on how quickly a design is modified or how long materials last, with evaluation occurring one to three years post-implementation.

Quick-build projects are not required to be located in a disadvantaged community . The 2024 SCP-ATS will evaluate and fund quick-build projects using an equity-centered prioritization framework to prioritize the repair of historic and current inequities. The framework will consider project readiness (e.g. informed by community engagement and preliminarily assessed for feasibility), alignment with communities most harmed by traffic injuries and fatalities, and opportunities for mutually beneficial partnership s with local community organizations. These quick-build projects will provide an opportunity to pilot projects that not only enhance or expand the active transportation network but also contribute to a more resilient transportation network given the increased demand expected with large-scale events to be hosted by the region.

The maximum award for quick-build projects is $900,000, which includes planning, design, and implementation. There is no required minimum funding request, and applicants may submit multiple applications. Awards for Quick-Builds shall take the form of technical assistance, with a SCAG-procured consultant leading project development and seeking reimbursement directly from SCAG , and pass- through funds to applicants for implementation. An applicant may use pass-through funds to procure a contractor or assign agency staff to implement the quick-build project. See Section IV.B (Funding Allocation for Award Recipients) for more information.

PROJECT EXAMPLES
Examples of quick-build elements and materials include, but are not limited to:

• Curb extensions: paint and plastic posts, plastic bollards, or planters • Pedestrian safety enhancements: rectangular rapid flashing beacons, leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections, raised crosswalks, and/or high-visibility crosswalks

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 7 • Modular transit stops: temporary transit platform to safely transition bike lanes through transit areas
• Pedestrian plaza/corridors: concrete barriers, barricades, planters, and/or signage • Protected bike lanes: striping and plastic posts, plastic bollards, planters, or parking • Traffic calming treatments: temporary speed cushions, curb extensions (described above), and/or chicanes (i.e. curb extensions in a parking lane)
• Traffic circles: striping, rubber curbs, plastic posts, and signage

REQUIRED QUICK-BUILD COMPONENTS
Quick-build projects must include the following components:

• Ongoing community engagement to inform final project design and evaluation. • Data collection to establish existing conditions and to complete before/after evaluation of project implementation.
• Final (100%) project design reviewed, approved, and stamped by a licensed Professional Engineer and project cost estimates.
• Quick-build installed for a minimum of six (6) months before conducting evaluation. • Final report summarizing work completed and recommendation of next steps.

See Appendix D of the ATP Cycle 7 Guidelines (Attachment A) and ATP Quick-Build Supplemental Guidance (Attachment B) for additional guidance on quick-build materials, designs, and project requirements.

IV. Funding

A) FUNDING SOURCES
Funding for the 2024 SCP-ATS is provided through a combination of state and federal sources, including the state Cycle 7 Active Transportation Program (ATP), which programs funds from FY25/26 to FY28/29 and a federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant, and which is anticipated to allocate funding in 2025 and expend funding within five years from allocation.

• Community/Areawide Plan projects shall be funded by ATP funds. • Quick-Build projects shall be funded with ATP funds, SS4A funds, or a combination of ATP and SS4A funds.

Recipients of 2024 SCP-ATS awards are required to comply with all applicable federal laws and state regulations including, but not limited to, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200); California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.); and Build America, Buy America Act (BIL, div. G §§ 70901-27).

Hosting a Call for Applications to award funds from multiple funding streams is intended to simplify the application process and achieve efficiencies in program administration. The program anticipates awarding approximately $10.4 million, with up to $2.4 million available for planning projects benefiting disadvantaged communities and a minimum of $7.5 million set aside for quick-build projects. SCAG will allocate funding for selected projects based on the eligibility of each funding source and the applicant’s readiness.

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 8 B) FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR AWARD RECIPIENTS
Awards and projects shall be primarily managed by SCAG and implemented through its consultants, except the Quick-Build implementation that will be managed by grantees in coordination with SCAG.

SCAG shall manage the administrative activities associated with requesting funding allocation from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for ATP funding and from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for SS4A funding, procuring a consultant team, passing through fundings for quick-build implementation, and providing all necessary reporting and documentation required by CTC, Caltrans, and FHWA.

Recipients of 2024 SCP-ATS awards are expected to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SCAG for technical assistance, which shall identify funding sources for the award and memorialize roles and responsibilities for each party, including but not limited to identifying a project manager for each party, providing guidance, cooperation and approvals as necessary, and assuming responsibility for a timely use of funds. MOUs for quick-build projects will also serve to pass through funds for quick-build implementation.

Recipients shall be the implementing agency for environmental approval(s) and responsible for documentation of environmental clearance or categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federally funded projects.

Funding shall be contingent on recipients securing environmental clearance.

Community/Areawide Plan projects shall only be eligible for technical assistance. Quick -Build Projects shall be eligible for technical assistance and pass through funds; pass through funds shall only be used for construction.

C) ELIGIBLE COSTS
SCAG uses cost principles outlined in 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E and the ATP Cycle 7 Guidelines (Attachment A) to determine reasonable, allocable, and allowable costs. Award recipients are required to adhere to these requirements. Eligible costs include staff salaries, fringe, indirect costs ( for ATP funding, the fringe and indirect cost rates require Caltrans approval and for SS4A, approved rates by a federal cognizant agency may be required), consultant/contractual services, and other direct costs. These costs and others not listed here are subject to review and approval by SCAG staff.

Recipients of the 2024 SCP-ATS awards claiming reimbursement for indirect costs and/or fringe benefits cost must have the current rates approved in the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) with its federal cognizant agency. In absence of the NICRA, recipients may elect the applicable de minimis indirect cost rate that is applicable at the time of award and must annually complete a certification form provided by the SCAG Project Manager to confirm the eligibility and compliance with Title 2 Code o f Federal Regulations Part 200 (2 CFR 200) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements For Federal Awards. The eligibility of the indirect cost and/or fringe benefits cost is subject to review and applicable funding guidelines and requirements. For the ATP funding, Caltrans prior approval is required for the fringe benefits and indirect cost rates; see “Local Government Agency Indirect Cost Review” on the Caltrans Internal Audits Office webpage. For SS4A, please see the 2 CFR 200.

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 9 D) MATCH REQUIREMENTS
There are no match requirements for projects proposed through the SCP-ATS. Applicants, especially those with projects that exceed the respective project type funding caps, are encouraged to provide matching funds.

V. Application Process
As noted above, applicants may apply for more than one project type and may submit multiple applications, which are available on the SCAG SCP-ATS website. Applicants do not need a board resolution in order to apply, but applicants will be required to submit a supporting resolution from the elected body or a letter of intent in support of the project from the appropriate executive officer prior to receiving funding. Please contact SCAG staff (see section VI) if the project includes multiple components or if any other support is needed in identifying the proper application to use for a project application.

A) APPLICATIONS
Applications will be accepted via an online form. Application workshops will be scheduled for summer 2024, to review project types, the application process, and address any questions. For more information and registration/details for the workshops, please see the SCAG SCP-ATS website. Applications must be submitted online in fall 2024.

AUTOMATIC CONSIDERATION OF NON-SELECTED STATEWIDE ATP APPLICATIONS Community/Areawide Plans and Quick-Build projects from the SCAG region submitted to the statewide ATP Call for Applications but not selected for funding will also be considered in the 2024 SCP -ATS selection process. These applications will be automatically considered, and applicants do not need to indicate they want to be considered for the SCP-ATS. These applications will not be re-scored and the initial score given in the statewide ATP competition will be used in ranking the projects against projects submitted through the SCP-ATS call for applications. Please see the state ATP website for more information about the application process and deadlines. Interested applicants are welcome to contact SCAG staff (see section VI) to discuss statewide ATP applications as well.

B) SCORING RUBRIC & CRITERIA
Each project type is evaluated by six scoring criteria: Mobility, Safety Benefit, Public Health, Disadvantaged Communities, Public Participation, and Cost Effectiveness. Application questions vary by project type. The potential points to be awarded for responses to each question, by project type, are noted in each application.

Scoring Criteria Points
Mobility 25
Safety Benefit 35
Public Health 10
Disadvantaged Communities 10
Public Participation 15
Cost Effectiveness 5
Total 100 Points

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 10 C) EVALUATION PROCESS
A minimum of six evaluation teams, one per county, will be established to review, score and rank applications submitted to the 2024 SCP-ATS; counties receiving a large volume of applications may require multiple evaluation teams. Projects will compete and be ranked against other projects within their respective county. Final awards will be based on application score, geographic distribution across the region, and funding eligibility. Following grant award announcements, unsuccessful applicants are encouraged to meet with SCAG staff to obtain feedback on opportunities to improve their applications for future grant cycles. Quick-build applications not selected for award may be placed on a contingency list in the event that future rounds of funding are made available.

D) RISK ASSESSMENT
Prior to entering into an MOU to receive funding from SCAG, each selected applicant will be subject to a risk assessment as required by 2 CFR 200.206 in accordance with SCAG’s Subrecipient Monitoring Policies and Procedures. SCAG may evaluate the risks to the program imposed by each applicant to assess the applicant’s ability to manage award funds pursuant to the requirements prescribed in the applicable funding guidelines. In some circumstances, special grant conditions may be imposed to mitigate anticipated risks. Each applicant may be required to provide documentation to SCAG for this evaluation.

VI. Schedule
The following schedule outlines key dates for the 2024 SCP-ATS. These dates are subject to change; the Sustainable Communities Program webpage will have the latest dates.

2024 SCP-ATS Key Dates
2024 SCP-ATS Milestone Date
SCP-ATS Call for Applications Opens Summer 2024
SCP-ATS Application Workshops Summer 2024

SCP-ATS Call for Applications Deadline Fall 2024
SCAG Regional Council Approval of the 2024 SCP–
ATS Application Projects* April 3, 2025
Final 2024 SCP-ATS Award Announcements* June 2025

*Projects selected to receive ATP funding are subject to approval by the SCAG Regional Council and California Transportation Commission (CTC) as part of the adoption of the complete 2025 Regional ATP. In addition, projects receiving ATP funding will be subject to the programming and allocation process, requirements, and schedule of the CTC. SCAG Regional Council consideration is anticipated on April 3, 2025 followed by CTC action in June 2025.

A) TIMELY USE OF FUNDS/TIME EXTENSIONS
A project initiation schedule and expectations regarding the period of performance will be determined within three months of project award announcements, and will be based on project complexity, funding source, and SCAG staff capacity. In certain cases, projects may receive a notice to proceed two to three years after the project award announcements, such as if ATP funds are allocated in the latter part of the

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 11 Cycle 7 ATP funding cycle (FY25/26 to FY28/29). Once the project schedule has been established, extensions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Extensions and scope changes must be requested in letter format. All requests must include an explanation of the issues and actions the agency has take n to correct the issues. All extensions will be contingent on funding availability and the program requirements of the funding source assigned to the project when awarded. SCAG intends all selected projects to be completed in a timely manner and requires that applicants coordinate internal resources to ensure timely completion of the projects.

VII. Contact Information
Questions regarding the SCP-ATS project types, applications, or application process should be directed to:

Rachel Om
Senior Regional Planner
Telephone: (213) 630-1550
Email: [email protected]

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 12 Attachment A: ATP Cycle 7 Guidelines

Please see: 2025 Active Transportation Program Cycle 7 Guidelines.

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 13 Attachment B: ATP Quick-Build Supplemental Guidance

Please see: Active Transportation Program Quick-Build Supplemental Guidance

2024 SCP Active Transportation and Safety Guidelines May 2024 14 Attachment C: Allowable Direct Costs

SCAG uses cost principles outlined in 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E and the ATP Cycle 7 Guidelines (Attachment A) to determine reasonable, allocable, and allowable costs. The procurement of goods and services are subject to 2 CFR Part 200 and applicable funding guidelines.

• Advertisement costs. Including the purchase of advertising media to support program outreach. • Compensation—personnel services. Including wages and salaries. • Compensation—fringe benefits. Including, but not limited to, costs of leave, employee insurance, pensions, and unemployment benefit plans.
• Professional service costs. Including costs of professional and consultant services. • Publication and printing costs. Including costs for distribution and general handling of electronic and print media.
• Transportation costs. Including costs for delivery of items and/or equipment • Contractual Services. Including professional services necessary to complete the proposed project.
• Travel. Including transportation, food and lodging that meet the Travel Reimbursement policies established by CalHR.
• Supplies or services. Including printed material, translation and interpretation, supplies or services cost, excluding equipment

Please note: allowable indirect costs include an approved negotiated rate by a federal cognizant agency or a de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.

