STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Memorandum
To: CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS CTC Meeting: June 28-29, 2023 From: TANISHA TAYLOR, Interim Executive Director
Reference Number: 4.9, Action
Prepared By: Beverley Newman-Burckhard
Assistant Deputy Director
Published Date: June 16, 2023
Subject: Adoption of the 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization Component for the Nine of Ten Large Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Resolution G-23-49
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the California Transportation Commission (Commission) adopt the 2023 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) component for nine of the ten large metropolitan planning organizations, in accordance with the resolution in Attachment A and staff recommendations in Attachment B. This is the final programming action for the 2023 Active Transportation Program. Commission staff recommendations align with each metropolitan planning organization’s proposed program of projects shown in Attachment C. The staff recommendations include the following metropolitan planning organizations:
• Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG)
• Kern Council of Governments (KCOG)
• Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)
• San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
• San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG)
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) • Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG)
• Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (TMPO)
• Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG)
Issue:
Staff recommends 134 projects for funding, totaling $539.754 million in Active Transportation Program funding and with total project costs of $936.885 million. These projects include a broad range of active transportation infrastructure improvements, including over 120 miles of new bikeways, 60 miles of new sidewalks, intersection timing improvements, high-visibility crosswalks, intersection bike boxes, shade trees, bike racks, benches, wayfinding signage, lighting improvements, Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant curb ramps, and bus boarding islands. The recommendations include:
CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS Reference No.: 4.9
June 28-29, 2023
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • $ 494.092 million (92 percent) for 120 projects benefitting disadvantaged communities (DACs), exceeding the Senate Bill 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines requirements that a minimum of 25 percent of overall program funds must benefit disadvantaged communities. Each metropolitan planning organization exceeded the 25 percent threshold.
• $ 290.380 million (54 percent) for 60 Safe-Routes-to-School projects.
Metropolitan Planning Organization Pr ogramming Recommendations The following table provides a summary of proposed programming recommendations. The funding amounts are represented in thousands:
MPO # of
Proj. 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 Total ATP
Funding
Fund
Est.
Target
Under /
(Over)
Target
FCOG 10 $1,002 $3,915 $7,184 $6,514 $18,615 $18,615 $0
KCOG 7 $70 $4,562 $1,820 $10,346 $16,798 $16,798 $0
SACOG 10 $4,462 $2,837 $4,155 $34,058 $45,512 $45,512 $0 SANDAG 15 $21,462 $6,814 $15,807 $17,844 $61,927 $61,927 $0 SCAG 77 $50,091 $77,592 $92,877 $140,591 $361,151 $361,151 $0 SJCOG 4 $5,106 $6,946 $200 $1,459 $13,711 $13,711 $0
StanCOG 5 $1,063 $1,276 $4,410 $3,543 $10,292 $10,292 $0 TCAG 4 $168 $4,209 $2,416 $2,054 $8,847 $8,847 $0
TMPO 2 $2,901 $0 $0 $0 $2,901 $2,901 $0
TOTAL 134 $86,325 $108,151 $128,869 $216,409 $539,754 $539,754 $0
The following table shows the amount of funding benefitting disadvantaged communities for each Metropolitan Planning Organization. The funding amounts are represented in thousands:
MPO # DAC
Projects
Total DAC
Funding
25 Percent
DAC Target*
Under/(Over)
Target
Percentage
of Funding
to DAC
FCOG 10 $18,615 $4,654 ($13,961) 100%
KCOG 7 $16,798 $4,200 ($12,599) 100%
SACOG 5 $19,900 $11,378 ($8,522) 44%
SANDAG 14 $57,037 $15,482 ($41,555) 92%
SCAG 71 $349,607 $90,288 ($259,319) 97%
SJCOG 4 $13,711 $3,428 ($10,283) 100%
StanCOG 4 $8,314 $2,573 ($5,741) 81%
TCAG 4 $8,847 $2,212 ($6,635) 100%
TMPO 1 $1,200 $725 ($475) 41%
TOTAL 120 $494,029 $134,939 ($359,091) 92%
*Each metropolitan planning organization must program at least 25 percent of its apportioned funds to disadvantaged communities.
CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS Reference No.: 4.9
June 28-29, 2023
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Metropolitan Planning Organization Evaluation Process
The Commission adopted the 2023 Active Transportation Program Statewide and Small Urban and Rural Components on December 7, 2022. Projects located within the boundaries of one of the ten large metropolitan planning organizations that were not programmed in the Statewide competitive component were distributed to the applicable metropolitan planning organization for funding consideration.
The 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines allow a metropolitan planning organization to delegate its project selection to the Commission using the Statewide competition project selection criteria; or, with Commission approval, a metropolitan planning organization may use different project selection criteria, scoring weights, minimum project request, and match requirement. Additionally, a metropolitan planning organization may issue a supplemental call for projects for its regional competition.
The Commission approved the 2023 Active Transportation Program Regional Guidelines that allow for different project selection criteria for the following metropolitan planning organizations; the Fresno Council of Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the San Diego Association of Governments, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Southern California Association of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Tulare County Association of Governments. Of these metropolitan planning organizations, the Fresno Council of Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, and the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization issued supplemental calls for projects.
The Kern Council of Governments did not propose 2023 Active Transportation Program Regional Guidelines and instead used the state selection process. The next highest-ranking projects from the Statewide component located within the boundaries of the Kern Council of Governments are recommended for funding, except in cases where limited funding would not allow for a project with a sufficiently funded scope.
Project Examples
The 134 recommended projects include a broad range of active transportation infrastructure improvements. Some specific project examples include:
Fresno Council of Governments:
City of Parlier – Limitless Lane Network ($3.008 million in ATP funding): This project will serve a low-income, farmworker community with some of the highest rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, low birth weights, and poverty in California. Additionally, the community has some of the highest pollution and pesticide exposure rates in the state. Many parents leave for work in the early hours of the morning, meaning that most children in the community must walk or bike to school. Improvements include median- protected Class IV bikeways, bulb-outs to shorten crossing distances, and shade trees to create a more comfortable place to walk and bike. Once built, the project will provide a safe connection to three schools, city hall, the public library, the community center, the post office, four parks, existing Class I pathways, places of worship, and several grocery stores.
CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS Reference No.: 4.9
June 28-29, 2023
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Kern Council of Governments:
• City of Tehachapi – Valley Boulevard and Mill Street Gap Closure Project ($3.266 million in ATP funding): This project will benefit a low-income community whose residents lack access to vehicles in a neighborhood with limited active transportation facilities. Currently, children walk to school on muddy shoulders, and bicyclists must brave the vehicle lanes with fast-moving traffic. This project will construct sidewalks and Class II bike lanes, closing a gap in the City's active transportation network and connecting residents to affordable housing, schools, places of worship, parks, medical facilities, trails, a community arts center, the community pool, and a community college.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments:
• Sacramento County – Bell Street Safe Routes to School ($8.808 million in ATP funding): This project will be located within the historically disadvantaged neighborhood of West Arden Arcade. West Arden Arcade suffers from high levels of poverty, pollution, and food insecurity. The community is home to several vulnerable populations, including seniors who rely on active transportation to access everyday necessities and a large cohort of Afghan refugees with limited vehicle access. The streets that these communities currently traverse lack continuous sidewalks, safe crossings, and dedicated spaces for bicycles. This project will construct sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, crosswalks, curb ramps, and shortened crossings, providing residents with safer access to schools, parks, food banks and pantries, senior centers, the hospital, transit, and grocery stores.
San Diego Association of Governments:
• City of National City – 22
nd Street Separated Bikeway ($3.288 million in ATP
funding): This project will serve a low-income community with limited access to vehicles and high levels of pollution from nearby freeways and industrial land use. Many residents rely on transit but lack safe facilities to walk and bike to the transit center. This project will construct a Class I separated path and protected Class IV bikeways to create a more comfortable active transportation environment. Other improvements include bike signals, sidewalks, and intersection timing improvements. Once built, the project will connect residents to the transit center, affordable housing, schools, the Boys and Girls Club, the YMCA, and government services. From the transit center, community members can reach major employment centers, San Diego State University, and the University of California, San Diego.
San Joaquin Council of Governments:
• City of Stockton – Main and Market Complete Streets ($8.226 million in ATP funding): This project will benefit a low-income community that is disproportionately burdened by pollution. Many residents lack access to vehicles, so they must walk and bike on streets without sidewalks and bike lanes. This project will provide Class II bike lanes, new and enhanced sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, and improved intersection lighting. Once constructed, the project will provide residents will a safer connection to the train depot, convention center, city hall, library, post office, transit stops, employment centers, and parks.
CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS Reference No.: 4.9
June 28-29, 2023
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Southern California Association of Governments:
• City of Los Angeles - Boyle Heights Community Connectivity Project ($32.019 million in ATP funding): This project will be located in a low-income community disproportionately affected by pollution from nearby freeways and a toxic waste site that is currently being decontaminated. Many residents rely on active transportation to get to work and to access daily necessities. However, they must navigate dangerous crossings, broken sidewalks, and freeway onramps and offramps while walking and biking. This project will transform the community by adding protected Class IV bikeways, new sidewalks, improved crosswalks, bike racks, bike lockers, hydration stations, e-bike charging stations, street lighting, shade trees, and benches. Once built, the project will provide residents with a comfortable connection to schools, parks, sports and recreation centers, medical centers, transit, and affordable housing.
Stanislaus Council of Governments:
• City of Ceres - Improving Pedestrian Safety on Central Ave and Hackett Road Corridor ($2.495 million in ATP funding): This project will serve a low-income community where many children walk or bike to school. These students must navigate dusty, busy streets without sidewalks or bike lanes. Where sidewalks do exist, they are often in disrepair or obstructed by power poles. This project will add Class II bike lanes, sidewalks, curb ramps, and shortened crossings to create a safer walking and biking environment. Once built, the project will connect residents to schools, parks, the downtown business district, city hall, the community center, the laundromat, and the market.
Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization:
• City of South Lake Tahoe – Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project Phase 2 ($1.200 million in ATP funding): This project will benefit a low-income community that works primarily in the tourism industry in South Lake Tahoe. The project will add Class II bike lanes, street lighting, sidewalks, and shortened pedestrian crossing distances. Once constructed, the project will provide residents with a safer connection to employment centers and shopping.
Tulare County Association of Governments:
• Tulare County Association of Governments – Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project, Phase 1 ($2.981 million in ATP funding): This project is located on the Tule River Reservation, where many residents lack access to drinking water, healthy food, and vehicles. The Reservation has limited active transportation facilities, leaving residents to choose between walking and biking in the traffic lanes or dirty and muddy shoulders. This project will add sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, intersection lighting, and a multi-use trail. In addition, the project includes non-infrastructure bike and pedestrian skills courses for children. Once built, the project will connect community members to the Tribal Education Center, community health center, Tribal Council, Justice Center, and gymnasium.
CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS Reference No.: 4.9
June 28-29, 2023
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commission staff recommendations are consistent with the Metropolitan Planning Organization component project selection process set forth in the 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines (Section 42, Metropolitan Planning Organizations with Large Urbanized Areas) and the following:
• Funding levels identified in the Amended 2023 Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate.
• Eligibility for the program.
• The relevant 2023 Active Transportation Program Regional Guidelines for each metropolitan planning organization.
• Statutory requirements.
Background:
The Active Transportation Program was created by Senate Bill 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Senate Bill 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) directs additional funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the Active Transportation Program. Along with the program’s overall purpose of encouraging walking and biking, the program aims to increase the share of walking and biking trips, increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users, help regional agencies achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhance public health, ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in program benefits, and provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users.
The Commission adopted the 2023 Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate in March 2022, which provided $650.7 million to the program. The Budget Act of 2022 included a one- time Active Transportation Program funding augmentation of $1.049 billion, bringing the total funding available for the 2023 program to $1.707 billion. In alignment with statute, the funding was apportioned to the Statewide (50 percent), Small Urban and Rural (10 percent), and Metropolitan Planning Organization (40 percent) components as follows:
• Statewide component – $853.520 million. The Commission programmed this funding to 67 projects on December 7, 2022.
• Small Urban and Rural component – $170.704 million. The Commission programmed this funding to 26 projects on December 7, 2022.
• Metropolitan Planning Organization component - $682.816 million. The Commission programmed $143.062 million of this total to 15 projects in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission region on May 18, 2023.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Resolution G-23-49
• Attachment B: 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization Component Commission Staff Recommendations
• Attachment
C: 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization Proposed Programming Submittals
• Updated Project
Programming Requests (Link)
Reference No.: 4.9
June 28-29, 2023
Attachment A
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Adoption of the 2023 Active Transportation Program
Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
Nine of Ten Large Metropolitan Planning Organizations
RESOLUTION G-23-49
1.1 WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code Section 2384 requires the California Transportation Commission (Commission) adopt a program of projects to receive allocations under the Active Transportation Program; and
1.2 WHEREAS, the Commission must adopt a program of projects for the Active Transportation Program at least every two years, with each program covering four fiscal years; and
1.3 WHEREAS, the Commission adopted the 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines on March 16, 2022; and
1.4 WHEREAS, the guidelines describe the policies, standards, criteria, and procedures for the development and management of the 2023 Active Transportation Program funding cycle; and
1.5 WHEREAS, the Amended 2023 Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate provides over $1.7 billion in programming capacity to the 2023 Active Transportation Program, to be apportioned to the Statewide (50 percent [$853.520 million]), Small Urban and Rural (10 percent [$170.704 million]), and Metropolitan Planning Organization (40 percent [$682.816 million]) components in fiscal years 2023-24 through 2026-27; and
1.6 WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highway Code Section 2382 subdivision (c), no less than 25 percent of overall program funds and funds in each component must benefit disadvantaged communities during each program cycle; and
1.7 WHEREAS, the Commission adopted the 2023 Active Transportation Program Statewide and Small Urban and Rural components on December 7, 2022; and
1.8 WHEREAS, the Commission programmed $143.062 million of the $682.816 million apportioned to the Metropolitan Planning Organization component to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission region on May 18, 2023; and
1.9 WHEREAS, the staff recommendations for the 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization component for the remaining nine of ten large metropolitan planning organizations were published and made available to the public on June 5, 2023; and
1.10 WHEREAS, the staff recommendations conform with the 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines and other statutory requirements for the Active Transportation Program; and
1.11 WHEREAS, the Commission considered the staff recommendations and public testimony at its June 28-29, 2023 meeting.
Reference No.: 4.9
June 28-29, 2023
Attachment A
2.1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts the 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization component for nine of the ten large metropolitan planning organizations, as indicated in Attachment B; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that having a project included in the adopted 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization component is not an authorization to begin work on that project. Contracts may not be awarded, nor may work begin, until the Commission approves an allocation for a project in the adopted program; and
2.3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a project included in the adopted 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization component must comply with the 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines; and
2.4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the project amounts approved for funding shall be considered as a “not to exceed amount” and that any increases in cost estimates beyond the levels reflected in the adopted program are the responsibility of the appropriate agency; and
2.5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if available funding is less than assumed in the Fund Estimate, the Commission may be forced to delay or restrict allocations using interim allocation plans, or, if available funding proves to be greater than assumed, it may be possible to allocate funding to some projects earlier than the year programmed; and
2.6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that staff, in consultation with Caltrans, is authorized to make further technical changes in cost, schedules, and descriptions for projects in the 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization component to reflect the most current information, or to clarify the Commission’s programming commitments, and shall request Commission approval of any substantive changes; and
2.7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission directs staff to post the 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan Planning Organization component program of projects on the Commission’s website.