These costs and others not listed here are subject to review and approval by SCAG staff.

ATTACHMENT _D_
RESOLUTION NO. 24-68

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF

AN APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENTS FOR GRANT FUNDING FROM THE 2024
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM – ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION & SAFETY

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) offers grant funding through its 2024 Sustainable Communities Program – Active Transportation & Safety (SCP Grant) to support community projects aimed at enhancing active transportation and safety; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020, the City Council authorized the submission of a grant application for the SCP Grant, resulting in the City of Montebello (City) being awarded $150,000 to conduct a comprehensive analysis of Montebello Bus Lines’ (MBL) service area, leading to the development of the First Mile/Last Mile (FMLM) Mater Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2024, the City Council received and filed the City’s FMLM Master Plan, which identified five (5) priority projects aimed at safety and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists within the service area; and WHEREAS, the 2024 SCAG SCP Grant offers two options for funding: (1) Community/Areawide Plans, with a maximum award of $500,000, and (2) Quick-Build Projects, with a maximum award of $900,000; and
WHEREAS, Priority Project 5: Madison Avenue Neighborway, as identified in the City’s FMLM Master Plan, has been recognized as a suitable Quick-Build Project that aligns with the goals of the SCP Grant by enhancing community safety through pedestrian and cyclist access while ensuring the continued accessibility for first responders.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

APPROVES THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO SCAG FOR GRANT FUNDING FROM THE 2024 SCP GRANT; AND
SECTION 1. APPROVALS AND CERTIFICATIONS.

1. Certifies that said Applicant has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the projects included in this application, sufficient funds to complete the projects; and

2. Certifies that if funding is awarded, the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the projects; and

RESOLUTION NO. 24-68

3. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and guidelines; and
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and that the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024.
_______________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-68 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 28th day of August 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

ITEM # 15

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: John Soria, Acting Director

SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-69 AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF

FINANCE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT THROUGH THE LOCAL

TRANSPORTATION FUND AND THE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE
FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

DATE: August 28, 2024

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-69 authorizing the Director of Finance to submit a claim for funding provided by the Transportation Development Act through the Local Transportation Fund and the State Transit Assistance Fund for Fiscal Year 2024- 25; and

2. Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Senate Bill 325– the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971, provides annual funding to public transportation operators through the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund. These funds are made available for eligible transit and non-transit related projects provided certain conditions are met. The LTF may be used for local streets and roads, construction, and maintenance if there are no unmet transit needs. Conversely, STA funding can only be used for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes.

The City of Montebello will receive a TDA allocation of $14,005,337 (LTF – $11,648,998 and STA – $2,356,339) for FY 2024-25 (Attachment A), to be used for transit operating expenditures. The TDA allocation is included in Montebello Bus Lines’ (MBL’s) FY 2024-

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2024

25 adopted operating budget. A TDA claim form indicating where funds will be used must be submitted to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for review. Once approved, MBL will receive a direct deposit allocation monthly to be used for operating expenses.

Projects eligible for LTF and STA funding are as follows:

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The TDA of 1971 was enacted to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. The TDA established two (2) funding sources:

1. LTF- is derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. The State Board of Equalization, based on sales tax collected in each county, returns the general sales tax revenues to each county’s LTF. Each county then apportions the LTF funds within the country based on population.

2. STA- is appropriated by the legislature to the State Controller’s Office (SCO). The SCO then allocates the tax revenue, by formula, to planning agencies and other selected agencies. Statue requires that 50% of STA funds be allocated according to population and 50% be allocated according to transit operator revenues from the prior fiscal year.

Metro is the local planning agency designated to administer the distribution of these funds to transit agencies in the Los Angeles County region. As the state-designated administrator, Metro requires that public transportation operators submit annual TDA claim forms signed by the Chief Financial Officer to claim LTF and STA funds (Attachment B). In addition, Metro requires MBL’s Governing Board (i.e., City Council) to approve a Resolution attesting to the use of these funds and the submission of the claim form(s) as an annual standard procedure.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2024

ANALYSIS:

The City operates MBL to provide fixed route service to the cities of Alhambra, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Los Angeles, La Mirada, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, San Marino, South Gate and Whittier on a yearly basis. Therefore, a consistent need exists to maintain access to available funding opportunities for the continued delivery of transportation services to the City and surrounding communities.

To ensure the City can continually access LTF and STA funding, the City must submit an annual TDA claim form. These forms must be approved by MBL’s Board by and through a City Council Resolution (Attachment C).

SUMMARY:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 24-69 authorizing the Director of Finance as the City’s Chief Financial Officer to submit a claim form for funding provided by the Transportation Development Act through the LTF and the STA funding sources for FY 2024-2025; and take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - Adopted Transit Fund Allocations FY 2024-25

2. Attachment B - TDA Claim Form

3. Attachment C - Resolution No. 24-69

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Fiscal Year 2025
Transit Fund Allocations

APPROVED
July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025

ATTACHMENT A

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations

FY 2025
Transit Fund Allocations

APPROVED

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations

State and Local Funds:

Preliminary Revenue Estimates .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 State and Local Funds Summary.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Bus Transit Funding % Shares...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Included and Eligible Operators Estimated Funding Levels............................................................................................................................ 5 Proposition C 5% Transit Security Funding Allocation ................................................................................................................. 6 Proposition C 40% Discretionary Programs……................................................…………………………………………………...………..7 Municipal Operators Service Improvement Program (MOSIP) , Zero-Fare Compensation for Commerce, Foothill Transit Mitigation , Transit Service Expansion , Discretionary Base Restructuring , BSIP, Overcrowding Relief
Measure R 20% Bus Operation Allocations ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Measure M 20% Transit Operations ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Senate Bill 1 STA and SGR Funding Allocations……………………………................................................…………………….……………..10 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Fund Exchange………………………......................................................………………11 Tier 2 Operators Estimated Funding Levels ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Incentive Programs .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13-15 Local Returns, TDA Articles 3 & 8 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16-18 Revenue Estimates ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Federal Section 5307 Urbanized Formula Program ........................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Federal Section 5337 State of Good Repair............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Federal Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Capital Allocation Procedure - % Share Calculation .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24-25 State and Federal Fund Exchange between Metro and Municipal Operators ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Table of Contents
I. BUS TRANSIT SUBSIDIES
II. LOCAL SUBSIDIES
III. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS
IV. Metro and Municipal Operators Fund Exchange

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations

I. BUS TRANSIT SUBSIDIES

STATE & LOCAL FUNDS

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
1 FY25 Estimated
Revenue
Carryover
FY23
Budget vs
Actual
Interest
FY23 Actual
FY25
Total Funds
Available
N
O
T
E
FY24
Total Funds
Transportation Development Act:

Planning & Administration:
1 Planning - Metro 5,780,000$ 5,780,000$ 6,000,000$ 2 Planning - SCAG 4,335,000 4,335,000 4,500,000 3 Administration - Metro 4,378,855 4,378,855 4,378,855 4 Sub-total 14,493,855 14,493,855 14,878,855 5 Article 3 Pedestrian & Bikeways 2.0000% 11,270,123 310,354 231,823 11,812,301 13,591,611 6 Article 4 Bus Transit 90.7332% 511,287,308 14,079,729 10,517,042 535,884,080 617,003,660 7 Article 8 Streets & Highways 7.2668% 40,948,714 1,127,638 842,304 42,918,656 48,985,266 8 Total 578,000,000 15,517,721 11,591,170 605,108,891 694,459,391 Proposition A: a
9 Administration 5.0000% 57,800,000 3,968,890 61,768,890 71,310,295 10 Local Return 25.0000% 274,550,000 n/a 274,550,000 b 285,000,000 11 Rail Development 35.0000% 384,370,000 26,393,121 410,763,121 474,213,460 Bus Transit: 40.0000%
12 287,721,591 n/a 287,721,591 c 279,341,351 13 95% of 40% Over CPI 129,594,409 n/a 129,594,409 d 153,858,649 14 Sub-total 417,316,000 - 417,316,000 433,200,000 15 5% of 40% Incentive 21,964,000 1,508,178 23,472,178 27,097,912 16 Total 1,156,000,000 31,870,190 1,187,870,190 1,290,821,666 Proposition C: a
17 Administration 1.5000% 17,340,000 1,190,661 18,530,661 21,393,045 18 Rail/Bus Security 5.0000% 56,933,000 3,909,336 60,842,336 70,240,498 19 Commuter Rail 10.0000% 113,866,000 7,818,671 121,684,671 140,480,996 20 Local Return 20.0000% 227,732,000 n/a 227,732,000 b 236,400,000 21 Freeways and Highways 25.0000% 284,665,000 19,546,678 304,211,678 351,202,489 22 Discretionary 40.0000% 455,464,000 31,274,685 486,738,685 561,923,983 23 Total 1,156,000,000 63,740,030 1,219,740,030 1,381,641,011 State Transit Assistance: e
24 Bus (PUC 99314 Rev Base Share) 76,459,817 33,802,137 1,631,033 111,892,986 79,902,182 25 Rail (PUC 99313 Population Share) 57,860,883 25,165,156 1,298,086 84,324,124 84,812,758 26 Total 134,320,700 58,967,292 2,929,119 196,217,110 164,714,940 SB 1 State Transit Assistance: e,f
27 Bus (PUC 99314 Rev Base Share) 62,362,016 27,238,545 1,353,398 90,953,959 g 65,826,324 28 Rail (PUC 99313 Population Share) 47,192,387 20,266,327 1,077,125 68,535,839 69,765,394 29 Total 109,554,403 47,504,872 2,430,522 159,489,798 135,591,719 SB 1 State Of Good Repair f
30 Bus (PUC 99314 Rev Base Share) 20,358,271 1,777,134 763,073 22,898,478 g 13,407,997 31 Rail (PUC 99313 Population Share) 15,406,100 1,317,198 191,185 16,914,482 16,360,217 32 Total 35,764,371 3,094,332 954,257 39,812,960 29,768,214

STATE AND LOCAL
95% of 40% Capped at CPI 3.00%
Fiscal Year 2025

PRELIMINARY REVENUE ESTIMATES

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
2 Measure R: a
33 Administration 1.5000% 17,340,000 1,183,688 575,239 19,098,928 21,018,185 34 Transit Capital - "New Rail" 35.0000% 398,531,000 27,205,102 (898,952) 424,837,150 494,706,666 35 Transit Capital - Metrolink 3.0000% 34,159,800 2,331,866 336,442 36,828,107 41,694,802 36 Transit Capital - Metro Rail 2.0000% 22,773,200 1,554,577 350,562 24,678,339 27,952,753 37 Highway Capital 20.0000% 227,732,000 15,545,772 3,264,773 246,542,546 279,471,590 38 Operations "New Rail" 5.0000% 56,933,000 3,886,443 1,684,386 62,503,829 69,159,295 39 Operations Bus 20.0000% 227,732,000 15,545,772 6,550,332 249,828,104 276,239,947 40 Local Return 15.0000% 170,799,000 n/a n/a 170,799,000 b 177,300,000 41 Total 1,156,000,000 67,253,221 11,862,782 1,235,116,003 1,387,543,237 Measure M: a
Local Return Supplemental & Administration:
42 Administration 0.5000% 5,953,400 383,039 106,193 6,442,633 7,288,075 43 Supplemental transfer to Local Return 1.0000% 11,386,600 n/a n/a 11,386,600 b,h 11,820,000 44 Sub-total 17,340,000 383,039 106,193 17,829,233 19,108,075 45 Local Return Base 16.0000% 182,185,600 n/a n/a 182,185,600 b,h 189,120,000 46 Metro Rail Operations 5.0000% 56,933,000 3,663,048 744,168 61,340,215 69,103,169 47 Transit Operations ( Metro & Municipal Providers) 20.0000% 227,732,000 14,652,190 6,476,327 248,860,518 276,006,413 48 ADA Paratransit/Metro Discounts for Seniors & Students 2.0000% 22,773,200 1,465,219 145,500 24,383,919 28,165,126 49 Transit Construction 35.0000% 398,531,000 25,641,333 4,609,203 428,781,536 494,572,652 50 Metro State of Good Repairs 2.0000% 22,773,200 1,465,219 632,903 24,871,322 27,899,063 51 Highway Construction 17.0000% 193,572,200 12,454,362 13,479,756 219,506,318 232,114,873 52 Metro Active Transportation Program 2.0000% 22,773,200 1,465,219 1,213,743 25,452,162 27,461,672 53 Regional Rail 1.0000% 11,386,600 732,610 248,820 12,368,029 13,951,170 54 Total 1,156,000,000 61,922,239 27,656,613 1,245,578,852 1,377,502,212 55 Total Funds Available 5,481,639,474$ 349,869,897$ 57,424,464$ 5,888,933,834$ 6,462,042,390$ 56 112,927,255$ 6,726,279$ 681,432$ 120,334,966$ 135,888,454$ Notes:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
The STA revenue estimates (including SB1/STA) from the State Controller's Office have been adjusted downward by 10% for the purposes of FAP allocation, in anticipation of a revenue shortfall in FY25. The actual funds will be revised two years from now, once we have received the concrete figures from the state.