California Transportation Commission
2023 Active Transportation Program
MPO Component
Nine of Ten MPOs
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
MPO County Application ID Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI Project Type DAC SRTS State
Score
Regional
Score or
Rank*
FCOG Fresno 6-Fresno, City of-3† Downtown Neighborhood Safe Schools Crossing 1,636$ 1,636$ 148 $ 7 $ 1,472 $ 9 $ 3 $ 145 $ 7 $ 1,472 $ 9 $ Small Infrastructure +
Non-Infrastructure X X 86 84
FCOG Fresno 6-Fresno County-3^ Calwa Sidewalk Project 3,429$ 2,697$ 39 $ 314 $ - $ 2,344 $ 39 $ 314 $ - $ 2,344 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 83 82 FCOG Fresno 6-Parlier, City of-1† City of Parlier Limitless Lane Network 3,008$ 3,008$ 15 $ 345 $ 2,648 $ - $ 15 $ 345 $ - $ 2,648 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 89 82 FCOG Fresno 6-Parlier, City of-2#
City of Parlier Schools Corridor Active Transportation
Improvements Project 3,000$ 3,000$ 270 $ 408 $ 2,322 $ - $ 10 $ 408 $ - $ 2,322 $ 260 $ Small Infrastructure +
Non-Infrastructure X X N/A 81
FCOG Fresno 6-Coalinga, City of-1†
Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Pacific South
and Gregory North 2,016$ 1,774$ 117 $ - $ 197 $ 1,460 $ 117 $ 91 $ 106 $ 1,460 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 83 80 FCOG Fresno 6-Fowler, City of-2
Fremont Elementary/ Marshall Elementary/Fowler
High Safe Routes to School 600$ 600$ 5 $ 50 $ 545 $ - $ 5 $ 50 $ - $ 545 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 71 78 FCOG Fresno 6-Selma, City of-2# Selma Branch Canal Parkway Project 3,500$ 3,098$ 13 $ 384 $ - $ 2,701 $ 13 $ 384 $ - $ 2,701 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X N/A 76 FCOG Fresno 6-Fresno County-2^ Tranquility Sidewalk Project 4,608$ 458$ 79 $ 379 $ - $ - $ 79 $ 379 $ - $ - $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 74 74 FCOG Fresno 6-Fresno County-5#
Herndon-Barstow Elementary High Intensity Activated
Crosswalk 801$ 603$ 107 $ 496 $ - $ - $ - $ 84 $ 23 $ 496 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X N/A 74 FCOG Fresno 6-Huron, City of-1 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements 1,741$ 1,741$ 209 $ 1,532 $ - $ - $ 5 $ 204 $ - $ 1,532 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 69 71 KCOG Kern 9-Tehachapi, City of-1 Valley Boulevard and Mill Street Gap Closure Project 3,266$ 3,266$ 65 $ 315 $ 200 $ 2,686 $ 65 $ 315 $ 200 $ 2,686 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 87 87 KCOG Kern 6-Kern County - D6-4
Kern River Parkway Multi-use Path Safety &
Connectivity Project 8,035$ 6,800$ - $ 900 $ - $ 5,900 $ - $ 900 $ - $ 5,900 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 81 81 KCOG Kern 6-Kern County - D6-5 Safe Route To School (SRTS) ADA Crosswalk Safety 2,342$ 1,760$ - $ - $ - $ 1,760 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,760 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 78 78 KCOG Kern 6-Wasco, City of-1 Central Avenue Class I & Class II Bicycle Trails 660$ 660$ 5 $ 71 $ 584 $ - $ 5 $ 71 $ - $ 584 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 73 73 KCOG Kern 6-Delano, City of-1
ATP-6 SRTS Sidewalk Gap and Crosswalk
Improvement Project 703$ 703$ - $ 75 $ 628 $ - $ - $ 75 $ - $ 628 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 71 71 KCOG Kern 6-Taft, City of-1
10th St & San Emidio St - Intersection Safety
Improvements 455$ 455$ - $ 47 $ 408 $ - $ 5 $ 42 $ - $ 408 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 70 70 KCOG Kern 6-Bakersfield, City of-3^ H Street Corrior (SR-204 to Hwy 58) 8,454$ 3,154$ - $ 3,154 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,154 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 66 66 SACOG Sacramento 3-Elk Grove, City of-1
Laguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail SR 99
Overcrossing and Gap Closure 10,900$ 6,874$ - $ - $ - $ 6,874 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,874 $ - $ Large Infrastructure 66 83 SACOG Sacramento 3-Citrus Heights, City of-3# Arcade Cripple Creek Extension 8,084$ 7,155$ 500 $ - $ 806 $ 5,849 $ 500 $ 600 $ 206 $ 5,849 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X N/A 81 SACOG Placer 3-Roseville, City of-1 Dry Creek Greenway East Multi-Use Trail, Phase 2 8,942$ 6,063$ - $ - $ - $ 6,063 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,848 $ 215 $ Medium Infrastructure
+ Non-Infrastructure 66 81
SACOG El Dorado 3-El Dorado County-2
El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road
Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing 5,850$ 3,271$ 3,271 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,271 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure 80 79 SACOG Sacramento
3- Sacramento County Regional
Parks-1# Dry Creek Parkway Trail 8,696$ 7,704$ - $ - $ 975 $ 6,729 $ - $ 975 $ - $ 6,729 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure N/A 78 SACOG Sacramento 3-Sacramento County-2 Bell Street Safe Routes to School 9,949$ 8,808$ 270 $ 2,102 $ - $ 6,436 $ 270 $ 340 $ 1,762 $ 6,304 $ 132 $ Medium Infrastructure
+ Non-Infrastructure X X 82 78
SACOG Sacramento 3-Sacramento, City of-3# 9th Street Separated Bikeway Project 2,899$ 2,564$ 132 $ - $ 325 $ 2,107 $ 132 $ 325 $ - $ 2,107 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X N/A 77 SACOG Yolo 3-West Sacramento, City of-2‡
West Capitol Avenue Regional Connection Bicyclist
and Pedestrian Safety Improvements 909$ 735$ - $ 735 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 735 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X N/A 77 SACOG Sacramento 3-Folsom, City of-1 Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project 3,048$ 1,700$ 200 $ - $ 1,500 $ - $ - $ 200 $ - $ 1,500 $ - $ Small Infrastructure 84 76 SACOG Yolo 3-West Sacramento, City of-3#
North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity
Project 3,536$ 638$ 89 $ - $ 549 $ - $ 89 $ 310 $ 239 $ - $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X N/A 76 SANDAG San Diego
11-San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)-3§
Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional
Bikeways 68,596$ 4,614$ 4,614 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,614 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Large Infrastructure X X 87 1 SANDAG San Diego 11-National City, City of-5# Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 9,588$ 2,072$ 2,072 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,072 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X N/A 2 SANDAG San Diego 11-Chula Vista, City of-1
F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to
Broadway 18,845$ 9,762$ 78 $ - $ 1,295 $ 8,389 $ 78 $ 1,295 $ - $ 8,389 $ - $ Large Infrastructure X X 75 3 SANDAG San Diego 11-National City, City of-6#
8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing
Enhancements 6,373$ 2,248$ 600 $ - $ 1,648 $ - $ 100 $ 370 $ 130 $ 1,648 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X N/A 4 California Transportation Commission Page 1 of 5 June 7, 2023 California Transportation Commission
2023 Active Transportation Program
MPO Component
Nine of Ten MPOs
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
MPO County Application ID Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI Project Type DAC SRTS State
Score
Regional
Score or
Rank*
SANDAG San Diego
11-San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)-5§
Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection
(PACTAC) 88,131$ 3,818$ 3,818 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,818 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Large Infrastructure X 76 6 SANDAG San Diego 11-El Cajon, City of-1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout 6,800$ 5,984$ 575 $ - $ 5,409 $ - $ 3 $ 572 $ - $ 5,409 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 67 9 SANDAG San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6^
Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with
Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities 1,500$ 1,239$ 1,239 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,239 $ Plan X 67 10 SANDAG San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot 500$ 500$ 500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500 $ Non-Infrastructure X 61 11 SANDAG San Diego
11-San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)-6#
Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson
Bikeway 9,530$ 5,172$ 546 $ 4,626 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 546 $ 4,626 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X N/A 12 SANDAG San Diego 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3# Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 4,891$ 4,890$ 374 $ - $ 4,516 $ - $ - $ 374 $ - $ 4,516 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure N/A 13 SANDAG San Diego 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 8,085$ 8,004$ 115 $ 1,194 $ - $ 6,695 $ 115 $ 1,194 $ - $ 6,695 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 76 14 SANDAG San Diego
11-San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)-7#
Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection
Safety Improvements 9,345$ 6,344$ 6,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,344 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X N/A 15 SANDAG San Diego 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A 3,810$ 3,010$ 100 $ 150 $ 2,760 $ - $ 100 $ 150 $ - $ 2,760 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 78 17 SANDAG San Diego 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway 3,290$ 3,288$ 148 $ 380 $ - $ 2,760 $ 148 $ 380 $ - $ 2,760 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 87 19 SANDAG San Diego
11-San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)-4^ Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway 8,800$ 982$ 339 $ 464 $ 179 $ - $ 339 $ 366 $ 98 $ 179 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 83 21 SCAG Imperial
11-Imperial County Transportation
Commission-1
Pedestrian Improvementsfor the Calexico Intermodal
Transportation Center 1,173$ 1,073$ - $ 1,073 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,073 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 60 80 SCAG Imperial 11-El Centro, City of-1 City of El Centro Pedestrian Improvement Project 1,300$ 1,200$ - $ - $ 1,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 56 76 SCAG Imperial 11-Calipatria, City of-1
City of Calipatria - Bonita Place Pedestrian Safety
Project 997$ 997$ 88 $ 909 $ - $ - $ 20 $ 68 $ - $ 909 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 48 68 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Los Angeles, City of-8§ Boyle Heights Community Connectivity Project 37,725$ 32,019$ 3,395 $ - $ 2,886 $ 25,738 $ 3,395 $ 2,037 $ 849 $ 25,738 $ - $ Large Infrastructure X X 89 99 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Pasadena, City of-1
North Lake Avenue Pedestrian and Safety
Enhancement Project 10,116$ 9,938$ 120 $ 702 $ - $ 9,116 $ 120 $ 672 $ 30 $ 9,116 $ - $ Large Infrastructure X 88 98 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Huntington Park, City of-1
Huntington Park’s Safe Routes for Students and
Seniors 4,761$ 4,261$ 55 $ 320 $ 3,886 $ - $ 55 $ 320 $ - $ 3,886 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 87 97 SCAG Los Angeles
7-San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments-1
Pomona Safe and Active: Bike/Ped Safety
Improvements & Gap Closure 9,998$ 5,976$ 418 $ 5,558 $ - $ - $ - $ 299 $ 119 $ 5,558 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 87 97 SCAG Los Angeles
University, Pomona (Cal Poly
Pomona)-1
Cal Poly Pomona Campuswide Active Transportation
Plan 299$ 299$ - $ 299 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 299 $ Plan X X 87 96 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Pico Rivera, City of-1 Pico Rivera Active Transportation Master Plan 411$ 411$ 411 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 411 $ Plan X 85 95 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Artesia, City of-1†
Pioneer Boulevard Improvements Project, City of
Artesia 3,549$ 2,755$ 116 $ 306 $ 2,333 $ - $ 116 $ 306 $ - $ 2,333 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 87 94 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Los Angeles County-4§
Rosewood/West Rancho Dominguez Vision Zero
Traffic Safety Enhancement Project 25,163$ 10,730$ 766 $ 1,150 $ 8,814 $ 766 $ 1,150 $ - $ 8,814 $ - $ Large Infrastructure X 89 94 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Paramount, City of-1
West Paramount Utility Easement Multi-Use Path -
Phase 1 9,661$ 9,661$ 10 $ 765 $ 8,886 $ - $ 10 $ 750 $ 15 $ 8,886 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 85 94 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Los Angeles County-5 Walnut Park Pedestrian Plan Implementation 8,395$ 2,446$ 175 $ 262 $ 2,009 $ - $ 175 $ 262 $ - $ 2,009 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 83 93 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Los Angeles County-6†
Unincorporated Los Angeles County Safe Routes to
School Plan 750$ 750$ 750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750 $ Plan X X 83 93 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Los Angeles, City of-10§
SRTS Center City Schools Neighborhood Safety &
Climate Resilience Project 36,238$ 30,766$ 3,296 $ - $ 2,198 $ 25,272 $ 3,296 $ 2,198 $ - $ 25,272 $ - $ Large Infrastructure X X 83 93 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Glendale, City of-2 Phase 1 of Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan 10,000$ 9,000$ 9,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,000 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 83 92 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Lancaster, City of-1†
City of Lancaster 5th Street Corridor School
Connections Project 8,332$ 6,655$ 471 $ 711 $ - $ 5,473 $ 471 $ 711 $ - $ 5,473 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 86 91 SCAG Los Angeles 7-South Gate, City of-2
WSAB LRT Stations First-Last Mile Bikeway Safety
and Access Project 3,375$ 3,375$ - $ 3,375 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,375 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 81 91 SCAG Los Angeles 7-West Covina, City of-1
West Covina Safe Routes to School & Pedestrian
Safety Project 2,561$ 2,561$ 10 $ 180 $ 2,371 $ - $ 1 0 $ 180 $ - $ 2,371 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 88 91 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Carson, City of-1 City of Carson Master Bicycle Plan 897$ 897$ 897 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 897 $ Plan X 80 90 California Transportation Commission Page 2 of 5 June 7, 2023 California Transportation Commission
2023 Active Transportation Program
MPO Component
Nine of Ten MPOs
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
MPO County Application ID Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI Project Type DAC SRTS State
Score
Regional
Score or
Rank*
SCAG Los Angeles 7-Los Angeles County-10
Pedestrian Plans for Five High-Collision
Disadvantaged Communities in LA County 1,968$ 1,968$ - $ 1,968 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,968 $ Plan X 80 90 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Santa Monica, City of-1 Wilshire Active Transportation Safety Project 5,957$ 4,765$ - $ 4,765 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,765 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 82 89 SCAG Los Angeles 7-South El Monte, City of-1 Merced Avenue Greenway 3,488$ 2,561$ - $ 2,561 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,561 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 83 88 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Avalon, City of-1 Tremont Five Corners School Safety Roundabouts 4,092$ 3,238$ 3,238 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,210 $ 28 $ Medium Infrastructure
+ Non-Infrastructure X X 86 87
SCAG Los Angeles 7-Diamond Bar, City of-1 Diamond Bar Boulevard Complete Streets Project 7,047$ 3,936$ - $ 3,936 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,936 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure 85 87 SCAG Los Angeles 7-South Gate, City of-1† Tweedy Boulevard Complete Streets, Phase II 6,594$ 5,257$ - $ 5,257 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,257 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 82 87 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Downey, City of-1 South Downey Safe Routes to School Phase II Project 1,145$ 1,145$ 165 $ 120 $ 860 $ - $ 65 $ 120 $ - $ 860 $ 100 $ Small Infrastructure +
Non-Infrastructure X X 83 85
SCAG Los Angeles 7-Pomona, City of-1
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway in the City of
Pomona 13,123$ 11,623$ - $ 11,623 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,305 $ 318 $ Large Infrastructure +
Non-Infrastructure X 82 85
SCAG Los Angeles 7-La Puente, City of-1
City of La Puente's Safe Routes for Students
Improvement Project 4,389$ 4,384$ - $ 325 $ 4,059 $ - $ - $ 300 $ 25 $ 4,059 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 79 82 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Los Angeles County-1 Los Nietos Pedestrian Access Improvements 6,542$ 5,233$ 561 $ - $ 374 $ 4,298 $ 561 $ 374 $ - $ 4,298 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure
+ Non-Infrastructure X 78 81
SCAG Los Angeles 7-Signal Hill, City of-1
E. Burnett Street Historical District Pedestrian and
Bike Enhancement Project 2,894$ 2,785$ 192 $ 306 $ 2,287 $ - $ 192 $ 306 $ - $ 2,287 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 79 81 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Los Angeles County-9‡ Lennox Vision Zero Traffic Safety Enhancements 1,141$ 1,141$ 1,141 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,141 $ - $ Quick Build N/A 80 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Carson, City of-2†
City of Carson City-wide Community Safety
Improvements 3,467$ 3,451$ 30 $ 175 $ - $ 3,246 $ 30 $ 175 $ - $ 3,246 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 75 78 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Cudahy, City of-1 Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7,125$ 7,125$ 275 $ 632 $ 675 $ 5,543 $ 275 $ 632 $ 675 $ 5,543 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 68 78 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Santa Clarita, City of-2‡
Orchard Village Road Protected Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facility 764$ 764$ 764 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 764 $ - $ Quick Build N/A 77 SCAG Los Angeles
7-San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments-3^§
East San Gabriel Valley Sustainable Multimodal
Improvement Project 64,829$ 100$ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Large Infrastructure X 58 66 SCAG Los Angeles 7-Maywood, City of-1^
Randolph Street Bike and Facilities Improvement
Project 1,375$ 145$ - $ 15 $ 130 $ - $ 15 $ 130 $ - $ - $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 58 63 SCAG Orange 12-Anaheim, City of-1 Rio Vista Safe Routes to School Project 1,312$ 1,312$ 40 $ 293 $ 979 $ - $ 40 $ 173 $ 120 $ 979 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 88 108 SCAG Orange 12-Santa Ana, City of-16
Mendez lnt Advance Learning Santiago ES Sierra Int
SRTS 9,987$ 9,987$ 50 $ 900 $ - $ 9,037 $ 50 $ 900 $ - $ 9,037 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 88 105 SCAG Orange 12-Santa Ana, City of-20 Memory Lane and Flower Street Bikeway 6,264$ 5,000$ - $ 450 $ - $ 4,550 $ - $ 450 $ - $ 4,550 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 85 105 SCAG Orange 12-Santa Ana, City of-15 MacArthur Intermediate and Taft Elementary SRTS 4,900$ 4,900$ 50 $ 650 $ - $ 4,200 $ 50 $ 650 $ - $ 4,200 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 88 105 SCAG Orange 12-Buena Park, City of-1 Dale / Whitaker Complete Streets Project 4,595$ 4,368$ 765 $ 3,603 $ - $ - $ 100 $ 665 $ 130 $ 3,473 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 81 101 SCAG Orange 12-Santa Ana, City of-5 Jackson Elementary and Diamond Elementary SRTS 8,262$ 8,262$ 100 $ 850 $ - $ 7,312 $ 100 $ 850 $ - $ 7,312 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 84 101 SCAG Orange 12-Santa Ana, City of-12
Madison ES Roosevelt-Walker Academy Century HS
SRTS 9,990$ 9,990$ 50 $ 1,100 $ - $ 8,840 $ 50 $ 1,100 $ - $ 8,840 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 89 101 SCAG Orange 12-Fullerton, City of-1
Bridging the Gap: Nutwood Avenue Bicycle and
Pedestrian Mobility Enhancements 7,140$ 7,140$ 50 $ 1,385 $ 5,705 $ - $ 50 $ 1,300 $ 85 $ 5,705 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure
+ Non-Infrastructure X X 80 100
SCAG Orange 12-Anaheim, City of-2†
Anaheim Pedestrian Crosswalk Safety Improvements
Project 1,112$ 1,112$ 42 $ 128 $ - $ 942 $ 42 $ 128 $ - $ 942 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 82 99 SCAG Orange
12-Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA)-1 Next STEP (Safe Travels Education Program) 850$ 850$ 850 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 850 $ Non-Infrastructure X 67 82 SCAG Orange 12-Santa Ana, City of-1
Santa Ana High School and Heninger Elementary
School SRTS 8,222$ 8,222$ 120 $ 1,200 $ - $ 6,902 $ 120 $ 1,200 $ - $ 6,902 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 84 17 SCAG Riverside 8-Riverside County-7†
Riverside County Safe Routes for All
‐ City of Moreno
Valley 442$ 442$ - $ 442 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 442 $ Non-Infrastructure X X 87 107 SCAG Riverside 8-Desert Hot Springs, City of-1
Hacienda Avenue East SRTS Phase II Improvement
Project 9,922$ 8,422$ - $ - $ 8,422 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,422 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 89 102 SCAG Riverside 8-Menifee, City of-1 Harvest Valley Elementary Safe Routes to School 5,230$ 4,354$ 124 $ 1,483 $ 2,747 $ - $ 124 $ 417 $ 1,066 $ 2,747 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 89 96 California Transportation Commission Page 3 of 5 June 7, 2023 California Transportation Commission
2023 Active Transportation Program
MPO Component
Nine of Ten MPOs
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
MPO County Application ID Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI Project Type DAC SRTS State
Score
Regional
Score or
Rank*
SCAG Riverside 8-Desert Hot Springs, City of-2 Palm Drive Improvements ‐ I‐10 to Camino Aventura 9,973$ 8,975$ 8,975 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,975 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 76 96 SCAG Riverside 8-Riverside, City of-1
Five Points Neighborhood Pedestrian Safety
Improvements 7,416$ 6,525$ - $ - $ 1,134 $ 5,391 $ - $ - $ 1,134 $ 5,391 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 88 91 SCAG Riverside 8-Moreno Valley, City of-1 ADA Curb Ramps Remediation Project 1,523$ 1,523$ 270 $ - $ 1,253 $ - $ 100 $ 170 $ - $ 1,253 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 84 91 SCAG Riverside 8-Riverside, City of-4 Riverside Civil Rights Walk 3,216$ 3,216$ 200 $ 75 $ 2,941 $ - $ 200 $ 75 $ - $ 2,941 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 80 87 SCAG Riverside 8-Riverside, City of-2 Mitchell Avenue Sidepath Gap Closure 7,465$ 6,756$ - $ 245 $ 2,516 $ 3,995 $ - $ 245 $ 2,516 $ 3,995 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 83 86 SCAG Riverside 8-Menifee, City of-2 Romoland Elementary Safe Routes to School 5,561$ 4,880$ 131 $ 527 $ 4,222 $ - $ 131 $ 527 $ - $ 4,222 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X 77 84 SCAG Riverside 8-Palm Desert, City of-1^
Palm Desert Bicycle/Low Speed Electric Vehicle
Route 3,488$ 1,301$ 1,301 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,301 $ - $ Small Infrastructure +
Non-Infrastructure X 65 81
SCAG San Bernardino 8-Montclair, City of-1
Montclair Safe Routes to School Implementation
Project 6,335$ 5,701$ 521 $ 5,180 $ - $ - $ 130 $ 391 $ - $ 5,104 $ 76 $ Medium Infrastructure
+ Non-Infrastructure X X 89 109
SCAG San Bernardino 8-Upland, City of-1 City of Upland Mobility Master Plan 300$ 300$ 300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300 $ Plan X 84 104 SCAG San Bernardino 8-San Bernardino County-2
Bloomington Area Schools Pedestrian Safety
Improvements 3,383$ 3,383$ 302 $ 581 $ - $ 2,500 $ 302 $ 201 $ 380 $ 2,500 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 84 104 SCAG San Bernardino 8-San Bernardino County-1
San Bernardino Valley Safe Routes to School Plan
(Unincorporated Schools) 500$ 500$ 500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500 $ Plan X X 81 101 SCAG San Bernardino 8-Apple Valley, Town of-1 Powhatan Road Complete Streets, Apple Valley 1,735$ 1,562$ 202 $ 1,360 $ - $ - $ - $ 202 $ - $ 1,360 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 80 100 SCAG San Bernardino 8-Twentynine Palms, City of-1 Sullivan Road/Hatch Road Side Path/Bicycle Lanes 3,480$ 3,480$ 280 $ 200 $ 3,000 $ - $ 60 $ 220 $ 200 $ 3,000 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 78 98 SCAG San Bernardino 8-Rialto, City of-1 Rialto Pacific Electric Trail Extension 7,822$ 7,037$ 185 $ 725 $ 6,127 $ - $ 185 $ 725 $ - $ 5,922 $ 205 $ Medium Infrastructure
+ Non-Infrastructure X 75 95
SCAG San Bernardino 8-Yucaipa, City of-1 15th Street (Avenue D to Yucaipa Blvd) 320$ 320$ 320 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 320 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X 75 95 SCAG San Bernardino 8-Adelanto, City of-1 Adelanto Safe Routes to School 9,121$ 9,121$ 375 $ 875 $ 7,871 $ - $ 375 $ 875 $ - $ 7,871 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure
+ Non-Infrastructure X X 71 91
SCAG San Bernardino 8-Needles, City of-1 City of Needles Schools and Seniors Sidewalk Project 1,658$ 1,565$ 216 $ 113 $ - $ 1,236 $ 54 $ 162 $ 113 $ 1,236 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 71 91 SCAG San Bernardino 8-Barstow, City of-1 Pedestrian, Bicyclist, and Safety Improvements 9,939$ 4,140$ - $ - $ - $ 4,140 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,140 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 69 89 SCAG San Bernardino 8-Fontana, City of-1^
Foothill Boulevard Active Transportation Improvement
9,971$ 4,925$ - $ 4,925 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,925 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 69 89 SCAG Ventura 7-Thousand Oaks, City of-1 Lynn Road Bike Lanes and Pedestrain Improvements 3,352$ 2,602$ - $ - $ 2,602 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,602 $ - $ Small Infrastructure 86 101 SCAG Ventura 7-Thousand Oaks, City of-2
Hillcrest Drive Class IV Bike lanes and Pedestrian
Improvements 2,840$ 2,350$ - $ 2,350 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,350 $ - $ Small Infrastructure 86 101 SCAG Ventura 7-Ventura, City of-1§
Santa Paula Trail, East Ventura Station to e/o Wells
Road 27,133$ 6,716$ 6,716 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,900 $ 2,538 $ 2,278 $ - $ - $ Large Infrastructure X X 78 96 SCAG Ventura 7-Ventura County-2 Piru Pedestrian Improvement Project 3,450$ 3,450$ 200 $ - $ 390 $ 2,860 $ 200 $ 390 $ - $ 2,860 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 55 73 SCAG Ventura 7-Fillmore, City of-1
City of Fillmore Active Transportation Program Needs
Assessment 70$ 70$ 70 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 70 $ Plan X 55 70 SCAG Ventura 7-Simi Valley, City of-1† Simi Valley Bicycle Master Plan 250$ 250$ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250 $ Plan X 40 55 SCAG Ventura 7-Simi Valley, City of-2^ Arroyo Simi Greenway Phase 5 AP#2 1,310$ 751$ 92 $ 659 $ - $ - $ 14 $ 72 $ 6 $ 659 $ - $ Small Infrastructure 29 42 SJCOG San Joaquin
10-San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission-1#
East Channel Street Streetscape and Connectivity
Project 10,492$ 3,500$ 3,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,500 $ - $ Large Infrastructure X N/A 178.0 SJCOG San Joaquin 10-San Joaquin County-2† Countywide Sidewalks Connectivity Plan 566$ 273$ 273 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 273 $ Plan X 82 147 SJCOG San Joaquin 10-Stockton, City of-4† Main and Market Complete Streets (Phase 1) 10,142$ 8,226$ 1,333 $ 6,893 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,333 $ - $ 6,893 $ - $ Large Infrastructure X X 76 146 SJCOG San Joaquin 10-Tracy, City of-1†
East Schulte Safety and Multimodal Community
Corridor - MacArthur Phase 1,712$ 1,712$ - $ 53 $ 200 $ 1,459 $ 53 $ 200 $ - $ 1,459 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X 66 132 StanCOG Stanislaus 10-Ceres, City of-2#
Building on Active Transportation Connectivity and
Access within the City 2,858$ 2,858$ - $ 256 $ 2,602 $ - $ - $ 256 $ - $ 2,602 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X N/A 103 California Transportation Commission Page 4 of 5 June 7, 2023 California Transportation Commission
2023 Active Transportation Program
MPO Component
Nine of Ten MPOs
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
MPO County Application ID Project Title Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI Project Type DAC SRTS State
Score
Regional
Score or
Rank*
StanCOG Stanislaus 10-Stanislaus County-1#
Denair School Safe Crossing and Active
Transportation Connectivity Project 3,498$ 1,978$ - $ - $ - $ 1,978 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,978 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X N/A 99 StanCOG Stanislaus 10-Waterford, City of-2# Waterford Tim Bell Road Pedestrian Improvements 1,993$ 1,993$ 15 $ 170 $ 1,808 $ - $ 15 $ 55 $ 115 $ 1,808 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X N/A 95 StanCOG Stanislaus 10-Oakdale, City of-1 Southwest Downtown - Safe Routes to School Project 998$ 968$ 968 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 968 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 59 94 StanCOG Stanislaus 10-Ceres, City of-1
Improving Pedestrian Safety on Central Ave and
Hackett Road Corridor 2,612$ 2,495$ 80 $ 850 $ - $ 1,565 $ 80 $ 213 $ 637 $ 1,565 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 78 94 TCAG Tulare 6-Woodlake, City of-1
West Sequoia Avenue Multi-Modal Improvements
Project 2,922$ 2,532$ - $ 2,532 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,532 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 78 100 TCAG Tulare 6-Tulare County-2^ Poplar Pedestrian Connectivity Project 3,182$ 2,539$ - $ 485 $ - $ 2,054 $ - $ 200 $ 285 $ 2,054 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 88 95 TCAG Tulare
6-Tulare County Association of
Governments-1†
Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two
Pedestrian Bridges Project, Phase 1 2,981$ 2,981$ 168 $ 397 $ 2,416 $ - $ 168 $ 357 $ - $ 2,416 $ 40 $ Small Infrastructure +
Non-Infrastructure X X 87 94
TCAG Tulare 6-Visalia, City of-1†
Goshen - Visalia Corridor (GVC) Improvement
Project, Phase 1 3,816$ 795$ - $ 795 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 795 $ - $ Small Infrastructure X X 87 92 TMPO El Dorado 3-South Lake Tahoe, City of-1#
Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project Phase
II 4,980$ 1,200$ 1,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X X N/A 326 TMPO El Dorado 3-El Dorado County-6#
Apache Avenue Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity
Project 3,502$ 1,701$ 1,701 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,701 $ - $ Medium Infrastructure X N/A 335 936,885$ 539,754$
CON:
DAC:
FCOG
KCOG
MPO
NI:
PA&ED:
PS&E:
R/W:
SACOG
SANDAG
SCAG
SJCOG
SRTS:
StanCOG
TCAG
TMPO
#Project was not submitted to the state competition.