To qualify for SB1-SGR funds, eligible agencies are required to fulfill a number of reporting obligations. Additionally, the SGR revenue estimate from the State Controller's Office has been adjusted downward by 5% for the purpos of FAP allocation in anticipation of a revenue shortfall for FY25. The actual funds will be revised two years later, following the receipt of the actual revenue from the state.

STA and SGR portion of SB1 will be allocated based on Measure R allocation methodology.

Measure M provides for a total of 17% net revenues for Local Return. Supplement of 1% to be funded by 1.5% Administration.

Sales tax is projected to be $1,156.0 million per ordinance, an increase of 2.0% over the FY24 reforecast of $1,122.0 million Total Planning & Admin Allocations:
(Lines 4, 9, 17, 33 and 42)
Local Return Subfunds are not reflected with carryover balances. The distribution of these funds occurs within the same period they are received.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase of 3.0% represents the average anticipated growth rate, as derived from a range of forecasting sources and historical trends. This rate is specifically applied to the Proposition A discretionary funds allocated to Included operators.

Proposition A 95% of 40% Bus Transit growth over CPI estimate will be used to fund Eligible and Tier 2 operators. The carryover is not shown since it has been converted into Proposition C 40% discretionary to fund various Board-approved discretionary programs.

FY25 Estimated
Revenue
Carryover
FY23
Budget vs
Actual
Interest
FY23 Actual
FY25
Total Funds
Available
N
O
T
E
FY24
Total Funds
PRELIMINARY REVENUE ESTIMATES (Continued)
Fiscal Year 2025

STATE AND LOCAL

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
3 TDA Article 4 +
Interest STA + Interest
Proposition A
95% of 40 %
Discretionary Sub-Total FAP
20% Bus
Operations
Clean Fuel &
Facilities
STA State of Good
Repair
Included Operators:
1 Metro Bus Operations 394,225,226$ 83,297,385$ 214,190,870$ 691,713,480$ 45,008,391$ 26,701,024$ 173,538,098$ -$ 172,865,983$ 63,179,349$ 15,856,136$ 1,188,862,461$ Municipal Operators:
2 Arcadia 462,989 90,596 232,960 786,546 6,512 108,289 188,745 - 188,014 68,716 17,246 1,364,066 3 Claremont 929,842 29,426 75,666 1,034,935 1,557 26,982 61,305 - 61,068 22,319 5,601 1,213,767 4 Commerce 772,289 145,240 373,471 1,291,001 75,556 1,636,106 302,588 - 301,416 110,162 27,647 3,744,475 5 Culver City 7,691,393 1,548,205 3,981,053 13,220,651 377,512 1,892,209 3,225,461 - 3,212,969 1,174,281 294,710 23,397,793 6 Foothill Transit 34,648,106 7,234,550 18,602,919 60,485,574 1,286,961 9,246,828 15,072,142 - 15,013,767 5,487,257 1,377,138 107,969,667 7 Gardena 7,546,689 1,523,685 3,918,004 12,988,378 316,268 2,399,719 3,174,379 - 3,162,084 1,155,684 290,042 23,486,554 8 La Mirada 132,805 24,423 62,802 220,030 4,629 22,394 50,882 - 50,685 18,524 4,649 371,793 9 Long Beach 35,048,684 7,014,131 18,036,133 60,098,948 2,797,077 10,024,473 14,612,930 - 14,556,334 5,320,073 1,335,180 108,745,016 10 Montebello 11,648,998 2,356,339 6,059,091 20,064,428 417,543 3,730,245 4,909,094 - 4,890,081 1,787,235 448,543 36,247,169 11 Norwalk 4,372,320 878,205 2,258,217 7,508,743 170,239 870,337 1,829,614 - 1,822,528 666,101 167,171 13,034,734 12 Redondo Beach 928,667 182,921 470,363 1,581,951 46,203 172,346 381,090 - 379,614 138,742 34,820 2,734,766 13 Santa Monica 28,733,790 5,819,886 14,965,253 49,518,930 1,288,632 6,258,404 12,124,894 - 12,077,934 4,414,264 1,107,849 86,790,907 14 Torrance 8,742,281 1,747,993 4,494,789 14,985,063 303,788 3,656,183 3,641,692 - 3,627,588 1,325,817 332,741 27,872,871 15 Sub-Total 141,658,854 28,595,602 73,530,722 243,785,178 7,092,478 40,044,513 59,574,816 - 59,344,082 21,689,174 5,443,337 436,973,578 Eligible Operators:
16 Antelope Valley - - 7,081,309 7,081,309 207,282 1,962,528 3,916,140 - 3,900,972 1,425,734 357,817 18,851,782 17 LADOT - - 34,953,640 34,953,640 2,058,339 7,095,238 8,709,948 - 8,676,214 3,170,997 795,826 65,460,202 18 Santa Clarita - - 4,491,505 4,491,505 391,612 1,168,324 2,345,362 - 2,336,279 853,867 214,295 11,801,245 19 Foothill BSCP - - 6,997,753 6,997,753 - 633,451 1,743,740 - 1,736,987 634,837 159,325 11,906,093 20 Sub-Total - - 53,524,207 53,524,207 2,657,234 10,859,542 16,715,190 - 16,650,452 6,085,435 1,527,263 108,019,324 Tier 2 Operators:
21 LADOT Community Dash - - 6,880,097 6,880,097 - - - - - - - 6,880,097 22 Glendale - - 1,148,981 1,148,981 - - - - - - - 1,148,981 23 Pasadena - - 434,456 434,456 - - - - - - - 434,456 24 Burbank - - 199,657 199,657 - - - - - - 199,657 25 Sub-Total - - 8,663,191 8,663,191 - - - - - - - 8,663,191 26 Lynwood Trolley - - - - - 249,576 - - - - - 249,576 27 Total Excluding Metro 141,658,854 28,595,602 135,718,120 305,972,576 9,749,711 51,153,632 76,290,006 - 75,994,534 27,774,610 6,970,600 553,905,669 28 County of Los Angeles 71,741 71,741
29 Grand Total 535,884,080$ 111,892,986$ 349,908,990$ 997,686,056$ 54,758,102$ 77,854,655$ 249,828,104$ -$ 248,860,518$ 90,953,959$ 22,898,478$ 1,742,839,871$ Proposition C 5%
Security
Measure
M
Proposition C
40%
Discretionary
Total
Fiscal Year 2025

SUMMARY OF STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS
Formula Allocation Procedure Measure R Senate Bill 1
Operators

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
4 Operators
Vehicle Service
Miles (VSM)
FY23 Data (1)
Passenger
Revenue
Base
Fare Fare Units
Fare Units
Prior to Fare
Increase/
decrease
Fare Units
Used in FAP (2)
Sum
50% VSM +
50% Fare
Units
Proposition A
Base Share
DAR Cap
Adjustment (3) TDA/STA Share
Included Operators
1 Metro Bus Operations (4) 67,347,408 89,877,098$ 1.75$ 51,358,342 197,161,600 197,161,600 132,254,504 74.4438% 0.0000% 74.4438% 2 Arcadia DR 62,871 4,249 0.50 8,498 72,829 72,829 67,850 0.0382% 0.0000% 0.0382% 3 Arcadia MB 146,881 2,553 0.50 5,106 - 5,106 75,994 0.0428% 0.0000% 0.0428% 4 Claremont 11,602 10,455 2.50 4,182 81,840 81,840 46,721 0.0263% 0.0000% 0.0263% 5 Commerce 461,208 - - - - - 230,604 0.1298% 0.0000% 0.1298% 6 Culver City (5) 1,243,082 1,065,143 1.00 1,065,143 3,673,208 3,673,208 2,458,145 1.3836% 0.0000% 1.3836% 7 Foothill Transit 8,752,153 6,581,228 1.75 3,760,702 14,221,000 14,221,000 11,486,577 6.4656% 0.0000% 6.4656% 8 Gardena 1,134,829 1,244,962 1.00 1,244,962 3,703,600 3,703,600 2,419,215 1.3617% 0.0000% 1.3617% 9 La Mirada 56,692 20,863 1.00 20,863 20,863 38,778 0.0218% 0.0000% 0.0218% 10 Long Beach 6,300,761 8,541,032 1.25 6,832,826 15,972,456 15,972,456 11,136,609 6.2686% 0.0000% 6.2686% 11 Montebello 1,626,948 1,632,872 1.10 1,484,429 5,855,556 5,855,556 3,741,252 2.1059% 0.0000% 2.1059% 12 Norwalk 694,654 496,703 1.25 397,362 2,094,068 2,094,068 1,394,361 0.7849% 0.0000% 0.7849% 13 Redondo Beach DR 53,272 7,138 1.00 7,138 7,138 30,205 0.0170% 0.0000% 0.0170% 14 Redondo Beach MB 368,684 151,768 1.00 151,768 151,768 260,226 0.1465% 0.0000% 0.1465% 15 Santa Monica 3,819,587 5,717,734 1.25 4,574,187 14,661,333 14,661,333 9,240,460 5.2013% 0.0000% 5.2013% 16 Torrance 1,040,714 716,297 1.00 716,297 4,510,000 4,510,000 2,775,357 1.5622% 0.0000% 1.5622% 17 Sub-Total 93,121,346 116,070,095 71,631,805 262,192,365 177,656,856 100.0000% 0.0000% 100.0000% Eligible Operators
18 Antelope Valley 2,835,455 1,903,364 1.50 1,268,909 3,543,241 3,543,241 3,189,348 1.6799% 0.0000% 1.6799% 19 Santa Clarita 2,180,713 1,639,466 1.00 1,639,466 1,639,466 1,910,090 1.0061% 0.0000% 1.0061% 20 LADOT Local 2,661,459 70,762 0.50 141,524 6,727,520 6,727,520 4,694,490 2.4727% 0.0000% 2.4727% 21 LADOT Express 1,645,148 657,948 1.50 438,632 3,152,832 3,152,832 2,398,990 1.2636% 0.0000% 1.2636% 22 Foothill - BSCP 1,211,649 810,759 1.75 463,291 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,430,825 0.7480% 0.0000% 0.7480% 23 Sub-Total 10,534,424 5,082,299 3,951,822 16,713,059 13,623,742 7.1704% 0.0000% 7.1704% 24 Total 103,655,770 121,152,394$ 75,583,627 278,905,424 191,280,597 Notes:
(5) FY22 data.
(3) TDA cap of 0.25% is applied for DAR operators - Arcadia, Claremont, La Mirada and Redondo Beach DR. (4) MTA Statistics include contracted services with LADOT for Lines 422, 601 and 602 (Consent Decree Lines), Glendale and Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA).

FISCAL YEAR 2025
(2) Fare units used are frozen to the level prior to fare change in accordance with the Funding Stability Policy, adopted by the Board in November 2007. (1) Operators' statistics exclude BSIP, TSE, Base Restructuring and MOSIP services that are funded from PC 40% Discretionary. Also excluded are services funded from other sources (CRD, federal, etc.)