§Project requires baseline agreement.
‡Project was submitted to the Phase II Quick-Build Project Pilot Program Notes
*Regional scores and ranks are on various scales (and not necessarily out of 100). Individual scoring systems are outlined in each MPO's guidelines. †Applicant reduced the cost and/or scope of project that was originally submitted to the state when submitting the project to the regional competition. ^Project is receiving partial funding.
Fresno Council of Governments
Kern Council of Governments
San Diego Association of Governments
Construction Phase
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms
Disadvantaged Community
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Non-Infrastructure
Project Approval & Environmental Documentation Phase
Plans, Specifications & Estimates Phase
Right-of-Way Phase
Southern California Association of Governments
San Joaquin Council of Governments
Tulare County Association of Governments
Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Stanislaus Council of Governments
Safe Routes to School Project
California Transportation Commission Page 5 of 5 June 7, 2023 Reference Number 4.9
Attachment C
June 28-29, 2023
Metropolitan Planning Organization Proposed Programming Submittals Fresno Council of Governments
February 28, 2023
Mrs. Tanisha Taylor, Interim Executive Director
Ca
lifornia Transportation Commission
1120 N Street Room 2221 (MS-52)
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Laurie Waters
Subject: Fresno Council of Governments Regional Active Transportation Program of Projects – Cycle 6 Ms. Waters:
The California Transportation Commission approved the Fresno Council of Governments (F resno COG) Cycle 6 Regional Competitive Active Transportation Program (ATP) Guidelines on June 29, 2022. The Fresno COG regional competitive ATP call for projects was released on June 29, 2022, and closed on November
18, 2022. The multidisciplinary advisory group (MAG) evaluated seventeen projects, ten of which are being recommended for funding for a total of $18.615 million. Nine of the ten recommende d projects are fully funded, while one is partially funded. Fresno COG and the applicant will seek additional funding and
ensure project delivery. All applications can be f ound here. The Fresno COG Policy Board approved the recommended project list for the Fresno COG regional competitive ATP on February 23, 2023.
T
he recommended projects incl ude a broad range of active transportation infrastructure, including new sidewalks that are ADA compliant, new bike lanes, pedestrian improvements, HAWK installations, and non- infrastructure
programs that include safety education campaigns. Eight of the projects provide safe routes to sc
hools for students walking and bicycling to school. The ATP guidelines require that at least 25% of the f
unds be directed to benefit projects in disadvantaged communities; however, Fresno COG is recommending a project list where 100% of the funds will be directed to benefit projects in disadvantaged communities.
The submittal of the recommended program of proje cts meets the requirements and furthers the ATP purpose and goals set-forth by the 2023 ATP Guidelines that were adopted by the California Transportation Co
mmission.
Included with this letter are the following attachments:
Attachment A – Fresno COG recommended programming sp readsheet Attachment B – Complete list of submitted projects and contingency list Atta
chment C – Fresno COG Policy Board minute excerpt and r esolution approving the recommended progr
am of projects
Attachment D – List of scoring co mmittee members
Attachment E – Description of Unbiased Project Selection Method Attachment F – Applications not Submitted through the State Process Attachment G
– Updated PPR’s and Part A4 forms
I
f any additional information is nee ded or should you have any questions or comments, please fe el f ree to call Simran Jhutti at (559) 233-4148 ext. 241.
Attachment A
Fresno COG
Recommended Programming Spreadsheet
Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
($ in thousands)
MPO Application ID County Project Title Total Project Cost (1000)
ATP Request
(1000)
23-24 Funds
(1000)
24-25 Funds
(1000)
25-26 Funds
(1000)
26-27 Funds
(1000) PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Fund totals Project Type DAC SRTS BA Agency Comments FCOG 1-Sample Application-1 FRE Sample Project Title $ 3,000 $ 2,319 $ 250 $ 500 $ 40 $ 1,529 Sm all Combo X X Con Phase is funded with SHA and FTF $ 250 $ 400 $ 100 $ 529 $ 40 $ 1, 319 Agency does not want to commit funding on this project in order to have SOF contingency funds
$ 1,000 $ 1,000
FCOG 6-Fresno, City of -3 FRE Downtown Neighborhood Safe Schools Crossing $ 1,636 $ 1,636 $ 148 $ 7 $ 1, 472 $ 9 Small Infrastructure X X
$ 3 $ 145 $ 7 $ 1,472 $ 9 $ 1, 636
$ -
FCOG 6-
Fresno County-3 FRE Calwa Sidewalk Project $ 3,429 $ 2,697 $ 39 $ 314 $ 2,344 Small Infrastructure X X Revised amount from statewide ask (scaled down)
$ 39 $ 314 $ 2,344 $ 2,697
FCOG 6-Fresno County -2 FRE Tranquility Sidewalk Project $ 4,608 $ 458 $ 79 $ 379 Medium Infrastructure X X Revised amount from statewide ask
$ 79 $ 34 $ 113
$ 345 $ 345
FCOG 6-Parlier, City of-1 FRE City of Parlier Limitless Lane Network $ 3,008 $ 3,008 $ 15 $ 345 $ 2,648 Small Infrastructure X X Regional recommendation is less than requested amount, $3,007,720
$ 15 $ 345 $ 2,648 $ 3,008
$ -
FCOG 6-Parlier, City of-2 FRE City of Parlier Schools Corridor Active Transportation Improvements Project $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 270 $ 408 $ 2,322 Sm all Combo X X Application not submitted to state program $ 10 $ 408 $ 2,322 $ 260 $ 3, 000 Regional recommendation >$500,000 than requested amount
$ -
FCOG 6-Coalinga, City of- 1 FRE Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Pacific South and Gregory North $ 2,016 $ 1,774 $ 117 $ 197 $ 1,460 Small Infrastructure X Revised amount from statewide ask (scaled down)
$ 117 $ 91 $ 106 $ 1,460 $ 1,774 PPR not provided for Regional project $ -
FCOG 6-Fowler, City of-2 FRE Fremont Elementary/ Marshall Elementary/Fowler High Safe Routes to School $ 600 $ 600 $ 5 $ 50 $ 545 Small Infrastructure X X
$ 5 $ 50 $ 545 $ 600
$ -
FCOG 6-
Selma, City of-2 FRE Selma Branch Canal Parkway Project $ 3,500 $ 3,098 $ 13 $ 384 $ 2,701 Small Infrastructure X X Application not submitted to state program $ 13 $ 384 $ 2,701 $ 3,098
$ -
FCOG 6-Fresno County -5 FRE Herndon-Barstow Elementary High Intensity Activated Crosswalk $ 801 $ 603 $ 107 $ 496 Small
Infrastructure X X Application not submitted to state program $ 84 $ 23 $ 496 $ 603
$ -
FCOG 6-Huron, City of-1 FRE Citywide Sidewalk Improvements $ 1,741 $ 1,741 $ 209 $ 1,532 Small Infrastructure X
$ 5 $ 204 $ 1,532 $ 1,741
$ -
FCOG
$ - State funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State Funds (SHA & RMRA)
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
5/22/2023 Y:\WE 220 Transportation Program Development\Programming\Funding Programs\ATP\2023 ATP Cycle 6\Submittal package\2023 ATP MPO Programming Spreadsheet Revised.xlsb 1 of 2 Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
($ in thousands)
MPO Application ID County Project Title Total Project Cost (1000)
ATP Request
(1000)
23-24 Funds
(1000)
24-25 Funds
(1000)
25-26 Funds
(1000)
26-27 Funds
(1000) PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Fund totals Project Type DAC SRTS BA Agency Comments $ -
FCOG
$ -
$ -
FCOG
$ -
$ -
FCOG
$ -
$ -
FCOG
$ -
$ -
Total $ 24,339 $ 18,615 $ 1,002 $ 3,933 $ 7,184 $ 6,514 FTF STATE Total
$3,042 $15,573 $18,615
3,042$ 15,573$ 18,615$
$0 $0 $0
Blue column heading indicates the column data is a drop down menu to select project type State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
FCOG Fund estimate totals
Program funding totals
Over or Under Estimate amount
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
5/22/2023 Y:\WE 220 Transportation Program Development\Programming\Funding Programs\ATP\2023 ATP Cycle 6\Submittal package\2023 ATP MPO Programming Spreadsheet Revised.xlsb 2 of 2 Attachment B
Fresno COG
Recommended Regional Projects
Fresno 6-Fresno, City of -3 3 of 5
Schools Crossing 1,636,000.00$ 1,636,000.00$ 1,636,000.00$ 1,636,000.00$ 84 Fresno County 6-Fresno County-1 1 of 4 Calwa Sidewalk Project 2,697,000.00$ 3,429,000.00$ 2, 697,000.00$ 4, 333,000.00$ 83 Fresno County 6-Fresno County -3 3 of 4 Tranquility Sidewalk Project 458,000.00$ 4,608,000.00$ 458,000.00$ 4, 791,000.00$ 83 Parlier 6-Parlier, City of-1 1 o2 Limitless Lane Network 3,008,720.00$ 3,007,720.00$ 3, 007,720.00$ 7, 799,720.00$ 82 Parlier 6-Parlier, City of-2 2 of 2
Schools Corridor Active
Transportation Improvements 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 10,799,720.00$ 81 Coalinga 6-Coalinga, City of- 1 1 of 1
Coalinga Perimeter Trail
Interconnect Pacific South and 1,774,080.00$ 2,016,000.00$ 1,774,080.00$ 12,573,800.00$ 80 Fowler 6-Fowler, City of-2 2 of 2
Fremont Elementary/ Marshall
Elementary/Fowler High Safe 600,000.00$ 600,000.00$ 600,000.00$ 13,173,800.00$ 78 Selma 6-5096-1 1 of 1
Selma Branch Canal Parkway
Project 3,098,200.00$ 3,500,000.00$ 3,098,200.00$ 16,272,000.00$ 76 Fresno County 6-Fresno County -2 2 of 4
Herndon-Barstow Elementary
High Intensity Activated
Crosswalk 603,000.00$ 801,000.00$ 603,000.00$ 16,875,000.00$ 74 Huron 6-Huron, City of-1 1 of 1
Citywide Sidewalk
Improvements 1,741,000.00$ 1,741,000.00$ 1,741,000.00$ 18,616,000.00$ 71.1666667 Fresno 6-Fresno, City of -2 2 of 5
First Street Phase 3 Protected
Bikeway 2,988,000.00$ 2,988,000.00$ 71.1428571 Fresno 6-Fresno, City of -1 1 of 5
Midtown Trail Tunnel &
Regional Connectivity Project 4,970,000.00$ 6,213,000.00$ 68 Fresno 6-Fresno, City of -4 4 of 5
Williams Elementary Safe Route
to School 778,000.00$ 778,000.00$ 66 Fresno County 6-Fresno County -4 4 of 4
Cantua Creek and El Porvenir
Sidewalk Project 2,775,000.00$ 3,476,000.00$ 61 Fresno 6-Fresno, City of -5 5 of 5
Palm Bikeway to the San
Joaquin River Parkway 1,879,000.00$ 1,879,000.00$ 54.7 Reedley 6-Reedley, City of-1 1 of 1 Reedley Parkway Phase VI 2,819,000.00$ 2,834,000.00$ 54.6 Fowler 6-Fowler, City of-1 1 o 2
Fowler West-side Alternative
Transportation Connection
Project 2,735,000.00$ 2,735,000.00$ 54
18,615,000.00$
Recommended Projects
Agency Application ID Priority Project Title Regional
Score
Regional Funding
Request Total Project Cost Recommended Funding Cumulative Application ID Project Tltie County Total Project
Cost
Milpas Street Crosswalk Safety and Sidewalk
5-Santa Barbara, City of-3 Widening Project Santa Barbara $ 9,995 $ 3-Nevada County Transportation SR 174/49/20 Roundabout and Active Transportation Commission-1 Safety Project Nevada $ 6,815 $
Alpine Pershing Mendocino Bicycle-Pedestrian
10-Stockton, City of-1 Connectivity San Joaquin $ 8,238 $ 2-Redding, City of-1 Butte Street Boogie Network Project Shasta $ 8,048 $ 7-Los Angeles, City of-5*§ Wilmington Safe Streets: A People First Approach Los Angeles $ 40,784 $ 3-Paradise, Town of-4§ Go Paradise: Pentz Student Pathway Butte $ 23,293 $ Lancaster SRTS Master Plan - Refresh, Rebuild,
7-Lancaster, City of-2 Recruit, Sustain LosAnaeles $ 902 $ Harrison Elementary Active Transportation
10-San Joaquin County-4 Improvements San Joaquin $ 4,889 $ 8-Coachella Valley Association
of Govemments-1 •§ Coachella Valley Arts & Music Line Riverside $ 46,099 $ 11-National City, City of.3• 24th Street Transit Center Connections San Dieoo $ 3,498 $ 5-San Luis Obispo, City of-1 South Higuera Complete Streets Project San Luis Obispo $ 8,817 $ 6-Fresno County-1 Del Rey Sidewalk Project Fresno $ 3,014 $ 6-Kem County - D6-1 Norris Pedestrian and Railroad Safety Project Kem $ 9,793 $ 12-Orange County-1 •§ OC Loop Segment P and Q Orange $ 60,187 $ San Andreas Pope Street and Safe Routes to School
10-Calaveras County-1 • Project Calaveras $ 9,997 $
3-Sacramento, City of-2 Envision Broadway in Oak Park Sacramento $ 14,320 $ City of Corcoran Equitable Health, Safety &
6-Corcoran, City of-1 Connectivity Project Kinas $ 3,500 $ 3-West Sacramento, City of-1 •§ I Street Bridge Deck Conversion for Active Transportation Project Yolo $ 22,561 $
2-Susanville, City of-1 • Riverside Drive Pedestrian and Bike Trail Project Lassen $ 3,111 $ 5-Santa Barbara, City of-1 •§
Cliff Drive: Urban Highway to Complete Street
Transformation Project Santa Barbara $ 33,991 $
7-Hawaiian Gardens, City of-1 Hawaiian Gardens Bicycle Master Plan LosAnaeles $ 370 $ 7-Los Angeles, C�y of-4•1
Normandie Beautiful: Creating Neighborhood
Connections in South LA Los Angeles $ 27,774 $
7-San Gabriel Valley Council of
Govemments-2• Montebello Railroad Safety Crossings Improvements Los Angeles $ 7,388 $ 4-San Francisco Municipal
Transoortation Aaencv-2•§ Bayview Multimodal Community Corridor San Francisco $ 15,445 $ 11-lmperial Beach, City of-1§ Palm Avenue Complete Multimodal Corridor San Diego $ 26,227 $ Jurupa Valley Granite Hill Area SRTS Sidewalk Gap