BUS TRANSIT FUNDING PERCENTAGE SHARES

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
5 STA Total
TDA & STA Rev Base Share Formula
% Shares Plus Interest Funds
Included Operators
1 Metro Bus Operations 74.4438% 398,932,442$ (4,707,216)$ 394,225,226$ 83,297,385$ 74.4438% 214,190,870$ 691,713,480$ 2 Arcadia DR 0.0382% 204,663 - 204,663 42,734 0.0382% 109,885 357,282 3 Arcadia MB 0.0428% 229,227 29,100 258,327 47,863 0.0428% 123,074 429,264 4 Claremont (3) 0.0263% 140,929 788,913 929,842 29,426 0.0263% 75,666 1,034,935 5 Commerce 0.1298% 695,594 76,695 772,289 145,240 0.1298% 373,471 1,291,001 6 Culver City 1.3836% 7,414,748 276,645 7,691,393 1,548,205 1.3836% 3,981,053 13,220,651 7 Foothill Transit 6.4656% 34,648,106 - 34,648,106 7,234,550 6.4656% 18,602,919 60,485,574 8 Gardena 1.3617% 7,297,318 249,371 7,546,689 1,523,685 1.3617% 3,918,004 12,988,378 9 La Mirada 0.0218% 116,968 15,837 132,805 24,423 0.0218% 62,802 220,030 10 Long Beach (4) 6.2686% 33,592,462 1,456,222 35,048,684 7,014,131 6.2686% 18,036,133 60,098,948 11 Montebello 2.1059% 11,285,111 363,887 11,648,998 2,356,339 2.1059% 6,059,091 20,064,428 12 Norwalk 0.7849% 4,205,950 166,370 4,372,320 878,205 0.7849% 2,258,217 7,508,743 13 Redondo Beach DR 0.0170% 91,110 - 91,110 19,024 0.0170% 48,918 159,052 14 Redondo Beach MB 0.1465% 784,946 52,611 837,557 163,897 0.1465% 421,445 1,422,899 15 Santa Monica 5.2013% 27,872,920 860,870 28,733,790 5,819,886 5.2013% 14,965,253 49,518,930 16 Torrance 1.5622% 8,371,586 370,695 8,742,281 1,747,993 1.5622% 4,494,789 14,985,063 17 Sub-Total Excluding Metro 100.0000% 535,884,080 - 535,884,080 111,892,986 100.0000% 287,721,591 935,498,658 Eligible Operators
(5)
18 Antelope Valley (6) 1.6799% - 368,054$ 368,054$ 1,879,727$ 1.6799% 4,833,528$ 7,081,309$ 19 Santa Clarita (6) 1.0061% - 470,960 470,960 1,125,762 1.0061% 2,894,784 4,491,505 20 LADOT Local 2.4727% 13,251,015 13,251,015 2,766,822 2.4727% 7,114,604 23,132,441 21 LADOT Express 1.2636% 6,771,567 6,771,567 1,413,908 1.2636% 3,635,723 11,821,199 22 Foothill - BSCP 0.7480% 4,008,541 4,008,541 836,986 0.7480% 2,152,226 6,997,753 23 Sub-Total 7.1704% 24,031,123 839,014 24,870,137 8,023,204 7.1704% 20,630,866 53,524,207 24 Total FAP 535,884,080$ 535,884,080$ 111,892,986$ 107.1704% 287,721,591$ 989,022,865$ Proposition A Discretionary (95% of 40%) Growth Over CPI:
25 Revenue 129,594,409$
Uses of Fund:
26 Eligible Operators - Formula Equivalent Funds 53,524,207 27 Tier 2 Operators (7) 8,663,191
28 Total Uses of Funds 62,187,398
29 Proposition A Discretionary (95% of 40%) GOI Transfer to PC 40% based on Board policy. 67,407,010 30 Backfill from (Transfer to) PC40% Discretionary (67,407,010) 31 Total -$
Notes:
(1) Included Operators' share of LCTOP fund will be exchanged with Metro's TDA Article 4 allocation. (2) Prop A Discretionary funds (95% of 40%) allocated to Included Operators have been capped at 3.00% CPI for FAP allocation. (3) Claremont will exchange its 5307 grant funds, totaling $780,652 from FY19-FY23, for an equivalent value from Metro's TDA 4 funds allocated for FY25. (4) Funds allocated to the SCRTTC through Long Beach Transit will be exchanged with Metro's TDA Article 4 share. (6) Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita's LCTOP fund will be exchanged with Metro's Prop C 40% Discretionary transfer to Proposition A Discretionary GOI. (7)The Board has approved a funding adjustment for Tier II operators based on the CPI increase. This adjustment raises the annual cap from $6 million to $8.2 million in FY24 and further to $8.4 million in FY25.

Formula Equivalent Funded from Proposition A 95% of 40% Growth over CPI Operators
Allocated Net
TDA Article 4 plus interest
Fund Exchange
(1)
Prop A
Discretionary %
Shares
Prop A
Discretionary
Allocations (2)

INCLUDED & ELIGIBLE OPERATORS ESTIMATED FUNDING LEVELS
(5) Formula Equivalent funds are allocated by formula to Eligible Operators based on PUC 99207.5. Fund source is Prop A 95% of 40% growth over CPI.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
6 1 Antelope Valley 1,245,216 0.3785% 207,282$
2 Arcadia 39,121 0.0119% 6,512
3 Claremont 9,356 0.0028% 1,557
4 Commerce 453,890 0.1380% 75,556
5 Culver City (2) 2,267,843 0.6894% 377,512
6 Foothill Transit 7,731,219 2.3503% 1,286,961
7 Gardena 1,899,928 0.5776% 316,268
8 LADOT Local/Express 12,365,151 3.7590% 2,058,339
9 La Mirada 27,805 0.0085% 4,629
10 Long Beach 16,803,005 5.1081% 2,797,077
11 Montebello 2,508,327 0.7625% 417,543
12 Norwalk 1,022,686 0.3109% 170,239
13 Redondo Beach DR/MB 277,558 0.0844% 46,203
14 Santa Clarita 2,352,549 0.7152% 391,612
15 Santa Monica 7,741,258 2.3533% 1,288,632
16 Torrance 1,824,957 0.5548% 303,788
17 Sub-Total 58,569,869 17.8051% 9,749,711
18 Metro Bus/Rail Operations (3) 270,380,890 82.1949% 45,008,391 19 Total 328,950,759 100.0000% 54,758,102$
Notes:

Estimated Revenue: 60,842,336$
90% Thereof: 54,758,102$
(2) FY22 data.
(3) Metro operations data includes unlinked passengers for bus and rail. (1) Total funding is 90% of Prop C 5% Transit Security:

Operators FY23 Unlinked
Passengers
Percent of Total
Unlinked Passengers Total (1)
PROPOSITION C 5% TRANSIT SECURITY FUNDING ALLOCATION

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
7 Prop A
% Share % Share $ Allocation

INCLUDED OPERATORS
1 Metro Bus Operations 13,336,355$ -$ -$ 13,364,668$ 26,701,024$ 2 Metro Exchange (2) (1,056,205) (1,056,205) 3 Metro Sub-total 12,280,150 13,364,668$ 25,644,819 4 Arcadia 0.0810% 0.2474% 68,566 14,505 - - 25,219 108,289 5 Claremont 0.0263% 0.0804% 22,270 4,711 - - - 26,982 6 Commerce 0.1298% 0.3966% 109,921 1,214,306 23,254 - 288,625 - 1,636,106 7 Culver City 1.3836% 4.2279% 1,171,718 247,876 278,204 - 194,410 1,892,209 8 Foothill Transit 6.4656% 19.7564% 5,475,280 - 385,059 2,310,694 1,075,795 9,246,828 9 Gardena 1.3617% 4.1609% 1,153,161 243,950 799,659 - 202,948 2,399,719 10 La Mirada 0.0218% 0.0667% 18,484 3,910 - - - 22,394 11 Long Beach 6.2686% 19.1544% 5,308,462 1,123,000 2,640,064 - 952,947 10,024,473 12 Montebello 2.1059% 6.4348% 1,783,334 377,263 - 1,318,100 251,548 3,730,245 13 Norwalk 0.7849% 2.3982% 664,647 140,605 - - 65,084 870,337 14 Redondo Beach DR/MB 0.1635% 0.4995% 138,439 29,287 - - 4,620 172,346 15 Santa Monica 5.2013% 15.8932% 4,404,629 931,795 - - 921,980 6,258,404 16 Torrance 1.5622% 4.7735% 1,322,923 279,863 936,315 838,708 278,375 3,656,183 17 Sub-Total 25.5562% 78.0899% 21,641,835 1,214,306 3,420,018 5,039,301 4,756,127 3,972,927 40,044,513

ELIGIBLE OPERATORS
18 Antelope Valley 1.6799% 5.1332% 1,422,622 48,560 436,008 - 55,338 1,962,528 19 Santa Clarita 1.0061% 3.0743% 852,003 29,082 228,045 - 59,193 1,168,324 20 LADOT Local/Express 3.7364% 11.4169% 3,164,076 625,258 3,132,397 - 173,507 7,095,238 21 Foothill - BSCP 0.7480% 2.2857% 633,451 - - - - 633,451 22 Sub-Total 7.1704% 21.9101% 6,072,153 702,900 3,796,450 - 288,039 10,859,542 23 City of Lynwood Trolley 249,576 - - 249,576 24 Total Municipal Operators 32.7266% 100.0000% 27,713,988 1,214,306 4,122,919 9,085,327 4,756,127 4,260,966 51,153,632 25 Total 32.7266% 100.0000% 27,713,988$ 1,214,306$ 16,403,069$ 9,085,327$ 4,756,127$ 17,625,634$ 77,854,655$ 26 Last Year 26,906,784$ 8,820,706$ 4,617,599$ 17,112,266$ 27 % Increase 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
28 Current Year 27,713,988$ 9,085,327$ 4,756,127$ 17,625,634$ Note:
(1) Allocated as part of FAP to Commerce as compensation for having zero passenger revenues. (2) The LCTOP funds of Antelope Valley, Santa Clarita, Burbank, and Glendale, totaling $1,056,205, are set to be swapped with Metro's "Foothill Mitigation" fund / Prop A Discretionary GOI fund.

MOSIP
Zero-fare
Compensation (1)
Foothill
Transit
Mitigation
BSIP
Overcrowding
Relief
Transit
Service
Expansion
Discretionary
Base
Restructuring
PROPOSITION C 40% DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS
TotalOperators

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
8 Included Operators:
1 Metro Bus Operations 74.4438% 69.4630% 173,538,098$ 64.8516% -$ 2 Arcadia 0.0810% 0.0755% 188,745 0.1678% - 3 Claremont 0.0263% 0.0245% 61,305 0.0189% - 4 Commerce 0.1298% 0.1211% 302,588 0.3959% - 5 Culver City (2) 1.3836% 1.2911% 3,225,461 0.9234% - 6 Foothill Transit (3) 6.4656% 6.0330% 15,072,142 9.0122% - 7 Gardena 1.3617% 1.2706% 3,174,379 1.0491% -
8 La Mirada 0.0218% 0.0204% 50,882 0.0682% - 9 Long Beach 6.2686% 5.8492% 14,612,930 6.5832% - 10 Montebello 2.1059% 1.9650% 4,909,094 1.5592% - 11 Norwalk 0.7849% 0.7323% 1,829,614 0.6988% -
12 Redondo Beach DR 0.0170% 0.0159% 39,634
13 Redondo Beach MB 0.1465% 0.1367% 341,456
14 Santa Monica 5.2013% 4.8533% 12,124,894 4.1921% - 15 Torrance 1.5622% 1.4577% 3,641,692 1.2708% -
Eligible Operators:
16 Antelope Valley 1.6799% 1.5675% 3,916,140 2.1827% - 17 Santa Clarita 1.0061% 0.9388% 2,345,362 1.9290% - 18 LADOT Local 2.4727% 2.3073% 5,764,274
19 LADOT Express 1.2636% 1.1791% 2,945,674
20 Foothill BSCP (3) 0.7480% 0.6980% 1,743,740 - -

21 Total Municipal Operators 32.7266% 30.5370% 76,290,006 35.1484% - 22 Total Funds Allocated 107.1704% 100.0000% 249,828,104$ 100.0000% $ - Notes:
(1) Clean Fuel Capital Facilities and Rolling Stock Funds of $10M will be allocated every even fiscal year. (2) Allocated based on FY22 data.
(3) Foothill Transit Clean Fuel allocation includes the allocation for the Foothill BSCP.