8-Jurupa Valley, City ot-2• Closure Riverside $ 4,240 $ 5-EI Paso De Robles, City of-1§ Niblick Road Complete and Sustainable Bike and Pedestrian Streets San Luis Obispo $ 17,257 $
5-Santa Cruz, City of-1 •§ Santa Cruz Rail Trail Segments 8 and 9 Construction Santa Cruz $ 48,719 $ Saticoy Pedestrian Improvement & Community
7-Ventura County-1 Connections Project Ventura $ 3,497 $ Placerville Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
3-Placerville, Cityof-1 § Phase 1 El Dorado $ 28,929 $
4-Contra Costa County-6§
San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets/Bay Trail Gap
Closure Project Contra Costa $ 11,717 $
California Transportation Commission
California Transportation Commission
2023 Active Transportation Program
Statewide Component
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26
7,995 $ 1,000 $ 275 $
5,439 $ 200 $ 1,125 $
7,403 $ 389 $ 813 $
6,437 $ 821 $ 834 $
32,331 $ 3,823 $ $ 1,748
22,009 $ 2,098 $ $ 19,911
796 $ 796 $ $
3,886 $ 114 $ 556 $ 3,216
36,483 $ 36,483 $ $
3,496 $ 148 $ 445 $
6,951 $ 6,951 $ $
2,982 $ 99 $ 417 $ 61
8,782 $ 1,059 $ 2,302 $ 5,421
45,921 $ 5,699 $ 40,222 $
9,867 $ 470 $ $ 1,600
1,101 $ $ 1,101 $
3,500 $ 50 $ 972 $ 2,478
16,029 $ 16,029 $ $
2,861 $ 400 $ $ 2,461
27,191 $ 1,920 $ 1,116 $
370 $ 370 $ $
23,579 $ 2,740 $ $ 1,475
5,906 $ 5,906 $ $
12,325 $ 2,807 $ $ 9,518
23,112 $ 150 $ 1,220 $
3,390 $ 490 $ 2,900 $
13,806 $ 922 $ 1,118 $
35,766 $ 35,766 $ $
3,497 $ 225 $ $ 400
15,417 $ $ 15,417 $
10,517 $ 1,000 $ $
26-27 PA&ED
s 6,720 $ 1,000 $
$ 4,114 $ 200 $
s 6,201 $ 389 $
s 4,782 $ 555 $
$ 26,760 $ 3,823 $
$ $ $
s $ $
s $ 114 $
$ $ $
$ 2,903 $ 148 $
$ $ $
$ 2,405 $ 99 $
s $ $
s $ $
s 7,797 $ 470 $
s $ $
$ $ 50 $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ 24,155 $ 1,920 $
s $ $
$ 19,364 $ 2,740 $
$ $ $
s $ 300 $
$ 21,742 $ 150 $
s $ 60 $
$ 11,766 $ 922 $
$ $ $
$ 2,872 $ 225 $
s $ $
s 9,517 $ 1,000 $
PS&E R/W CON CON Project Type DAC SRTS Flnal
NI Score
275 $ $ 6,720 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 93
900 $ 225 $ 4,114 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 93
723 $ 90 s 6,201 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes No 93
834 s 4,782 $ 266 Infrastructure + NI - Medium Yes Yes 93 1,748 $ $ 26,760 $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 93
150 $ 1,948 $ 19,911 $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 93 $ s $ 796 Non-Infrastructure Yes Yes 92
556 $ $ 3,216 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes No 92
$ $ 36,483 $ Infrastructure+ NI - Large Yes Yes 92
445 $ $ 2,903 $ Infrastructure - Small Yes No 92
$ $ 6,951 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 92
417 $ 61 $ 2,405 $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 92
1,059 $ 2,302 $ 5,421 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 91 $ 5,699 $ 40,222 $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 91
1,000 $ 600 s 7,797 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 91 1,101 $ $ $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 91
520 $ 452 $ 2,478 $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 91
$ $ 16,029 $ Infrastructure - Larae Yes No 91
$ 400 $ 2,461 $ Infrastructure - Small Yes No 91
1,086 $ 30 $ 24,087 $ 68 Infrastructure + NI - Larae Yes Yes 91 $ $ $ 370 Plan Yes No 91
1,475 $ $ 19,364 $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 91
$ $ 5,906 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 91
1,650 $ $ 9,518 $ 857 Infrastructure + NI - Laroe Yes Yes 90.5 1,100 $ 120 $ 21,742 $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 90 430 $ $ 2,900 $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 90
1,118 $ $ 11,766 $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 90
$ 500 $ 34,274 $ 992 Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 90 400 $ $ 2,872 $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 90
$ $ 15,417 $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 90
$ $ 9,517 $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 90
October 20, 2022
Attachment C
Fresno COG Board Resolution
Attachment D
Scoring Committee List
Fresno Council of Governments
2023 ATP Cycle 6 Scoring Committee:
Requirement Agency Name
Disadvantaged Communities Advocate California Rural Legal Assistance Inc. Mariah Thompson Bike and Pedestrian Expertise Fresno Cycling Club Nick Paladino Metropolitan Planning Organization Fresno Council of Governments Simran Jhutti State Agency Caltrans Pedram Mafi
Urbanized Region City of Clovis Tatian Partain
Local jurisdictions County of Fresno Erin Haagenson
Rural Region City of Huron & Orange Cove Angela Hall
Attachment E
Unbias
ed Project Selection Method
Approved regional ATP guidelines (page 7-12) outlines the unbiased project selection method:
https://fresnocog.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/FCOG- 2023-ATP-Cycle-6-Guidelines-and-Supplemental-Application-Packet.pdf Kern Council of Governments
Kern Council of Governments
1401 19th Street, Suite 300, Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 635-2900 Facsimile (661) 324-8215 TTY (661) 832-7433 www.kerncog.org
March 2, 2023
Mr. Mitchell Weiss
California Transportation Commission
1120 N St. MS 52
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Ms. Laurie Waters, ATP Coordinator
Dear Ms. Waters:
Enclosed with this transmittal letter are the required documents for the Kern Cycle 6 COG ATP MPO Augmentation project submittal. At the regularly scheduled February 16, 2023 meeting our Board of Directors approved the Kern COG Cycle 6 ATP MPO Augmentation funded Project List and a continency list of 2 remaining Cycle 6 state applications. The adopted Kern COG Project Delivery Policy for Active Transportation defers to the CTC guidelines and application review and ranking process for its selection of MPO projects and therefore also defers to the state reviewing panel for the final ranking value of each project.
With regards to the ATP MPO Augmentation submittal checklist: 1) List of Members in Multidisciplinary Advisory Group; and 2) Description of Unbiased Project Selection Method: The Kern COG ATP policy defers to the state review and ranking process for the selection of MPO share funded projects and therefore does not have an alternative advisory group or alternative selection process.
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Rochelle Invina-Jayasiri, 661-635- 2908, [email protected]
.
Sincerely,
Ahron Hakimi, Executive Director
Enclosures: KCOG Cycle 6 ATP MPO Augmentation funded project list KCOG Cycle 6 ATP MPO Augmentation contingency projects
Approving regional resolution from February 16 KCOG Board meeting Copy of PPR for each funded project
State
Ranking Implementing Agency Project Name Total Other ATP ENV DESIGN ROW CONS Received 29 Bakersfield, City of School Flashing Yellow Beacons 803,000$ ‐$ 803,000$ ‐$ 143,000$ ‐$ 660,000$ 06/15/22 35 Bakersfield, City of California Avenue (Marella Way to Planz Rd) 5,461,000$ ‐ $ 5,461,000$ ‐ $ 975,000$ ‐ $ 4,486,000$ 06/15/22 39 Bakersfield, City of California Avenue (Oleander Ave to R St) 1,980,000$ ‐ $ 1,980,000$ ‐ $ 353,000$ ‐ $ 1,627,000$ 06/15/22 40 Bakersfield, City of Kern River North of 24th Street 2,758,000$ ‐ $ 2,758,000$ 295,000$ 197,000$ ‐ $ 2,266,000$ 06/15/22 48 Bakersfield, City of Bakersfield Bicycle Facilities 263,000$ ‐$ 263,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 263,000$ 06/15/22 50 Bakersfield, City of Monterey St (Alta Vista Dr to Brown St) 4,789,000$ ‐ $ 4,789,000$ ‐ $ 855,000$ ‐ $ 3,934,000$ 06/15/22 55 Kern County ‐ D6 Niles Street Safety Project 1,785,000$ 260,000$ 1,525,000$ 10,000$ 250,000$ ‐ $ 1,525,000$ 06/15/22 56 Caltrans City of Arvin HAWK‐ Arvin's "Walk on Walnut Crosswalk Beacon" 1,398,000$ 200,000$ 1,198,000$ 120,000$ 80,000$ 137,000$ 1,061,000$ 06/15/22 57 Bakersfield, City of Arvin ‐Edison Canal Multi‐Use Path 9,940,000$ ‐ $ 9,940,000$ 710,000$ 1,065,000$ ‐ $ 8,165,000$ 06/15/22 60 Tehachapi, City of Northside Neighborhood Complete Sidewalk & Bicycle Lane Project 3,494,000$ ‐$ 3,494,000$ 25,000$ 370,000$ 39,000$ 3,060,000$ 06/14/22 66 Bakersfield, City of H Street Corrior (SR‐204 to Hwy 58) 8,454,000$ 5,300,106$ 3,154,000$ ‐ $ 1,509,000$ ‐ $ 6,945,000$ 06/15/22 70 Taft, City of 10th St & San Emidio St ‐ Intersection Safety Improvements 455,000$ ‐$ 455,000$ 5,000$ 42,000$ ‐$ 408,000$ 06/15/22 71 Delano, City of ATP ‐6 SRTS Sidewalk Gap and Crosswalk Improvement Project 703,000$ ‐$ 703,000$ ‐$ 75,000$ ‐$ 628,000$ 06/13/22
72.5 Wasco, City of Central Avenue Class I & Class II Bicycle Trails 660,000$ ‐$ 660,000$ 5,000$ 71,000$ ‐$ 584,000$ 06/15/22 78 Kern County ‐ D6 Safe Route To School (SRTS) ADA Crosswalk Safety 2,342,000$ 582,000$ 1,760,000$ 10,000$ 344,000$ ‐ $ 1,988,000$ 06/15/22
80.5 Kern County ‐ D6 Kern River Parkway Multi‐use Path Safety & Connectivity Project 8,035,000$ 1,235,000$ 6,800,000$ 100,000$ 1,150,000$ ‐ $ 6,785,000$ 06/15/22 84 Kern County ‐ D6 Mt Vernon SRTS Safety Project 3,248,000$ 384,000$ 2,864,000$ 10,000$ 374,000$ ‐ $ 2,864,000$ 06/15/22 87 Tehachapi, City of Valley Boulevard and Mill Street Gap Closure Project 3,266,000$ ‐ $ 3,266,000$ 65,000$ 315,000$ 200,000$ 2,686,000$ 06/15/22 91 Kern County ‐ D6 Norris Pedestrian and Railroad Safety Project 9,793,000$ 1,011,000$ 8,782,000$ 10,000$ 1,059,000$ 2,600,000$ 6,124,000$ 06/15/22 TOTALS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS 69,521,000$ 3,672,000$ 65,849,000$ 1,365,000$ 9,227,000$ 2,976,000$ 55,953,000$ ATP PROJECT FUNDED BY THE STATE 9,793,000 $ 1,011,000$ 8,782,000$ PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR MPO SHARE FUNDING 18,972,000$ 2,201,000$ 16,798,000$ ESTIMATED AVAILABLE ATP CYCLE 6 MPO SHARE 16,798,000$
ATTACHMENT A
KERN REGION LIST OF SUBMITTED & RECEIVED CYCLE 6 ATP APPLICATIONS YELLOW HIGHLIGHT ‐ APPROVED STATE FUNDED PROJECT
BLUE HIGHLIGHT ‐ FINAL MPO FUNDED PROJECT
BOLD ‐ CONTINGENCY
Note 1: The H Street Corridor project was reduced to $3,260,000 for ATP funding. The City of Bakersfield would be required to use local funds for the balance.
Note 2: The Mt. Vernon Safe Routes to School Safety Project was withdrawn after their announcement at the January 4, 2023 TTAC meeting.
Note 3: The co ntingency list would include 1) adding additional funding to the construction phase of the Bakersfield project; then 2) funding the Tehachapi project either partially or fully.
Prepared by Kern Council of Governments February , 2023 Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
($ in thousands)
MPO Application ID County Project Title Total Project Cost (1000)
ATP Request
(1000)
23-24 Funds
(1000)
24-25 Funds
(1000)
25-26 Funds
(1000)
26-27 Funds
(1000) PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Fund totals Project Type DAC SRTS BA Agency Comments KCOG 6-Kern County-D6-4 Kern Kern River Parkway Multi-use Path Safety & Connectivity Project $ 8,035 $ 6,800 $ - $ 900 $ - $ 5,900 Medium Infrastructure X NO
$ 900 $ 5,900 $ 6,800 $ -
KCOG 6-Kern County - D6-5 Kern Safe Route To School (SRTS) ADA Crosswalk Safety $ 2,342 $ 1,760 $ - $ - $ 1,760 Small Infrastructure X YES
$ 1,760 $ 1,760
$ -
KCOG 6-Wasco, City of-1 Kern Central Avenue Class I & Class II Bicycle Trails $ 660 $ 660 $ 5 $ 71 $ 584 $ - Small Infrastructure X NO
$ 5 $ 71 $ - $ 584 $ 660 $ -
KCOG 6-Delano, City of-1 Kern ATP-6 SRTS Sidewalk Gap and Crosswalk Improvement Project $ 703 $ 703 $ 75 $ 628 $ - Small Infrastructure X YES
$ 75 $ 628 $ 703 $ -
KCOG 6-Taft, City of-1 Kern 10TH ST & SAN EMIDIO ST - INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS $ 455 $ 455 $ 47 $ 408 Small Infrastructure X NO
$ 5 $ 42 $ - $ 408 $ 455 $ -
KCOG 6-Bakersfield, City of-3 Kern H Street Corrior (SR-204 to Hwy 58) $ 8,454 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ - Medium Infrastructure X YES
$ 5,300
$ 467 $ 467
$ - $ 2,687 $ 2,687 KCOG 9-Tehachapi, City of- 1 Kern Valley Boulevard and Mill Street Gap Closure Project $ 3,266 $ 3,266 $ 65 $ 315 $ 200 $ 2,686 Small Infrastructure x NO
$ 65 $ 315 $ 200 $ 2,686 $ 3,266 $ -
Total $ 23,915 $ 16,798 $ 70 $ 4,562 $ 1,820 $ 10,346 FTF STATE Total
$2,687 $14,111 $16,798
2,687$ 14,111$ 16,798$
$0 $0 $0
Blue column heading indicates the column data is a drop down menu to select project type State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
Local funds
Over or Under Estimate amount
KCOG Fund estimate totals
Program funding totals
6/5/2023 S:\ATP\2023 ATP\MPO Component\Staff Recommendations\KCOG\FINAL\KCOG Final Programming_v2.xlsx 1 of 1 Sacramento Area Council of Governments
April 24, 2023
Ms. Tanisha Taylor, Interim Executive Director
California Transportation Commission
1120 N Street, Room 2221 (MS-52)
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Taylor,
I am pleased to present the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ Six-County Regional Active Transportation Program Augmentation (SACOG Regional ATP) project list to the California Transportation Commission for adoption. The SACOG Board of Directors unanimously approved $45,512,000 for projects and a contingent project list in priority order on March 16, 2023.