MEASURE R 20% BUS OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS
Measure R 20% Bus Operations and Capital Allocations
FISCAL YEAR 2025

0.3431%
Proposition A
Base Share %
Federal Section 5307
Capital Allocation
Formula Share
$ Allocation
Clean Fuel Bus Capital Facilities and
Rolling Stock Fund (1)20% Bus Operations
Operators

4.7540%
-
-
MR
Percentage
Share
Bus
Operations
Allocation

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
9 Included Operators:
1 Metro Bus Operations 69.4630% 172,865,983$
2 Arcadia 0.0755% 188,014
3 Claremont 0.0245% 61,068
4 Commerce 0.1211% 301,416
5 Culver City (2) 1.2911% 3,212,969
6 Foothill Transit 6.0330% 15,013,767
7 Gardena 1.2706% 3,162,084
8 La Mirada 0.0204% 50,685
9 Long Beach 5.8492% 14,556,334
10 Montebello 1.9650% 4,890,081
11 Norwalk 0.7323% 1,822,528
12 Redondo Beach DR 0.0159% 39,480
13 Redondo Beach MB 0.1367% 340,134
14 Santa Monica 4.8533% 12,077,934
15 Torrance 1.4577% 3,627,588
Eligible Operators:
16 Antelope Valley 1.5675% 3,900,972
17 Santa Clarita 0.9388% 2,336,279
18 LADOT Local 2.3073% 5,741,949
19 LADOT Express 1.1791% 2,934,265
20 Foothill BSCP 0.6980% 1,736,987

21 Total Municipal Operators 30.5370% 75,994,534
22 Total Funds Allocated 100.0000% 248,860,518$
Notes:
(2) Allocated based on FY22 data.

Measure M Percentage
Share (1) $ Allocation
FISCAL YEAR 2025
Operators
MEASURE M 20% TRANSIT OPERATIONS
(Metro and Municipal Providers)
(1) Metro adheres to the Measure R allocation methodology for Measure M 20% fund allocations.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
10 Included Operators:
1 Metro Bus Operations 69.4630% 63,179,349$ 15,856,136$ 79,035,485$ 2 Arcadia 0.0755% 68,716 17,246 85,961 3 Claremont 0.0245% 22,319 5,601 27,921 4 Commerce 0.1211% 110,162 27,647 137,809 5 Culver City 1.2911% 1,174,281 294,710 1,468,991 6 Foothill Transit 6.0330% 5,487,257 1,377,138 6,864,395 7 Gardena 1.2706% 1,155,684 290,042 1,445,726 8 La Mirada 0.0204% 18,524 4,649 23,173 9 Long Beach 5.8492% 5,320,073 1,335,180 6,655,254 10 Montebello 1.9650% 1,787,235 448,543 2,235,778 11 Norwalk 0.7323% 666,101 167,171 833,272 12 Redondo Beach DR 0.0159% 14,429 3,621 18,051 13 Redondo Beach MB 0.1367% 124,313 31,199 155,511 14 Santa Monica 4.8533% 4,414,264 1,107,849 5,522,112 15 Torrance 1.4577% 1,325,817 332,741 1,658,557 Eligible Operators:
16 Antelope Valley 1.5675% 1,425,734 357,817 1,783,551 17 Santa Clarita 0.9388% 853,867 214,295 1,068,162 18 LADOT Local 2.3073% 2,098,577 526,680 2,625,258 19 LADOT Express 1.1791% 1,072,420 269,146 1,341,566 20 Foothill BSCP 0.6980% 634,837 159,325 794,162

21 Total Municipal Operators 30.5370% 27,774,610 6,970,600 34,745,210 22 County of Los Angeles - 71,741 71,741 23 Total Funds Allocated 100.0000% 90,953,959$ 22,898,478$ 113,852,436$ Notes:
(2) Preliminary estimates. Subject to the submittal of eligible projects. (1) The STA and SGR portions of SB1 fund will be distributed based on Measure R allocation methodology.

Total State of Good
Repair (2)
Senate Bill 1
FISCAL YEAR 2025
Operators Measure R
% Share (1)
State Transit
Assistance
Senate Bill 1 - Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
11 1 Metro Bus Ops. (3,566,564)$ (1,056,205)$ (4,622,769)$ 2 Antelope Valley (368,054)$ 368,054 - 3 Arcadia (29,100) 29,100 - 4 Claremont (8,261) 8,261 - 5 Commerce (76,695) 76,695 - 6 Culver City (276,645) 276,645 - 7 Foothill Transit - - - 8 Gardena (249,371) 249,371 - 9 La Mirada (15,837) 15,837 - 10 Long Beach (1,096,222) 1,096,222 - 11 Montebello (363,887) 363,887 - 12 Norwalk (166,370) 166,370 - 13 Redondo Beach (52,611) 52,611 - 14 Santa Clarita (470,960) 470,960 - 15 Santa Monica (860,870) 860,870 - 16 Torrance (370,695) 370,695 - 17 Tier Two Operators
18 Burbank (68,260) 68,260 - 19 Glendale (148,931) 148,931 - 20 Pasadena - - - 21 TOTAL (4,622,769)$ -$ -$ (4,622,769)$ Note:
(2) Included Operators’ share of LCTOP fund will be exchanged with Metro’s TDA Article 4 allocation. (1) Estimated - To be adjusted based on actual allocations.

LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP)
Fund Exchange between LA County Transit Operators & Metro (3) LCTOP fund will be exchanged with Metro's "Foothill Mitigation Fund" share. Metro will allocate Proposition A Discretionary (95% of 40% ) GOI fund to these operators.

Operators LCTOP Share (1) TDA 4 Fund
Exchange (2)
Prop A GOI / Prop C
40% Fund Exchange (3)
Net Funds
Available (1)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
12 Operators
Vehicle Service
Miles
FY23 data
Passenger
Revenue
Base
Fare
Fare
Units (1)
50% VSM +
50% Fare Units % Share
1 LADOT Community Dash 3,682,892 1,825$ 0.50$ 16,808,232 10,245,562 5.0258% 2 Glendale 790,633 456,162 1.00 2,187,836 1,489,235 0.7305% 3 Pasadena 656,127 478,366 0.75 637,821 646,974 0.3174% 4 Burbank 271,752 119,589 1.00 119,589 195,671 0.0960% 5 Sub-Total 5,401,404 1,055,942 19,753,478 12,577,441 6.1697% 6 Included and Eligible Operators 103,655,770 121,152,394 75,583,627 191,280,597 93.8303% 7 Total 109,057,174 122,208,336$ 95,337,105 203,858,038 100.0000% % Share TDA Article 4
+ Interest STA + Interest
Proposition A
95% of 40%
Discretionary
Total
8 535,884,080$ 111,892,986$ 287,721,591$ $ 935,498,658 9 LADOT Community Dash 5.0258% 26,932,632$ 5,623,553$ 14,460,403$ 47,016,589$ 10 Glendale 0.7305% 3,914,769 817,407 2,101,879 6,834,054 11 Pasadena 0.3174% 1,700,709 355,109 913,128 2,968,946 12 Burbank 0.0960% 514,361 107,399 276,166 897,926 13 Total 6.1697% 33,062,471$ 6,903,468$ 17,751,576$ 57,717,515$

14.63% (2) MTA
Allocations (3)
LCTOP fund
Exchange
(4)
FY25 Total
Funds Available
14 LADOT Community Dash 3,941,144$ 822,914$ 2,116,040$ 6,880,097$ -$ 6,880,097$ 15 Glendale 572,861 119,614 307,575 1,000,050 148,931 1,148,981 16 Pasadena 248,870 51,964 133,621 434,456 - 434,456 17 Burbank 75,268 15,716 40,412 131,397 68,260 199,657 18 Total 4,838,144$ 1,010,208$ 2,597,648$ 8,446,000$ 217,191$ 8,663,191$ Prop A Incentive
Allocation (5)
Before Tier 2
GOI Allocation
GOI Allocation
Deduction
Net Prop A
Incentive
Allocation
19 LADOT Community Dash 2,428,322$ (355,345)$ 2,072,977$ 20 Glendale 497,395 (72,785) 424,609 21 Pasadena 383,173 (56,071) 327,102 22 Burbank 122,809 (17,971) 104,838 23 Total 3,431,698$ (502,172)$ 2,929,526$ Notes:
(1) Funding Stability Policy is applied on LADOT and Glendale Fare Units. (2) This percentage is applied as a deduction from Tier 2 Operators' Incentive Program allocations. (5) Estimated - to be Adjusted to Actual apportionment. (4) Burbank and Glendale's LCTOP fund will be exchanged with Metro's "Foothill Mitigation" Fund. Metro will allocate Prop A Discretionary (95% of 40% ) GOI funds to these operators.

Actual Allocation
Funds Allocated to Included Operators
Funds Allocated to Tier 2 Operators
Formula Equivalent Calculation
TIER 2 OPERATORS ESTIMATED FUNDING LEVELS
(3) The Board has approved an increase in the funding cap for Tier II operators for FY24, raising it from $6 million to $8.2 million. This will be followed by annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For FY25, the allocation has risen to $8,446,000, reflecting an estimated CPI increase of 3.0%.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations

II. LOCAL SUBSIDIES

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
13 PRIORITY I: EXISTING SUB-REGIONAL PARATRANSIT PROJECTS (1) Total Allocation 1 Agoura Hills 55,423$
2 Antelope Valley, Elderly & Disabled 785,233
3 Culver City Community Transit and LA County 99,824
4 Gardena, Hawthorne and LA County 157,788
5 Glendale Paratransit and La Canada Flintridge 247,161 6 Inglewood Transit and LA County 256,462
7 LA County (Whittier et al) 205,166
8 LA County (Willowbrook) 72,762
9 Los Angeles Taxi & Lift Van, City Ride (2)
487,782
10 Los Angeles Dial-a-Ride, City Ride (2)
1,865,908
11 Monrovia D.A.R. and LA County 116,699
12 Palos Verdes PTA D.A.R. 33,168
13 Palos Verdes PTA - PV Transit 563,974
14 Pasadena Community Transit, San Marino and LA County 564,521 15 Pomona Valley TA - E&D (Get About) 911,868
16 Pomona Valley TA General Public (VC) 48,163
17 Santa Clarita D.A.R. 1,465,155
18 West Hollywood (DAR) 213,174
19 Whittier (DAR) 448,143
20 TOTAL EXISTING SUB-REGIONAL PARATRANSIT PROJECTS 8,598,372$ PRIORITY II: SERVICES THAT RECEIVE GROWTH OVER INFLATION (IF PROP A DISC. CANNOT FULLY FUND THESE SYSTEMS)
21 City of L.A. - Bus Service Continuation Project/DASH/Central City Shuttle -$ 22 Santa Clarita - Local Fixed Route -
23 Antelope Valley - Local Fixed Route -
24 Foothill - Bus Service Continuation Project -
25 TOTAL SERVICES THAT RECEIVE GROWTH OVER INFLATION
(IF PROP A DISC. CANNOT FULLY FUND THESE -$
26 PRIORITY III: APPROVED EXISTING EXPANDED PARATRANSIT -$ 27 PRIORITY IV: APPROVED NEW EXPANDED PARATRANSIT SERVICES -$ PROPOSITION A 5% OF 40% DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
14 Priority V: VOLUNTARY NTD DATA REPORTING
(Estimated - to be Adjusted to Actual apportionment)
FY23 NTD Report Year Estimate
Tier 2
Deduction Total Allocation
28 City of Alhambra (MB and DR) 146,594$ 146,594$ 29 City of Artesia (DR) 2,679 2,679
30 City of Azusa (DR) 32,074 32,074
31 City of Baldwin Park (MB and DR) 119,591 119,591 32 City of Bell (MB, DR and DT) 28,209 28,209 33 City of Bell Gardens (MB and DR) 69,744 69,744 34 City of Bellflower (MB and DR) 49,002 49,002 35 City of Burbank (MB)* (2) 122,809 (17,971) 104,838 36 City of Calabasas (MB and DR) 51,130 51,130 37 City of Carson (MB, DR and DT) 56,698 56,698 38 City of Cerritos (MB and DR ) 79,226 79,226 39 City of Compton (MB and DR) 102,345 102,345 40 City of Covina (DR) 26,919 26,919
41 City of Cudahy (MB and DR) 25,047 25,047 42 City of Downey (MB and DR) 80,378 80,378 43 City of Duarte (MB) - -
44 City of El Monte (MB and DR) 135,616 135,616 45 City of Glendora (MB and DR) 45,641 45,641 46 City of Glendale (MB)* (2) 497,395 (72,785) 424,609 47 City of Huntington Park (MB) 157,801 157,801 48 City of Los Angeles -- Community DASH* (MB) (2) 2,428,322 (355,345) 2,072,977 49 City of Los Angeles -- Department of Aging (DR) (2) 135,632 135,632 50 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- Avocado Heights (MB) 22,335 22,335 51 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- East Valinda (MB) 25,119 25,119 52 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- East LA (MB and DR) 142,942 142,942 53 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- Willowbrook (MB) 39,848 39,848 54 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- King Medical (MB) 19,094 19,094 55 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- Athens (MB) 20,985 20,985 56 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- Lennnox (MB) 15,731 15,731 57 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- South Whittier (MB) 104,598 104,598 58 LA County Dept. of Public Works -- Florance/Firestone (MB) 33,021 33,021 59 City of Lakewood (DR) 30,830 30,830
60 City of Lawndale (MB) - -
61 City of Lynwood (MB) 80,140 80,140
62 City of Malibu (DT) 1,571 1,571
63 City of Manhattan Beach (DR) 13,501 13,501 64 City of Maywood (MB and DR) 26,986 26,986 65 City of Monterey Park (MB and DR) 80,420 80,420 66 City of Pasadena (MB)* 383,173 (56,071) 327,102 67 City of Pico Rivera (DR) 9,701 9,701
68 City of Rosemead (MB and DR) 79,247 79,247 69 City of Santa fe Springs (DR) 8,354 8,354 70 City of South Gate (DT and MB) 131,024 131,024 71 City of South Pasadena (DR) 15,456 15,456 72 City of West Covina (MB and DR) 105,987 105,987 73 City of West Hollywood (MB) 65,379 65,379 74 TOTAL VOLUNTARY NTD DATA REPORTING 5,848,293$ (502,172)$ 5,346,121$ PROPOSITION A 5% OF 40% DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS (Continued) (In Order of Priority)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
15 PRIORITY VI: SPECIAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS Total Allocation 75 Avalon Ferry Subsidy (3) 800,000$
76 Avalon Transit Services (Jitney and Dial-a-Ride) (3) 200,000 77 Hollywood Bowl Shuttle Service 1,057,000
78 TOTAL SPECIAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS 2,057,000$
79 Total funds 16,001,493$
80 Reserves for contingencies (4) 7,470,685
81 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 23,472,178$
82 Surplus (Deficit) 1,337,139$
NOTES:
(2) Tier 2 Operators' share have been reduced by % of GOI Funding per Tier 2 Operators Funding Program. (4) These funds are held in reserve for future contingency purposes such as deficit years, growth over inflation, approved new or existing expanded paratransit services, and new NTD reporters.
(1) Priority I allocations are receiving 25% of their FY23 operating costs for pandemic recovery per Alliance request and LTSS approval. (3) Avalon's subsidy total remains unchanged. The City has requested that Metro adjust the Ferry and Land Transit subsidy from a $7K/$3K split to an $8K/$2K split, reflecting the increase in ferry fares.

PROPOSITION A 5% OF 40% DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS (Continued) (In Order of Priority)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
16 Population Population Proposition A Proposition C Measure R Measure M DOF Report as % of Local Return Local Return Local Return Local Return Article 8 2023 data (1) County Estimate (2) Estimate (2) Estimate (2) Estimate Population Allocation 1 AGOURA HILLS 19,770 0.2025% 556,064$ 461,240$ 345,930$ 392,054$ 20,309$ -$ 1,775,597$ 2 ALHAMBRA 81,303 0.8329% 2,286,780 1,896,824 1,422,618 1,612,300 83,491 7,302,013 3 ARCADIA 55,503 0.5686% 1,561,113 1,294,902 971,176 1,100,667 57,000 4,984,857 4 ARTESIA 16,093 0.1649% 452,642 375,455 281,591 319,136 16,533 1,445,357 5 AVALON 3,351 0.0343% 94,252 78,180 58,635 66,453 5,000 3,351 202,757 505,277 6 AZUSA 49,483 0.5069% 1,391,790 1,154,453 865,840 981,285 50,818 4,444,187 7 BALDWIN PARK 70,368 0.7209% 1,979,215 1,641,707 1,231,280 1,395,451 72,263 6,319,916 8 BELL 33,370 0.3419% 938,586 778,532 583,899 661,752 34,273 2,997,043 9 BELLFLOWER 76,924 0.7881% 2,163,613 1,794,660 1,345,995 1,525,461 78,995 6,908,725 10 BELL GARDENS 38,447 0.3939% 1,081,385 896,980 672,735 762,433 39,486 3,453,020 11 BEVERLY HILLS 31,658 0.3243% 890,433 738,591 553,943 627,802 32,515 2,843,284 12 BRADBURY 889 0.0091% 25,005 20,741 15,555 17,630 5,000 83,930 13 BURBANK 104,535 1.0709% 2,940,218 2,438,833 1,829,125 2,073,008 107,346 9,388,530 14 CALABASAS 22,808 0.2337% 641,512 532,118 399,088 452,300 23,428 2,048,446 15 CARSON 92,186 0.9444% 2,592,882 2,150,727 1,613,046 1,828,118 94,666 8,279,439 16 CERRITOS 47,887 0.4906% 1,346,900 1,117,218 837,914 949,636 49,179 4,300,847 17 CLAREMONT 36,759 0.3766% 1,033,907 857,599 643,199 728,959 37,753 3,301,417 18 COMMERCE 12,036 0.1233% 338,532 280,804 210,603 238,683 12,367 1,080,989 19 COMPTON 93,719 0.9601% 2,636,000 2,186,493 1,639,870 1,858,519 96,240 8,417,121 20 COVINA 50,350 0.5158% 1,416,176 1,174,681 881,011 998,479 51,708 4,522,055 21 CUDAHY 22,270 0.2281% 626,380 519,566 389,674 441,631 22,876 2,000,127 22 CULVER CITY 39,682 0.4065% 1,116,121 925,793 694,345 786,924 40,754 3,563,938 23 DIAMOND BAR 53,381 0.5469% 1,501,428 1,245,395 934,046 1,058,586 54,821 4,794,276 24 DOWNEY 111,261 1.1398% 3,129,398 2,595,753 1,946,815 2,206,390 114,252 9,992,608 25 DUARTE 22,796 0.2335% 641,175 531,838 398,878 452,062 23,416 2,047,368 26 EL MONTE 106,377 1.0898% 2,992,027 2,481,808 1,861,356 2,109,537 109,237 9,553,965 27 EL SEGUNDO 16,928 0.1734% 476,128 394,935 296,202 335,695 17,391 1,520,350 28 GARDENA 59,809 0.6127% 1,682,226 1,395,362 1,046,522 1,186,058 61,421 5,371,589 29 GLENDALE 191,284 1.9596% 5,380,175 4,462,714 3,347,035 3,793,307 196,420 17,179,652 30 GLENDORA 51,159 0.5241% 1,438,931 1,193,555 895,166 1,014,522 52,539 4,594,713 31 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 13,546 0.1388% 381,003 316,032 237,024 268,627 13,918 1,216,605 32 HAWTHORNE 85,702 0.8780% 2,410,509 1,999,454 1,499,590 1,699,536 88,008 7,697,097 33 HERMOSA BEACH 19,018 0.1948% 534,912 443,696 332,772 377,141 19,537 1,708,058 34 HIDDEN HILLS 1,731 0.0177% 48,687 40,385 30,289 34,327 5,000 158,688 35 HUNTINGTON PARK 53,281 0.5458% 1,498,615 1,243,062 932,296 1,056,603 54,718 4,785,294

LOCAL RETURN
TDA Article 8 (S & H)
TotalTDA Article 3
Ped & Bike (A)
& TDA Article 3 & 8

LOCAL JURISDICTION

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
17 Population Population Proposition A Proposition C Measure R Measure M DOF Report as % of Local Return Local Return Local Return Local Return Article 8 2023 data (1) County Estimate (2) Estimate (2) Estimate (2) Estimate Population Allocation

LOCAL RETURN
& TDA Article 3 & 8 (Continued)
LOCAL JURISDICTION TDA Article 3
Ped & Bike (A)
TDA Article 8 (S & H)
Total

36 INDUSTRY (B) 427 0.0044% 12,010 9,962 7,472 8,468 - 37,911 37 INGLEWOOD 106,248 1.0885% 2,988,399 2,478,798 1,859,099 2,106,978 109,105 9,542,379 38 IRWINDALE 1,483 0.0152% 41,712 34,599 25,949 29,409 5,000 136,669 39 LA CANADA-FLINTRIDGE 19,930 0.2042% 560,564 464,973 348,730 395,227 20,473 1,789,967 40 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 5,505 0.0564% 154,837 128,433 96,325 109,168 5,661 494,425 41 LAKEWOOD 80,154 0.8211% 2,254,462 1,870,017 1,402,513 1,589,515 82,311 7,198,818 42 LA MIRADA 47,899 0.4907% 1,347,238 1,117,498 838,124 949,874 49,192 4,301,925 43 LANCASTER 173,376 1.7762% 4,876,484 4,044,915 3,033,686 3,438,178 178,032 173,376 10,490,346 26,061,641 44 LA PUENTE 37,356 0.3827% 1,050,699 871,527 653,645 740,798 38,366 3,355,035 45 LA VERNE 32,056 0.3284% 901,627 747,876 560,907 635,695 32,924 2,879,030 46 LAWNDALE 30,882 0.3164% 868,607 720,486 540,365 612,413 31,719 2,773,590 47 LOMITA 20,092 0.2058% 565,120 468,752 351,564 398,440 20,639 1,804,516 48 LONG BEACH 458,222 4.6943% 12,888,243 10,690,459 8,017,844 9,086,890 470,513 41,153,949 49 LOS ANGELES CITY 3,766,109 38.5824% 105,927,977 87,864,469 65,898,352 74,684,799 4,397,690 338,773,287 50 LYNWOOD 66,228 0.6785% 1,862,771 1,545,119 1,158,840 1,313,351 68,012 5,948,093 51 MALIBU 10,512 0.1077% 295,667 245,248 183,936 208,461 10,803 944,115 52 MANHATTAN BEACH 34,284 0.3512% 964,294 799,856 599,892 679,878 35,212 3,079,131 53 MAYWOOD 24,546 0.2515% 690,396 572,666 429,499 486,766 25,213 2,204,540 54 MONROVIA 37,539 0.3846% 1,055,846 875,796 656,847 744,427 38,554 3,371,470 55 MONTEBELLO 61,645 0.6315% 1,733,866 1,438,197 1,078,647 1,222,467 63,306 5,536,484 56 MONTEREY PARK 59,288 0.6074% 1,667,572 1,383,207 1,037,405 1,175,726 60,886 5,324,796 57 NORWALK 101,153 1.0363% 2,845,094 2,359,930 1,769,948 2,005,941 103,873 9,084,785 58 PALMDALE 165,917 1.6998% 4,666,687 3,870,894 2,903,171 3,290,260 170,373 165,917 10,039,029 24,940,414 59 PALOS VERDES ESTATES 12,935 0.1325% 363,818 301,777 226,333 256,511 13,290 1,161,730 60 PARAMOUNT 52,178 0.5345% 1,467,592 1,217,329 912,996 1,034,729 53,585 4,686,231 61 PASADENA 136,988 1.4034% 3,853,012 3,195,972 2,396,979 2,716,576 140,669 12,303,207 62 PICO RIVERA 60,975 0.6247% 1,715,022 1,422,565 1,066,924 1,209,181 62,618 5,476,310 63 POMONA 149,721 1.5338% 4,211,148 3,493,036 2,619,777 2,969,081 153,743 13,446,786 64 RANCHO PALOS VERDES 41,030 0.4203% 1,154,036 957,242 717,932 813,656 42,139 3,685,005 65 REDONDO BEACH 68,407 0.7008% 1,924,059 1,595,956 1,196,967 1,356,563 70,249 6,143,794 66 ROLLING HILLS 1,669 0.0171% 46,943 38,938 29,204 33,098 5,000 153,183 67 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 8,446 0.0865% 237,558 197,048 147,786 167,491 8,681 758,563 68 ROSEMEAD 50,022 0.5125% 1,406,951 1,167,028 875,271 991,974 51,372 4,492,596 69 SAN DIMAS 34,079 0.3491% 958,528 795,073 596,305 675,812 35,001 3,060,720 70 SAN FERNANDO 23,487 0.2406% 660,610 547,959 410,969 465,765 24,125 2,109,429