The broad spectrum of projects recommended will support active transportation by improving safety, access, and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians of all capabilities.
The recommended projects support regional and statewide equity goals by investing 44 percent of the funds in providing a meaningful benefit to disadvantaged community residents. Project sponsors for projects recommended for pre-construction funding will continue to seek construction funding through federal, state, regional, and local opportunities.
The attached programming list shows the funding awards and years of allocation for SACOG Regional ATP projects.
If you have questions or concerns, please contact Dustin Foster at 916-340-6261, or via email at [email protected]
.
Sincerely,
James Corless
Executive Director
Enclosure
Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
($ in thousands)
MPO Application ID County Project Title Total Project Cost (1000)
ATP Request
(1000)
23-24 Funds
(1000)
24-25 Funds
(1000)
25-26 Funds
(1000)
26-27 Funds
(1000) PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Fund totals Project Type DAC SRTS BA Agency Comments SACOG 3-Elk Grove-1 SAC Laguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail Crossing at State Route 99 $ 10,900 $ 6,874 $ 6,874 Large Infrastructure
PA & ED, PS & E, and ROW funded with Federal ATP, CMAQ, Local Funds, and Sacramento County Measure A.
$ - Con Phase match is funded with Local Funds and Sacramento County Measure A. $ 6,874 $ 6,874 PPNO 5402 SACOG 3-Citrus Heights-3 SAC Arcade Cripple Creek Extension $ 8,084 $ 7,155 $ 500 $ 806 $ 5,849 Medium Infrastructure X Citrus Heights Local Funds (staff time) match for all phases. $ 500 $ 600 $ 206 $ 5,849 $ 7,155 MPO-specific application, did not apply to State ATP $ -
SACOG 3-Roseville-1 PLA Dry Creek Greenway East Multi-Use Trail, Phase 2 $ 8,942 $ 6,063 $ 6,063 Medium Combo PA & ED, PE & E, and ROW funded with Local Funds. $ 5,848 $ 215 $ 6,063 $ -
SACOG 3-El Dorado County-2 ELD El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing $ 5,850 $ 3,271 $ 3,271 Medium Infrastructure PA & ED & PS & E funded with CMAQ and TDA. $ 2,150 $ 2,150 Con Phase match is funded with CMAQ, RSTP, and TDA. $ 1,121 $ 1,121
SACOG 3- Sacramento County Regional
Parks-1 SAC Dry Creek Parkway Trail $ 8,696 $ 7,704 $ - $ 975 $ 6,729 Medium Infrastructure PA & ED & PS & E funded with Local Funds $ - $ 975 $ 6,729 $ 7,704 MPO-specific application, did not apply to State ATP $ -
SACOG 3- Sacramento County DOT-2 SAC Bell Street Safe Routes to School $ 9,949 $ 8,808 $ 270 $ 2,102 $ 6,436 Medium Combo X X All Phases matched with Sacramento County Measure A (local funds). $ 270 $ 340 $ 1,762 $ 6,304 $ 132 $ 8,808 $ -
SACOG 3- Sacramento-3 SAC 9th Street Separated Bikeway Project $ 2,899 $ 2,564 $ 132 $ - $ 325 $ 2,107 Small Infrastructure X All Phases matched with Local Funds.
$ 132 $ 325 $ 2,107 $ 2,564 MPO-specific application, did not apply to State ATP $ -
SACOG 3- West Sacramento-2 YOL West Capitol Avenue Regional Connection Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvements $ 909 $ 735 $ 735 Small Infrastructure X All Phases matched with Local Funds.
$ 735 $ 735 Same as West Sacramento project from the Quickbuilds program. $ -
SACOG 3- Folsom-1 SAC Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project $ 3,048 $ 1,700 $ 200 $ 1,500 Small Infrastructure PA & ED, PS & E, and prior CON funded with CMAQ and Local Funds. $ 200 $ 1,500 $ 1,700 $ -
SACOG 3-West Sacramento-3 YOL North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project $ 3,536 $ 638 $ 89 $ 549 Medium Infrastructure X ROW match funding with Local Funds.
$ 89 $ 310 $ 239 $ 638 MPO-specific application, did not apply to State ATP $ - remaining project funding request is on MPO contingency list if additional funding becomes available Total $ 62,813 $ 45,512 $ 4,462 $ 2,837 $ 4,155 $ 34,058 FTF STATE Total
$7,545 $37,967 $45,512
7,995$ 37,517$ 45,512$
($450) $450 $0
Blue column heading indicates the column data is a drop down menu to select project type State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
Over or Under Estimate amount
SACOG Fund estimate totals
Program funding totals
6/5/2023 C:\Users\s151700\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\0TGAN2S7\2023 ATP MPO Programming Spreadsheet.xlsx 1 of 1 2023 Regional Active Transportation Program
Funding and Contingency Lists
Attachment A
Project sponsor Project Title
Regional ATP
Funding
Average Project
Score
Elk Grove Laguna Creek Inter Regional Trail Crossing at State Route 99 6,874,000$ 83 Citrus Heights Arcade Cripple Creek Extension* 7,155,000$ 81 Roseville Dry Creek Greenway East Trail, Phase 2 6,063,000$ 81 El Dorado County El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing 3,271,000$ 79 Sacramento County Regional Parks Dry Creek Parkway Trail 7,704,000$ 78 Sacramento County DOT Bell Street Safe Routes to School* 8,808,000$ 78 Sacramento 9th Street Separated Bikeway Project* 2,564,000$ 77 West Sacramento
West Capitol Avenue Regional Connection Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvements* 735,000$ 77
Folsom Folsom Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project 1,700,000$ 76 West Sacramento North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project* ** 638,000$ 76 45,512,000$
Project sponsor Project Title
Regional ATP
Funding request
Average Project
Score
West Sacramento North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project* ** 2,493,000$ 76 Citrus Heights Old Auburn Road Complete Streets Phase I 9,315,000$ 74 Sacramento 24th Street Reconfiguration Project 6,664,000$ 73 Folsom Historic District Connectivity Project 5,550,000$ 73 Yuba County Hammonton Smartsville Road Project 4,433,000$ 69 Rancho Cordova Active Transportation Plan 250,000$ 69 Sacramento Pedestrian Crossings Improvement Project 713,000$ 68 Yuba City Yuba City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements 3,057,000$ 65 Yolo County County Road 98 Bike & Safety Improvement Project Phase II 10,000,000$ 64 Southeast Connector JPA White Rock Class I Trail 4,000,000$ 61 Woodland Woodland Safe Routes to School & ATP Connectivity Project 5,000,000$ 59 Isleton Sidewalk Gap Project 341,000$ 57 El Dorado County Ponderosa Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 750,000$ 56 Loomis Loomis Safe Pedestrian & Bike Routes to School 581,000$ 54 Yuba County Arboga Road Safe Routes to School Project 3,233,000$ 47 Sacramento Regional Transit District Blue Line Light Rail Station Conversions 8,975,000$ 46 2023 Regional ATP Ranked Contingency List
2023 Regional ATP Funding List
*Project counted towards "Meaningful Benefit for Disadvantaged Community Residents" state requirements and regional goals. **Project sponsor requested $3,131,000.
Attachment C
2023 Regional ATP Project Descriptions and Strengths
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Citrus Heights - Arcade Cripple Creek Ext
Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $7,155,000 Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Construct a 0.5 mile Class I multi-use trail following the Arcade Creek alignment between Sayonara Drive and Mariposa Avenue
Project scope location: Along the Arcade Creek creek corridor between Sayonara Drive and Mariposa Avenue. The trail is an extension of the Arcade-Cripple Creek Trail.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Project complements proposed and housing development and land use changes. • Provides meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents. • Supports economic prosperity goals.
• Implements the Regional Trail Network.
Citrus Heights - Old Auburn Road Complete Streets - Phase I Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $9,315,000 Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: The first phase of an active transportation complete street including a road diet, class IV bike lanes, sidewalks, landscaping, and pedestrian crossing enhancements.
Project scope location: Old Auburn Road from Garry Oak Drive (east of Fair Oaks Blvd) to Tiara Way (west of Sunrise Blvd).
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Effective public engagement, notably a demonstration project along the corridor. • Provides active transportation network connections to nearby activity centers. • Provides innovative roadway design that provides safety and comfort for all ages and abilities users.
El Dorado County - El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing
Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $3,271,000 Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Construct a Class I multi-use grade-separated crossing over Missouri Flat Rd, closing a gap in the El Dorado Trail.
Project scope location: On Missouri Flat Rd. between Golden Center Dr. and Old Depot Rd. along the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor (El Dorado Trail) in the El Dorado County community of Diamond Springs.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
Attachment C
2023 Regional ATP Project Descriptions and Strengths
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
• Provides off-road facility that provides safety and comfort for all ages and abilities users.
• Overcomes a significant barrier in connecting segments of the trail. • Implements the Regional Trail Network.
El Dorado County - Ponderosa Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $750,000 Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Install Class II bike lanes, sidewalk, ADA upgrades, and other roadway improvements.
Project scope location: Ponderosa Rd from Foxwood Lane, near the US 50 interchange, to Ponderosa High School, in the El Dorado County community of Shingle Springs.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity for students. • Leverages future project investments along the corridor to improve connectivity. • Public health support through local programs.
Elk Grove - Laguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail Crossing at State Route 99 Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $6,874,000 Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Construct Class I Bikeway across State Route 99 and adjacent class I trail gap closure.
Project scope location: Laguna Creek and State Route 99, between Sheldon Road and Bond Rd./Laguna Blvd.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Project overcomes a significant barrier in connecting segments of the trail. • Provides off-road facility that provides safety and comfort for all ages and abilities users.
• Implements the Regional Trail Network.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Folsom - Historic District Connectivity Project
Community type: Arterials & Suburban Corridors Fund request: $5,550,000 Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Install curb, gutter, sidewalk, bicycle facilities & crosswalks, upgrade & install curb ramps.
Project scope location: Riley Street between Sutter Street & Bidwell Street & on Dean Way between Coloma Street & Stafford Street.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity for students. • Connects to a significant number of jobs and services.
Folsom - Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $1,700,000 Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Install curb ramps, sidewalk connections, curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, curb & gutter, raised medians, pavement markings, signage, striping, and asphalt overlay.
Project scope location: within the Joint Powers Authority rail corridor north of E Bidwell, & runs between HBWC Trail and Scholar Way, and between Broadstone Pkwy & Iron Point Rd.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity to jobs and services. • Provides off-road facility for all ages and abilities users. • Implements the Regional Trail Network.
Isleton - Sidewalk Gap Project
Community type: Small-Town Established
Communities
Fund request: $341,000
Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm drains.
Project scope location: on Andrus Cr connecting to sidewalks north and south of the park; on Jackson Blvd Ext. 1 from Andrus Cr to Delta Ave; on Jackson Blvd Ext. 2 from 5th St to 6th St; on H St from 6th St to Union St; and on 6th St from Jackson Blvd Ext. 2 to Joseph Pl.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
• Provides meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents. • Provides active transportation network connectivity to jobs and services. • Project is cost-effective.
Loomis - Loomis Safe Pedestrian & Bike Routes to School Community type: Small-Town Established
Communities
Fund request: $581,000
Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct sidewalks and bike lanes as gap closures along school routes.
Project scope location: Humphrey Rd and King Rd near H Clarke Powers Elementary School, on King Rd adjacent to Loomis Grammar School.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity for students. • Project is cost-effective.
Rancho Cordova - Active Transportation Plan
Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $250,000 Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Develop an Active Transportation Plan including existing conditions, community listening, and prioritization with cost estimates.
Project scope location: Citywide plan within the City of Rancho Cordova.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Proposes to plan a citywide active transportation network with innovative designs for all ages and abilities users.
• Project is cost-effective.
Roseville - Dry Creek Greenway East Trail, Phase 2
Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $6,063,000 Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Construct a Class I multi-use trail and Class II buffered bike lanes.
Project scope location: Along Linda Creek from Rocky Ridge Drive to the eastern city limits at Old Auburn Road, and on N Cirby Way between the Dry Creek Greenway and George Sargeant Elementary School.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
• Provides off-road facility that provides safety and comfort for all ages and abilities users.
• Provides active transportation network connectivity to jobs and services. • Supports the development of placemaking along the trail corridor. • Includes non-infrastructure programs to engage, educate, or encourage walking and bicycling.
• Implements the Regional Trail Network.
Sacramento County DOT - Bell Street Safe Routes to School Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $8,808,000 Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Construct new sidewalks and curb ramps. Relocate signal poles and straighten sidewalks. Install pedestrian signal, RRFB, new signs, bike lanes and bike detectors.
Project scope location: In unincorporated Sacramento County, at various locations along Bell Street from Hurley Way to Edison Avenue and 2419 Wyda Way.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity to local destinations. • Provides innovative roadway design that provides safety and comfort for all ages and abilities users.
• Includes non-infrastructure programs to engage, educate, or encourage people to increase walking and bicycling.
• Provides meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents.
Sacramento County Regional Parks - Dry Creek Parkway Trail Community type: Rural Residential Fund request: $7,704,000 Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Construct a paved Class1 multi-use trail, including dg shoulder, plus two bridges and roadway crossing evaluation.
Project scope location: From 24th St/U St intersection east and north along Dry Creek to Placer County line; Dry Creek Road connecting to Sacramento Northern Trail near Elkhorn Blvd.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides off-road facility that improves safety and comfort for all ages and abilities users.