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
18 Population Population Proposition A Proposition C Measure R Measure M DOF Report as % of Local Return Local Return Local Return Local Return Article 8 2023 data (1) County Estimate (2) Estimate (2) Estimate (2) Estimate Population Allocation

LOCAL RETURN
& TDA Article 3 & 8 (Continued)
LOCAL JURISDICTION TDA Article 3
Ped & Bike (A)
TDA Article 8 (S & H)
Total
71 SAN GABRIEL 38,466 0.3941% 1,081,919 897,423 673,068 762,810 39,506 3,454,726 72 SAN MARINO 12,206 0.1250% 343,314 284,770 213,577 242,054 12,542 1,096,257 73 SANTA CLARITA 230,659 2.3630% 6,487,662 5,381,345 4,036,009 4,574,143 236,851 230,659 13,956,331 34,672,339 74 SANTA FE SPRINGS 18,570 0.1902% 522,312 433,244 324,933 368,257 19,077 1,667,822 75 SANTA MONICA 91,720 0.9396% 2,579,775 2,139,856 1,604,892 1,818,877 94,187 8,237,587 76 SIERRA MADRE 10,821 0.1109% 304,358 252,457 189,343 214,589 11,120 971,867 77 SIGNAL HILL 11,431 0.1171% 321,516 266,689 200,017 226,685 11,746 1,026,652 78 SOUTH EL MONTE 19,461 0.1994% 547,372 454,031 340,523 385,926 19,991 1,747,845 79 SOUTH GATE 92,628 0.9489% 2,605,314 2,161,039 1,620,780 1,836,884 95,120 8,319,136 80 SOUTH PASADENA 26,273 0.2692% 738,971 612,957 459,718 521,014 26,986 2,359,646 81 TEMPLE CITY 35,813 0.3669% 1,007,299 835,528 626,646 710,199 36,782 3,216,454 82 TORRANCE 143,057 1.4656% 4,023,712 3,337,563 2,503,173 2,836,929 146,900 12,848,277 83 VERNON 205 0.0021% 5,766 4,783 3,587 4,065 5,000 23,201 84 WALNUT 27,553 0.2823% 774,973 642,820 482,115 546,397 28,300 2,474,605 85 WEST COVINA 107,893 1.1053% 3,034,667 2,517,177 1,887,882 2,139,600 110,794 9,690,120 86 WEST HOLLYWOOD 34,793 0.3564% 978,610 811,731 608,798 689,972 35,734 3,124,846 87 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 7,919 0.0811% 222,735 184,753 138,565 157,040 8,140 711,232 88 WHITTIER 87,291 0.8943% 2,455,202 2,036,526 1,527,394 1,731,047 89,640 7,839,808 89 UNINCORP LA COUNTY 997,999 10.2241% 28,070,355 23,283,620 17,462,715 19,791,077 2,262,877 136,022 8,230,193 99,100,837 90 TOTAL 9,761,210 100.0000% 274,550,000$ 227,732,000$ 170,799,000$ 193,572,200$ 11,812,301$ 709,325 42,918,656$ 921,384,156$ NOTES:
(1) Population estimates are based on State of California Department of Finance's (DOF) 2023 population estimates. The Unincorporated Population figure for TDA Article 8 is based on 2007 estimates by Urban Research.
(B) City of Industry has opted out of the TDA Article 3 program indefinitely.

TDA Article 3 Allocation:
(2) Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure R and Measure M Local Return funds are allocated their share of estimated revenues (minus administration) without carryover since payments are made based on actual revenues received.
(A) 15% of the estimated revenue is first awarded to the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County (30%-70% split) as Supplemental Allocation.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations

III. BUS TRANSIT SUBSIDIES

Federal Formula Grants

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
19 1 Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants:

Estimated Revenue 317,393,172$
2 Estimated Revenue 317,393,172$
Off the Top:
3 1% Enhancement Allocation (3,173,932)
4 314,219,240$
5 85% Formula Allocation 267,086,354$
6 Allocated to LTSS -$
7 Allocated to Munis 267,086,354$
8 15% Discretionary Allocation 47,132,886
9 314,219,240$
Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants:
10 Estimated Revenue 24,345,031$
Section 5337 State of Good Repair (LA County Share of LA UZA 2):

High Intensity Fixed Guideway:
11 Directional Route Miles (DRM) Generated 51,565,413$
12 Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) Generated 90,613,988
13 142,179,401$
High Intensity Motorbus:
14 Directional Route Miles (DRM) Generated 3,862,677$
15 Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) Generated 5,455,677
16 9,318,354$
17 Section 5337 State of Good Repair Total Estimated Revenue 151,497,755$ 18 Total Federal Formula Funds Available 493,235,958$
Note:
(2) Fund allocations are based on FY23 TPM data.
(1) Funding based on assumption of full Congressional authorization of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS REVENUE ESTIMATES (1),(2)
Los Angeles County Share of Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim UZA

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
20 Allocation Fund Exchanges
Adjusted
Allocation Allocation Fund Exchange
Adjusted
Allocation Allocation Fund Exchange
Adjusted
Allocation
Included Operators:
1 Metro Bus Operations 201,123,335$ (15,199,693)$ 185,923,642$ 16,327,166$ 8,017,865$ 24,345,031$ 143,955,928$ 7,541,829$ 151,497,755$ 361,766,428$ Municipal Operators:
2 Arcadia 463,609 42,258 505,868 42,258 (42,258) - - - - 505,868 3 Claremont 52,208 4,759 56,966 4,759 (4,759) - - - - 56,966 4 Commerce 8,177,480 99,667 8,277,148 99,667 (99,667) - - - - 8,277,148 5 Culver City 2,550,547 232,483 2,783,030 232,483 (232,483) - - - - 2,783,030 6 Foothill Transit 31,786,747 8,309,183 40,095,930 2,268,937 (2,268,937) - 6,040,247 (6,040,247) - 40,095,930 7 Gardena 2,897,578 264,115 3,161,693 264,115 (264,115) - - - - 3,161,693 8 La Mirada 188,366 17,170 205,536 17,170 (17,170) - - - - 205,536 9 Long Beach 22,686,320 1,513,611 24,199,932 1,657,396 (1,657,396) - 216,215 (216,215) - 24,199,932 10 Montebello 4,306,635 392,552 4,699,186 392,552 (392,552) - - - - 4,699,186 11 Norwalk 6,141,008 175,934 6,316,942 175,934 (175,934) - - - - 6,316,942 12 Redondo Beach 947,788 86,391 1,034,180 86,391 (86,391) - - - - 1,034,180 13 Santa Monica 14,471,724 1,145,142 15,616,866 1,055,403 (1,055,403) - 89,739 (89,739) - 15,616,866 14 Torrance 3,509,982 319,936 3,829,919 319,936 (319,936) - - - - 3,829,919 15 Sub-Total 98,179,992 12,603,203 110,783,195 6,617,002 (6,617,002) - 6,346,201 (6,346,201) - 110,783,195 Eligible Operators:
16 Antelope Valley 237,945 21,689 259,633 21,689 (21,689) - - - - 259,633 17 LADOT 15,851,790 2,392,492 18,244,282 1,196,864 (1,196,864) - 1,195,628 (1,195,628) - 18,244,282 18 Santa Clarita 2,000,110 182,311 2,182,421 182,311 (182,311) - - - - 2,182,421 19 Foothill BSCP - - - - - - - - - - 20 Sub-Total 18,089,845 2,596,491 20,686,336 1,400,863 (1,400,863) 1,195,628 (1,195,628) - 20,686,336 21 Total Excluding Metro 116,269,837 15,199,694 131,469,531 8,017,865 (8,017,865) - 7,541,829 (7,541,829) - 131,469,531 22 Grand Total 317,393,172$ 1$ 317,393,173$ 24,345,031$ -$ 24,345,031$ 151,497,755$ -$ 151,497,755$ 493,235,959$ Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
(1)Allocations are based on FY23 statistics.

FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS (Estimated - to be Adjusted to Actual apportionment) (1) Urbanized Formula Program (Section 5307) Bus & Bus Facilities (Section 5339) State of Good Repair (Section 5337) Total Operators

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
21 F
O
R
M
Project Title $ Amount Project Title $ Amount
1 Antelope Valley 0.0891% 237,945$ 237,945$ 21,689$ 259,633$ 2 Arcadia 0.1736% 463,609 463,609 42,258 505,868 3 Claremont 0.0195% 52,208 52,208 4,759 56,966 4 Commerce 0.4094% 1,093,436
Zero-Emissions Bus Operations,
Maintenance, and Administration
Facility
6,609,828$ Bus Stop Amenities
Improvement Project 474,216$ 8,177,480 99,667 8,277,148 5 6
Foothill Transit 9.3199% 24,892,226 24 Zero-Emission Replacement Buses
6,894,521 31,786,747 8,309,183 40,095,930 7 Gardena 1.0849% 2,897,578 2,897,578 264,115 3,161,693 8 LADOT 4.9163% 13,130,647 Electric Bus Charger Installation at Sylmar Yard
2,411,549 Bus Stop Solar Transit Pole
System
309,595 15,851,790 2,392,492 18,244,282 9 La Mirada 0.0705% 188,366 188,366 17,170 205,536 Long Beach Transit Fleet
Replacement 3,143,232
10 SCRTTC Allocation - Second of
Three Years 360,000
11 Montebello 1.6125% 4,306,635 4,306,635 392,552 4,699,186 12 Metro Bus Operations 67.0657% 179,123,335 Acquisition of Zero Emission Buses (ZEBs) 22,000,000 201,123,335 360,000(3) (15,559,693) 185,923,642 13 14 Redondo Beach 0.3549% 947,788 947,788 86,391 1,034,180 15 Santa Clarita 0.7489% 2,000,110 2,000,110 182,311 2,182,421 Santa Monica 4.3352% 11,578,700 Replacement of 40-foot Buses 2,893,024 14,471,724 1,145,142 15,616,866 16 Torrance 1.3142% 3,509,982 3,509,982 319,936 3,829,919 17 TOTAL 100.0000% 267,086,354$ 47,979,257$ 2,327,561$ 317,393,172$ -$ -$ 317,393,173$ Notes: Total may not add due to rounding.
(3) Allocations for the Southern California Regional Transit Training Consortium (SCRTTC) will be facilitated by Long Beach Transit. These funds will be exchanged with Metro's TDA 4 allocation. (1) The total of $846,371 remaining from 1% Enhancement Allocations has been added to the 15% Discretionary allocation funds, as approved by the BOS.

LA UZA 2
NET

FORMULA
SHARE
85%

FORMULA

ALLOCATION
1% ENHANCEMENT ALLOCATION (1)
(Estimated - to be Adjusted to Actual apportionment)
TOTAL TDA Fund
Exchange
S5339/S5337
Fund Exchange
(2)
Total Funds
AvailableOPERATOR
FEDERAL SECTION 5307 CAPITAL ALLOCATION
15% DISCRETIONARY ALLOCATION (1)
175,934 6,316,942
2,783,030 2,550,547 232,483
Bike & Ride Station Project
1,000,000 22,686,320 (3) (360,000) 1,873,611 Culver City 0.9550% 2,550,547
18,183,089 Transit Gallery Improvement
Project
543,750 6,141,008
(2) Operators’ share of Section 5337 and 5339 will be exchanged with Metro’s share of Section 5307 allocation.