• Closes key gaps in the regional active transportation network. • Implements the Regional Trail Network.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sacramento Regional Transit District - Blue Line Light Rail Station Conversions
Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $8,975,000 Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct 18 new ADA ramps, replace 9 platforms, upgrade 6 light rail stations.
Project scope location: Along SacRT's Blue Line light rail route in Sacramento.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides significant benefits for transit riders, especially those who ride bicycles. • Improves existing conditions for ADA access.
Sacramento - 9th Street Separated Bikeway Project
Community type: Urban core Fund request: $2,564,000
Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Construct a Class IV bikeway and a Class II bikeway.
Project scope location: In downtown Sacramento on 9th Street from Q Street to Broadway.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity to jobs and services. • Provides innovative roadway design for all ages and abilities users. • Support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Provides meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents.
Sacramento - 24th Street Reconfiguration Project
Community type: Arterials & Suburban Corridors Fund request: $6,664,000 Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Reconfigure the 24th Street and Sutterville Road Bypass intersection and construct Class II bike lanes.
Project scope location: The project is located in the City of Sacramento on 24th Street from the Sutterville Road Bypass to Fruitridge Road.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity to jobs and services.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
• Improves regional network connectivity to public transit and educational institutions.
Sacramento - Pedestrian Crossings Improvement Project
Community type: Urban core / Arterials &
Suburban Corridors / Established Communities
Fund request: $713,000
Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct RRFB enhanced crossings.
Project scope location: At the intersections of Folsom Boulevard & Seville Way, W Street & 8th Street, Raley Boulevard & Santa Ana Avenue, and Alhambra Boulevard & X Street.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Constructs pedestrian facility that provides safety and comfort for all ages and abilities users.
• Project is cost-effective.
Southeast Connector JPA - White Rock Class I Trail
Community type: Developing Fund request: $4,000,000
Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct Class I multi-use path.
Project scope location: In Folsom/Sacramento County, on White Rock Road from East Bidwell Street to Stonebriar Drive in El Dorado County.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Improves connectivity across neighboring jurisdictions. • Implements the Regional Trail Network.
West Sacramento - North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project
Community type: Arterials & Suburban Corridors Fund request: $3,131,000 Recommendation: Partial funding
Project: Project will install bike lanes, intersection enhancements, and new sidewalks, and an ADA ramp connection from 5th Street/A Street to Riverwalk Trail.
Project scope location: On 5th Street/Lighthouse Drive between C Street and Fountain Drive; A Street between 5th Street and 4th Street/River Walk Trail; and C Street between 3rd Street and 6th Street.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity to jobs and services. • Improves safety for people walking and bicycling.
• Supports the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Provides meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents.
West Sacramento - West Capitol Avenue Regional Connection Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Community type: Arterials & Suburban Corridors Fund request: $735,000 Recommendation: Full funding
Project: Construct vertical delineators to create separated bike lanes, Class II bike lanes , intersections improvements, and improve Westacre Rd underpass.
Project scope location: On West Capitol Ave/Grand Street between I-80 and Tower Bridge Gateway; on Tower Bridge Gateway at River Walk Trail; and Westacre Rd/15th St between West Capitol Avenue and S River Rd.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Improves on-road facility for all ages and abilities users. • Project is cost-effective.
• Supports the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Provides meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents.
Woodland - Woodland Safe Routes to School & ATP Connectivity Project Community type: Established Communities Fund request: $5,000,000 Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Enhance/upgrade crosswalks, repair sidewalk, add/upgrade curb ramps and provide safety signal modifications for pedestrians and bicyclists at 6 intersections.
Project scope location: on Ashley Ave from Kentucky Ave to Beamer St, on Beamer St from California St to East St, on Cross St from West St to East St, and on El Dorado Dr from CR 98 to Sixth St.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity for students. • Provides meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Yolo County - County Road 98 Bike & Safety Improvement Project Phase II Community type: Ag Fund request: $10,000,000
Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct Class II bike lanes, three roundabouts, and 20' clear recovery zone.
Project scope location: Along County Road 98 from south of CR 29 to the Solano County line.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Improves connectivity across neighboring jurisdictions. • Improves safety for road users.
Yuba City - Yuba City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements Community type: Arterials & Suburban Corridors Fund request: $3,057,000 Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct bike lanes, a multi-use trail, HAWK signals, flashing beacons, crosswalks, curb ramps, bulb-outs, a refuge island, and signing and striping.
Project scope location: On Live Oak Dr. & Northgate Blvd.; Market St. & Lynn Way; Market St. & Bird St.; Shasta St. & Alturas St.; North Colusa (SR 20) Frontage Road& Sutter St.; Teegarden Ave. & Sutter St.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Improves connections to the Regional Trail Network.
• Provides meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents.
Yuba County - Arboga Road - Safe Routes to School Project Community type: Developing Fund request: $3,233,000
Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct sidewalks, bike lanes, curb ramps, striping, signage, traffic control devices, storm drains, crosswalks, curbs and gutters.
Project scope location: On Arboga Rd between Arboga Rd and Broadway St, and on Broadway St between Arboga Rd and Rocky Rd.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity for students. • Improves existing conditions for people walking and bicycling.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Yuba County - Hammonton-Smartsville Road Project
Community type: Small-Town Established
Communities
Fund request: $4,433,000
Recommendation: Not recommended for
funding
Project: Construct sidewalks, bike lanes, curb ramps, striping, signage, traffic control devices, storm drains, crosswalks, curbs and gutters.
Project scope location: Within the unincorporated community of Linda, on Hammonton- Smartsville Rd between Rupert Ave and North Beale Rd.
Project Strengths from Working Group Discussion and Score:
• Provides active transportation network connectivity to jobs and services. • Improves safety for road users.
Regional ATP Working Group Roster Attachment D
Agency/Organization Role in the Working Group
California Department of Public Health- Active
Transportation Safety Program Member
House Sacramento Member Alternate
City of Davis Member
City of Elk Grove Member
Rocklin Planning Commission Member
Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority Member Alternate
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Member, Regional ATP Team El Dorado County Transportation Commission Co-Member, Regional ATP Team El Dorado County Transportation Commission Co-Member, Regional ATP Team Sacramento Area Council of Governments Member, Regional ATP Team Sacramento Area Council of Governments Facilitator
Attachment F
Regional Active Transportation Program Evaluation Process Call for Projects
The SACOG Regional Active Transportation Program (Regional ATP) concluded the call for projects on September 29, 2022. Cities and counties submitted 33 projects to compete in the six-county 2023 Regional Active Transportation Program. Twenty-two projects were carried over from the 2023 State ATP. Eleven projects were submitted to the Regional ATP only. Four projects competed with a reduced scope and funding request from their State ATP request, applying for a reduced segment in the Regional ATP. These factors seem to be in acknowledgement of the increase of state funds to the overall program, with the 2023 Regional ATP cycle award of $45,512,000 representing the largest program call in the history of the program..
The State ATP funding recommendation was released in October; the seven SACOG region projects submitted that were recommended for State ATP funding were then removed from the Regional ATP competition. One application was withdrawn from the Regional ATP due to scope ineligibility. This left 25 projects in the Regional ATP competition.
Screening
The Regional ATP Team—staff from El Dorado County Transportation Commission, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, and SACOG—screened the 25 submitted Regional ATP projects for eligibility to compete. All submitted projects were deemed eligible to compete either as submitted or with minor clarifications from the project sponsors. Following the screening, applications were shared with the Active Transportation Working Group (Working Group) in early January for review.
Evaluation
Each project was scored by seven members of the Working Group; Working Group members did not score or discuss projects for which they had a conflict of interest. Scores included the performance metrics of increasing biking and walking (45 points), increasing safety (20 points), cost effectiveness (5 points), reducing greenhouse gas emissions (10 points), supporting economic prosperity (10 points), and project readiness (5 points); working group members provided a score for the potential benefit to disadvantaged community member (10 points), but this metric was not included in the total score.
The 10 points for disadvantaged community benefit was used to determine which projects should be counted towards the region’s state-mandated minimum 25% investment in disadvantaged communities, and the region’s goal of 40% investment in projects with a meaningful benefit for disadvantaged community residents. Projects that clearly and significantly demonstrated a meaningful benefit to disadvantaged community residents by meeting an important community need averaged 8 or more on this question, per the scoring rubric.
The Working Group met in November, December, and January to discuss projects and submit clarifying questions to the project sponsors. Staff emailed these questions to project sponsors, project sponsors emailed answers, and staff shared the responses with the Working Group. After reviewing these responses, each member of the Working Group submitted their evaluation for competing projects. Staff removed the highest and lowest scores then averaged the remaining five scores to develop each Attachment F
project’s average score. The average scores—rounded to whole numbers—were used to develop an initial list of Regional ATP Scores for discussion..
Ranking
The Regional ATP Team of SACOG, EDCTC, and PCTPA reviewed the initial list of Regional ATP Scores and noted the top 11 projects that scored the highest and proposed them for further discussion. The Working Group were asked to propose additional projects for discussion, but formed a consensus on not adding any additional projects for discussion. The Working Group discussed the eleven top-scoring projects to revisit strengths, weaknesses, and how project sponsors had answered the Working Group’s questions. After the discussion, Working Group members had the option to re-score any of the discussed projects. Staff inputted revised scores, removed the outlying high and low scores, then averaged the remaining scores to develop the revised averages. The Working Group used the revised average scores to identify a ranked funding recommendation for the Regional ATP.
Working Group Ranked Recommendation
1. Elk Grove - Laguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail Crossing at State Route 99 (score 83)
2. Citrus Heights - Arcade Cripple Creek Extension (score 81)
3. Roseville - Dry Creek Greenway East Trail, Phase 2 (score 81)
4. El Dorado County - El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing (score 79)
5. Sacramento County Regional Parks - Dry Creek Parkway Trail (score 78)
6. Sacramento County DOT - Bell Street Safe Routes to School (score 78)
7. Sacramento - 9th Street Separated Bikeway Project (score 77)
8. West Sacramento - West Capitol Avenue Regional Connection Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvements (score 77)
9. Folsom - Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project (score 76)
10. West Sacramento - North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project (score 76)
11. Citrus Heights - Old Auburn Road Complete Streets - Phase I (score 74) Recommendation
The ranked funding recommendation could fully fund the eight top-scoring projects with $43,174,000, leaving $2,338,000 to be distributed to the two projects tied at 76 points. The Working Group agreed to fully fund the top eight projects and the Folsom - Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project and recommended a partial award of the remaining $638,000 of funds to West Sacramento - North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project. The Funding Recommendation followed is shown below.
Regional ATP Funding Recommendation
1. Elk Grove - Laguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail Crossing at State Route 99 (score 83)
2. Citrus Heights - Arcade Cripple Creek Extension (score 81)
3. Roseville - Dry Creek Greenway East Trail, Phase 2 (score 81)
4. El Dorado County - El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing (score 79)
5. Sacramento County Regional Parks - Dry Creek Parkway Trail (score 78)
6. Sacramento County DOT - Bell Street Safe Routes to School (score 78) Attachment F
7. Sacramento - 9th Street Separated Bikeway Project (score 77)
8. West Sacramento - West Capitol Avenue Regional Connection Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvements (score 77)
9. Folsom - Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project (score 76)
10. West Sacramento - North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project– partial funding recommendation/remaining available funding (score 76)
The remaining Regional ATP projects form a ranked contingency list. Tied projects are ranked based on first their score under the metric of “improving safety”, then on the metric of “increasing biking and walking”.
Ranked Contingency List
1. West Sacramento - North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project– remaining funding need (score 76)
2. Citrus Heights - Old Auburn Road Complete Streets - Phase I (score 74)
3. Sacramento - 24th Street Reconfiguration Project (score 73)
4. Folsom - Historic District Connectivity Project (score 73)
5. Yuba County - Hammonton-Smartsville Road Project (score 69)
6. Rancho Cordova - Active Transportation Plan (score 69)
7. Sacramento - Pedestrian Crossings Improvement Project (score 68)
8. Yuba City - Yuba City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements (score 65)
9. Yolo County - County Road 98 Bike & Safety Improvement Project Phase II (score 64)
10. Southeast Connector JPA - White Rock Class I Trail (score 61)
11. Woodland - Woodland Safe Routes to School & ATP Connectivity Project (score 59)
12. Isleton - Sidewalk Gap Project (score 57)
13. El Dorado County - Ponderosa Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (score 56)
14. Loomis - Loomis Safe Pedestrian & Bike Routes to School (score 54)
15. Yuba County - Arboga Road - Safe Routes to School Project (score 47)
16. Sacramento Regional Transit District - SacRT Light Rail Modernization Station Improvements for Active Transportation Enhancement (score 46)
Project Sponsor coordination
Following the Working Group Regional ATP recommendation, SACOG staff reached out to West Sacramento staff to determine if they were able to use the recommended partial funding award. The California Transportation Commission does not allow SACOG to recommend partial funding awards that would not yield a completed project phase.
The remaining funding was offered to and accepted by the project sponsor for environmental, design, and to partially cover the right-of-way phase. The funding recommendation and contingency list in Attachment A reflects this change. Staff will work with the City of West Sacramento to ensure this recommendation meets programming requirements from the CTC.
Per the ATP Guidelines, an MPO may elect to have a contingency list of projects to be amended into the program in the event a programmed project is delivered for less or fails to secure an Allocation or Time Extension, or award a Construction Contract from the CTC for the Construction Phase according to the CTC’s Timely Use of Funds policy. This contingency list will be in effect only until the adoption of the next Statewide ATP program in 2025. Any amendments shifting funds to a project on the Contingency Project List are subject to approval by the SJCOG Board and the CTC.