Norwalk 0.7227% 1,930,154 Replacement of 7 CNG Buses that will meet their useful lives 3,667,104
Long Beach Transit 6.8079% 24,199,932

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
22 DRM DRM% DRM
$Allocation VRM VRM% VRM
$Allocation
High Intensity Fixed Guideway:
1 Metro (Including Metrolink) 506.0 99.783% $ 51,453,557 25,453,596 98.769% $ 89,498,238 $ 140,951,795 $ 1,227,608 $ 142,179,402 2 Long Beach Transit 0.5 0.099% 50,843 47,032 0.183% 165,371 216,215 (216,215) - 3 Santa Monica 0.6 0.118% 61,012 8,170 0.032% 28,727 89,739 (89,739) - 4 Foothill Transit - 0.000% - 262,121 1.017% 921,652 921,653 (921,653) - 5 Sub-total 507.1 100.000% 51,565,413 25,770,919 100.000% 90,613,988 142,179,402 - 142,179,402 High Intensity Motorbus:
6 Foothill Transit 39.4 26.785% 1,034,599 1,528,527 74.858% 4,083,995 5,118,593 (5,118,593) - 7 LADOT 35.1 23.861% 921,686 102,529 5.021% 273,942 1,195,628 (1,195,628) - 8 Metro Bus Operations 72.6 49.354% 1,906,393 410,854 20.121% 1,097,740 3,004,133 6,314,220 9,318,353 9 Sub-total 147.1 100.00% 3,862,677 2,041,910 100.000% 5,455,677 9,318,353 - 9,318,353 10 Total LA County Share - UZA 2 654.20 55,428,090$ 27,812,829 200.000% 96,069,665$ 151,497,755$ -$ 151,497,755$ Note:
(1) Operators’ share of Section 5337 will be exchanged with Metro’s share of Section 5307 allocation.

Directional Route Miles (DRM)
Allocation
Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM)
Allocation
FEDERAL SECTION 5337 - STATE OF GOOD REPAIR
Total $
Allocation
Fund
Exchange (1)
Net Funds
Available (1)
(Estimated - to be Adjusted to Actual apportionment)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHARE
(UZA 2)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
23 OPERATOR
LA UZA 2 NET

FORMULA
SHARE
Net Formula
Share Fund Exchange Net Funds
Available (1)
1 Antelope Valley 0.0891% 21,689$ (21,689)$ -$ 2 Arcadia 0.1736% 42,258 (42,258) - 3 Claremont 0.0195% 4,759 (4,759) - 4 Commerce 0.4094% 99,667 (99,667) - 5 Culver City 0.9550% 232,483 (232,483) - 6 Foothill Transit 9.3199% 2,268,937 (2,268,937) - 7 Gardena 1.0849% 264,115 (264,115) - 8 LADOT 4.9163% 1,196,864 (1,196,864) - 9 La Mirada 0.0705% 17,170 (17,170) - 10 Long Beach 6.8079% 1,657,396 (1,657,396) - 11 Montebello 1.6125% 392,552 (392,552) - 12 Metro Bus Operations 67.0657% 16,327,166 8,017,865 24,345,031 13 Norwalk 0.7227% 175,934 (175,934) - 14 Redondo Beach 0.3549% 86,391 (86,391) - 15 Santa Clarita 0.7489% 182,311 (182,311) - 16 Santa Monica 4.3352% 1,055,403 (1,055,403) - 17 Torrance 1.3142% 319,936 (319,936) - 18 TOTAL 100.0000% 24,345,031$ -$ 24,345,031$ Note:
(1) Operators’ share of Section 5339 will be exchanged with Metro’s share of Section 5307 allocation.

FEDERAL SECTION 5339 - BUS AND BUS CAPITAL ALLOCATION
(Estimated - to be Adjusted to Actual apportionment)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
24 Local Vehicle
Miles
[Input]
Express
Vehicle Miles
[Input]
Total Miles
Weighted 60%
Local/ 40%
Express
1/3 Weight
Active
Fleet (1)
[Input]
Peak Bus
Fixed
Route (2)
[Input]
Allowable
Peak Bus
(Peak+20%)
DAR
Seats (3)
[Input]
Bus Eqvt.
(44 Seats
per Bus)
Total Active
Vehicle 1/3 Weight
1 Antelope Valley 2,920,082 879,004 2,103,651 0.9494% 86 68 81.6 0 0.0 81.6 0.8367% 2 Arcadia DR 80,854 - 48,512 0.0219% 0 0 0.0 86 2.0 2.0 0.0200% 3 Arcadia MB 175,733 - 105,440 0.0476% 8 6 7.2 0 0.0 7.2 0.0738% 4 Claremont 21,284 - 12,770 0.0058% 0 0 0.0 50 1.1 1.1 0.0117% 5 Commerce 548,967 - 329,380 0.1487% 23 13 15.6 58 1.3 16.9 0.1735% 6 Culver City (4) 1,446,527 - 867,916 0.3917% 14 34 14.0 0 0.0 14.0 0.1435% 7 Foothill Transit 13,266,757 1,780,574 8,672,284 3.9140% 363 303 363.0 0 0.0 363.0 3.7220% 8 Gardena 1,214,284 - 728,570 0.3288% 52 25 30.0 55 1.3 31.3 0.3204% 9 LADOT 4,530,247 3,270,554 4,026,370 1.8172% 238 184 220.8 0 0.0 220.8 2.2639% 10 La Mirada 63,588 - 38,153 0.0172% 0 0 0.0 192 4.4 4.4 0.0447% 11 Long Beach 7,199,161 - 4,319,497 1.9495% 257 167 200.4 40 0.9 201.3 2.0641% 12 Montebello 1,807,261 42,366 1,101,303 0.4970% 71 44 52.8 40 0.9 53.7 0.5507% 13 Metro Bus Operations 72,934,371 5,310,913 45,884,988 20.7087% 2,059 1,605 1,926.0 0 0.0 1,926.0 19.7479% 14 Norwalk 993,350 - 596,010 0.2690% 34 20 24.0 0 0.0 24.0 0.2461% 15 Redondo Beach 477,707 - 286,624 0.1294% 14 14 14.0 75 1.7 15.7 0.1610% 16 Santa Clarita 1,756,235 750,476 1,353,931 0.6111% 83 66 79.2 0 0.0 79.2 0.8121% 17 Santa Monica 4,345,383 47,880 2,626,382 1.1853% 195 124 148.8 0 0.0 148.8 1.5257% 18 Torrance 1,003,896 383,827 755,868 0.3411% 64 49 58.8 54 1.2 60.0 0.6155% 19 TOTAL 114,785,687 12,465,594 73,857,650 33.3333% 3,561 2,722 3,236.2 650 14.8 3,251.0 33.3333% Notes:

CAPITAL ALLOCATION % SHARE CALCULATION
MILEAGE CALCULATION (FY23 data)

OPERATOR
ACTIVE FLEET CALCULATION (FY23 data)
Include only MTA Funded Programs:
(1) Source: NTD Report Form A-30 "Vehicle Inventory Report (Mode MB), Number of Active Vehicles in Fleet". LADOT's total active vehicles is reported separately. (2) Source: NTD Report Form S-10 "Service Non-Rail (Mode MB), Vehicles Operated in Annual Maximum Service". LADOT's figure is from TPM excluding Community Dash. (3) Source: NTD Report Form A-30 "Vehicle Inventory Report (Mode DR), Seating Capacity". Redondo Beach's Seating Capacity is apportioned between FAP and non-FAP vehicles. (4) FY22 data.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY 2025 Transit Fund Allocations
25 FARE UNITS (FY23 data)
Passenger
Revenue
[Input]
Base
Fare $
[Input]
Fare Units 1/2 of 1/3
Weight
Unlinked
Passengers
[Input]
1/2 of 1/3
Weight
1 Antelope Valley $2,217,498 1.50$ 1,478,332 0.3187% 1,245,216 0.0779% 2.1827% -2.0936% 0.0891% 2 Arcadia DR 4,249 1.00 4,249 0.0009% 18,075 0.0011% 0.0440% 0.0015% 0.0455% 3 Arcadia MB 2,646 0.50 5,292 0.0011% 21,046 0.0013% 0.1239% 0.0042% 0.1281% 4 Claremont 10,455 2.50 4,182 0.0009% 9,356 0.0006% 0.0189% 0.0006% 0.0195% 5 Commerce (1) - - 210,431 0.0454% 453,890 0.0284% 0.3959% 0.0135% 0.4094% 6 Culver City (4) 1,142,579 1.00 1,142,579 0.2464% 2,267,843 0.1418% 0.9234% 0.0315% 0.9550% 7 Foothill Transit 8,020,698 2.00 4,010,349 0.8647% 8,181,484 0.5116% 9.0122% 0.3077% 9.3199% 8 Gardena 1,303,375 1.00 1,303,375 0.2810% 1,899,928 0.1188% 1.0491% 0.0358% 1.0849% 9 LADOT 1,047,311 1.50 698,207 0.1505% 8,352,044 0.5223% 4.7540% 0.1623% 4.9163% 10 La Mirada 20,863 1.00 20,863 0.0045% 27,805 0.0017% 0.0682% 0.0023% 0.0705% 11 Long Beach 8,805,512 1.25 7,044,410 1.5188% 16,803,005 1.0508% 6.5832% 0.2248% 6.8079% 12 Montebello 1,809,209 1.10 1,644,735 0.3546% 2,508,327 0.1569% 1.5592% 0.0532% 1.6125% 13 Metro Bus Operations 90,645,870 1.75 51,797,640 11.1681% 211,509,937 13.2268% 64.8516% 2.2141% 67.0657% 14 Norwalk 694,469 1.25 555,575 0.1198% 1,022,686 0.0640% 0.6988% 0.0239% 0.7227% 15 Redondo Beach 164,216 1.00 164,216 0.0354% 277,558 0.0174% 0.3431% 0.0117% 0.3549% 16 Santa Clarita 1,663,831 1.00 1,663,831 0.3587% 2,352,549 0.1471% 1.9290% -1.1801% 0.7489% 17 Santa Monica 5,779,723 1.25 4,623,778 0.9969% 7,741,258 0.4841% 4.1921% 0.1431% 4.3352% 18 Torrance 927,819 1.00 927,819 0.2000% 1,824,957 0.1141% 1.2708% 0.0434% 1.3142% 19 TOTAL $124,260,323 77,299,864 16.6667% 266,516,964 16.6667% 100.0000% 0.0000% 100.0000% Note:

Passenger
Miles %
Re-Allocated
Share
Passenger
Miles %
Re-Allocated
Share
20 Non-LA 2 UZA (AV 123 for AVTA, AV 176 for Santa Clarita) 12,274,250 95.9184% 2.0936% 8,348,318 61.1782% 1.1801% 21 UZA number LA 2 522,303 4.0816% 0.0891% 5,297,581 38.8218% 0.7489% 22 Total 12,796,553 100.0000% 2.1827% 13,645,899 100.0000% 1.9290% (1) Commerce Fare Units are calculated as follows: ((Total Fare Units w/out MTA and Commerce) / (Total Unlinked Passengers w/out MTA and Commerce)) * Commerce Unlinked Passengers.

SANTA CLARITA ANTELOPE VALLEY
FORM FFA10, SECTION 9 STATISTICS PASSENGER MILES IS USED TO CALCULATE AVTA AND SANTA CLARITA'S RE-ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL MONIES.

OPERATOR
UNLINKED PASSENGERS (FY23
data) Gross
Formula
Share
Federal Section 5307 Capital Allocation
FISCAL YEAR 2025
CAPITAL ALLOCATION % SHARE CALCULATION (Continued)
Re-Allocate
AVTA And
Santa
Clarita's Non-
LA2 UZA
Share
LA UZA 2 Net
Formula
Share