Application ID Agency Pr oject Type Project Name Total Project Cost
Contingency
Programming
Average
Score Rank
10-Tracy-01 Tracy Medi um East Schulte Safety and Multimodal Community Corridor 5,244,000$ 3,152,010$ 132.10 4
10-San Joaquin County-
03 San Joaquin County Small Boggs Tract Community Improvements 3,193,000$ 3,193,516$ 126.00 5 10-Lathrop-01 Lathrop Medi um Lathrop Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 5,784,000$ 5,784,000$ 125.20 6 10-Stockton-03 Stockton Medi um Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Gap 6,681,886$ 4,008,886$ 123.55 7 10-San Joaquin County-
01 San Joaquin County Medium Bu rkett Garden Acres Sidewalk Improvements 3,692,000$ 2,935,458$ 122.80 8 10-Stockton-02 Stockton Medi um Active Alpine Avenue For All 6,624,000$ 5,962,000$ 121.00 9 10-Stockton-06 Stockton Medi um 8th Street/Houston Ave-Manthey Road-Carolyn Weston 5,418,164$ 4,876,348$ 114.40 10
10-Manteca-02 Manteca Medi um City Sidewalk Gap Closure 8,906,000$ 8,906,000$ 110.40 11 10-Manteca-01 Manteca Sm all Safe Route To School - Pedestrian Safety Improvements 2,925,000$ 2,925,000$ 70.40 12
SJCOG 2023 ATP Contingency List
Application ID Agency Project Type Project Name
Total
Project
Cost
Funds
Requested
Average
Score Rank
10-San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission-01 SJRRC Large East Channel Street Streetscape and Connectivity Project 10,492,000 $ 3,500,000$ 178.40 1 10-San Joaquin County-02 San Joaquin
County Plan Countywide Sidewalks Connectivity Plan 566,000 $ 452,800$ 147.00 2 10-Stockton-04 Stockton Large Main and Market Complete Streets 10,142,000 $ 8,226,000$ 146.30 3 10-Tracy-01 Tracy Medium East Schulte Safety and Multimodal Community Corridor* 5,244,000 $ 4,684,210$ 132.10 4
10-San Joaquin County-03 San Joaquin
County Small Boggs Tract Community Improvements 3,193,000 $ 3,193,516$ 126.00 5 10-Lathrop-01 Lathrop Medium Lathrop Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 5,784,000 $ 5,784,000$ 125.20 6 10-Stockton-03 Stockton Medium Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Gap 6,681,886 $ 4,008,886$ 123.55 7 10-San Joaquin County-01 San Joaquin
County Medium Burkett Garden Acres Sidewalk Improvements 3,692,000 $ 2,935,458$ 122.80 8 10-Stockton-02 Stockton Medium Active Alpine Avenue For All 6,624,000 $ 5,962,000$ 121.00 9 10-Stockton-06 Stockton Medium 8th Street/Houston Ave-Manthey Road-Carolyn Weston 5,418,164 $ 4,876,348$ 114.40 10
10-Manteca-02 Manteca Medium City Sidewalk Gap Closure 8,906,000 $ 8,906,000$ 110.40 11 10-Manteca-01 Manteca Small Safe Route To School - Pedestrian Safety Improvements 2,925,000 $ 2,925,000$ 70.40 12
List of All Projects and Regional Competition Scores
List of members that participated in the scoring of the ATP Cycle 6 SJCOG Regional Call for Projects.
Name Affiliation
Frank Huang City of Lodi
James Damasco City of Tracy
Jay Halva SJCOG
Marilissa Lorea San Joaquin County
Paul Plathe SJCOG Citicen's Advisory
Committee
Said Houseyni City of Stockton
Steve DeBrum SJCOG Citicen's Advisory
Committee
Multidisciplinary Advisory Group
San Diego Association of Governments
April 12, 2023 File Number 3300200
Ms. Laurie Waters
Associate Deputy Director
California Transportation Commission
1120 N Street, MS-52
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
Dear Laurie:
Subject: Final 2023 ATP MPO Programming Recommendations The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is pleased to submit the attached final 2023 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Programming Recommendations for the San Diego region for California Transportation Commission (CTC) consideration.
Please contact me at (619) 699-7314 or [email protected] with any questions. We appreciate the CTC’s consideration of the SANDAG Regional ATP funding recommendations at its June 28-29, 2023 meeting.
Sincerely,
JENNY RUSSO
Grants Program Manager
Enclosure(s) 1. Description of unbiased project selection method
2. Signed Board resolution
3. Completed programming spreadsheet
4. List of all projects evaluated and regional competition scores, including contingency list
5. Copies of applications not submitted through the state process that are recommended for funding
Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
($ in thousands)
MPO Application ID County Project Title Total Project Cost (1000)
ATP Request
(1000)
23-24 Funds
(1000)
24-25 Funds
(1000)
25-26 Funds
(1000)
26-27 Funds
(1000) PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Fund totals Project Type DAC SRTS BA Agency Comments SANDAG 1-Sample Application-1 SD Sample Project Title $ 3,000 $ 2,319 $ 250 $ 500 $ 40 $ 1,529 Small Combo X X Con Phase is funded with SHA and FTF $ 250 $ 400 $ 100 $ 529 $ 40 $ 1,319 Agency does not want to commit funding on this project in order to have SOF contingency funds $ 1,000 $ 1,000
SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of
Governments(SANDAG)-3 SD Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways $ 68,596 $ 4,614 $ 4,614 $ - $ - $ - Large Infrastructure X X X
$ 4,614 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,614 $ -
SANDAG 11-National City, City of-2 SD Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 $ 9,588 $ 2,072 $ 2,072 $ - $ - $ - Medium Infrastructure X
The project as submitted was named this, but it should be #5 in sequence (following their prior two statewide submittals and the others they submitted in regional). We have it listed as NC5 on our list to distinguish it from their other statewide application numbered #2. $ - $ - $ - $ 2,072 $ - $ 2,072 $ -
SANDAG 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 SD F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway $ 18,845 $ 9,762 $ 78 $ 1,295 $ 8,389 Large Infrastructure X X Caltrans recommended moving PS&E to 25/26 and CON to 26/27 due to ROW issues and likely needing more time
$ - $ - $ 8,389 $ 8,389 $ 78 $ 1,295 $ - $ 1,373 SANDAG 11-National City, City of-2 SD 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements $ 6,373 $ 2,248 $ 600 $ - $ 1,648 $ - Medium Infrastructure X
The project as submitted was named this, but it should be #6 in sequence (following their prior two statewide submittals and the others they submitted in regional). We have it listed as NC6 on our list to distinguish it from their other statewide application numbered #2. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ 370 $ 130 $ 1,648 $ 2,248 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of
Governments(SANDAG)-5 SD Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) $ 88,131 $ 3,818 $ 3,818 $ - $ - $ - Large Infrastructure X X
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,818 $ 3,818
SANDAG 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 SD Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout $ 6,800 $ 5,984 $ 575 $ - $ 5,409 $ - Medium Infrastructure X Caltrans noted a typo on proposed dates in PPR that shows ROW is before PA&ED. Should I fix this with a corrected PPR or would it corrected when programming? $ 3 $ 572 $ - $ 5,409 $ - $ 5,984 $ -
SANDAG 11-San Diego, City of-6 SD Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities $ 1,500 $ 1,239 $ 1,239 $ - $ - $ - Plan X The City did not submit their 11-San Diego, City of-3 project so the numbering of their projects after #2 is off. This project is listed as SD5 in our regional project listing. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,239 $ 1,239 $ -
SANDAG 11_San Diego, City of-5 SD San Diego CicloSDias Pilot $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ - $ - $ - NI Only X The City did not submit their 11-San Diego, City of-3 project so the numbering of their projects after #2 is off. This project is listed as SD4 in our regional project listing. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500 $ 500 $ -
SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of
Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway $ 9,530 $ 5,172 $ 546 $ 4,626 $ - $ - Medium Infrastructure X
$ - $ - $ 546 $ 4,626 $ - $ 5,172 $ -
SANDAG 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 SD Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 $ 4,891 $ 4,890 $ 374 $ - $ 4,516 $ - Medium Infrastructure
$ - $ 374 $ - $ 4,516 $ - $ 4,890 $ -
SANDAG 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 SD Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 $ 8,085 $ 8,004 $ 115 $ 1,194 $ 6,695 Medium Infrastructure X Caltrans suggested moving CON from 25/26 to 26/27 due to ROW issues with railroad and likely needing more time
$ 115 $ 1,194 $ - $ 6,695 $ 8,004 This is the project name as submitted through our regional component. There is an 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 under statewide but this is different project. This is referred to as LG2 in our regional results $ -
SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of
Governments(SANDAG)-7 SD Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2:
Intersection Safety Improvements $ 9,345 $ 6,344 $ 6,344 $ - $ - $ - Medium Infrastructure X
$ - $ - $ - $ 6,344 $ - $ 6,344 $ -
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
6/5/2023 S:\ATP\2023 ATP\MPO Component\Staff Recommendations\SANDAG\FINAL\03 SANDAG Programming Spreadsheet.xlsx 1 of 2 Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
($ in thousands)
MPO Application ID County Project Title Total Project Cost (1000)
ATP Request
(1000)
23-24 Funds
(1000)
24-25 Funds
(1000)
25-26 Funds
(1000)
26-27 Funds
(1000) PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Fund totals Project Type DAC SRTS BA Agency Comments SANDAG 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 SD Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A $ 3,810 $ 3,010 $ 100 $ 150 $ 2,760 $ - Medium Infrastructure X
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100 $ 150 $ - $ 2,760 $ 3,010 SANDAG 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway $ 3,290 $ 3,288 $ 148 $ 380 $ - $ 2,760 Small Infrastructure X
$ 148 $ 380 $ - $ 2,760 $ - $ 3,288 $ -
SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of
Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway $ 8,800 $ 982 $ 339 $ 464 $ 179 $ - Medium Infrastructure X X
$ - $ 366 $ 98 $ 179 $ - $ 643 $ 339 $ 339
Total $ 248,084 $ 61,927 $ 21,462 $ 6,814 $ 15,807 $ 17,844 FTF STATE Total
$10,800 $51,127 $61,927
10,788$ 51,139$ 61,927$
$12 ($12) $0
Blue column heading indicates the column data is a drop down menu to select project type State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
Over or Under Estimate amount
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
SANDAG Fund estimate totals
Program funding totals
6/5/2023 S:\ATP\2023 ATP\MPO Component\Staff Recommendations\SANDAG\FINAL\03 SANDAG Programming Spreadsheet.xlsx 2 of 2 Item: 8
Board of Directors March 24, 2023
Regional Active Transportation Program Funding
Recommendations
Overview
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is
administered by the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) and distributes funding for active
transportation projects. Funding is competitively
awarded in two stages, beginning with a statewide
competition led by the CTC, followed by a regional
competition conducted by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization of each region. This report contains the
project rankings and funding recommendations for the
2023 Regional ATP.
Key Considerations
The Board of Directors adopted the 2023 Regional
ATP scoring criteria on May 13, 2022, and the CTC
adopted the criteria on June 29, 2022. Thirty-five
applications were submitted from the region requesting
approximately $150 million in funding. Attachment 1
provides information on the evaluation process. Fifteen projects from six agencies are recommended to
receive approximately $61.9 million in funding
(Attachment 4).
Next Steps
Pending action by the Board, SANDAG will submit its recommendations to the CTC. The CTC is scheduled to consider the adoption of the region’s funding recommendations and contingency project list at its meeting on June 28-29, 2023. Pending CTC approval, a budget amendment to include ATP funds awarded for the four SANDAG projects would be brought for Board consideration.
Susan Huntington, Director of Financial Planning, Budgets, and Grants Key Staff Contact: Jenny Russo, (619) 699-7314, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Discussion Memo
2. 2023 Active Transportation Program – Statewide Component Staff Recommendations
3. Regional ATP Evaluation Criteria
4. 2023 Regional ATP Application Rankings, Funding Recommendations, and Contingency Project List
5. Resolution No. 2023-13: Approving the Proposed List of Regional Active Transportation Program Projects and Funding Recommendations to the California Transportation Commission
Fiscal Impact:
Pending adoption by the Board of Directors
and the California Transportation
Commission, the regional Active
Transportation Program would provide
$61.9 million in state and federal funding to
active transportation projects, including
approximately $19.9 million for four SANDAG
projects.
Schedule/Scope Impact:
Funding could be distributed between 2023
and 2027.
Action: Adopt
The Transportation Committee recommends
that the Board of Directors adopt Resolution
No. 2023-13, certifying the results of the San
Diego Regional Active Transportation
Program (ATP); and recommend that the
California Transportation Commission fund
the San Diego Regional ATP projects.
32 Attachment 1
2 Discussion Memo
Active Transportation Program Background
Approximately $1.7 billion in state and federal funding was budgeted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the 2023 Active Transportation Program (ATP) over four years, beginning with FY 2023-2024. Fifty percent of the funding was competitively awarded for projects selected by the CTC on a statewide basis, and 10% of the funding was distributed to small urban and rural regions. The remaining 40% of the funding will be allocated for projects selected through the regional competitive processes. The funding available for the San Diego region is approximately $61.9 million in total or about $15.5 million per year. In addition, a minimum of 25% of the funds in both the statewide and regional programs must benefit disadvantaged communities as defined in the CTC ATP Guidelines.
Eligible agencies include cities, counties, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), as well as transit agencies, natural resources or public land agencies, public schools or school districts, tribal governments, and private nonprofit tax-exempt organizations.
Statewide and Regional Competitions for the 2023 Active Transportation Program Statewide Active Transportation Program Competition
The CTC announced the 2023 ATP call for projects on March 16, 2022. Applications were received for 434 projects, requesting approximately $3.1 billion in ATP funds. The CTC adopted the list of projects recommended for funding for the statewide and small urban and rural components at its meeting on December 7, 2022. Twenty-five projects were submitted from the San Diego region, and four of those projects – one each from the cities of Imperial Beach and National City and two from SANDAG – were recommended by CTC staff to be considered for funding (Attachment 2). The remaining 21 projects that were not recommended for the statewide component remain eligible for the regional ATP.
Regional Active Transportation Program Competition
At its May 13, 2022, meeting, the Board of Directors approved the scoring criteria for the 2023 Regional ATP competitive program (Attachment 3) and subsequently authorized the Regional call for projects. The CTC adopted the SANDAG criteria at its meeting on June 29, 2022. The Regional call for projects was released on July 6, 2022, and 14 additional projects were submitted for consideration. After the projects recommended for statewide ATP funding were removed from the applicant pool, the Regional ATP had a total of 35 project applications from 12 applicants, requesting a total of approximately $149 million in ATP funding.
SANDAG is both an eligible applicant as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and has a role as an MPO to administer the regional program. To ensure that the evaluation process is open and transparent and does not give an advantage to SANDAG projects, SANDAG staff directly associated with applications did not have a role in evaluating project applications or the facilitation of the regional competitive process.
Following CTC ATP Guidelines, SANDAG assembled a multidisciplinary evaluation panel to assist in evaluating project applications. The evaluation panel was composed of volunteers who had not submitted an ATP application and had expertise in biking and pedestrian transportation, including safe routes to school projects and projects benefitting disadvantaged communities.
33 3
Projects received scores for qualitative criteria from the evaluation panel members and scores for quantitative criteria from SANDAG staff in the Grants Division, which is consistent with the scoring criteria approved by the Board. Scores for quantitative criteria were informed by data provided by SANDAG’s Data Science Department. A project’s quantitative score was added to the qualitative scores provided by each evaluator to determine a total score. This was done for all projects. Then, for each evaluator, the projects were ranked based on their total scores. The sum of all evaluators’ ranks for each project dictated the final project ranking order, with the lowest sum of ranks representing the highest rating and the highest sum of ranks representing the lowest rating. Consistent with all SANDAG grant programs, the results of the scoring and ranking process were independently reviewed by SANDAG’s Data Science Department to identify and correct any potential errors.
The project evaluation process resulted in the application rankings shown in Attachment 4. Projects were recommended to receive funding in descending rank order until funding was exhausted. There are two requirements set forth by the ATP Guidelines that impacted the projects recommended for funding:
• The ATP Guidelines limit the amount of funding that can be awarded to planning projects to no more than 2% of the total amount available. For the regional program, this results in a maximum cumulative award amount of $1,238,540. The City of San Diego submitted several planning projects that ranked highly and would have been recommended for funding if the limitation were not in place.
Grants Division staff discussed the results and limited amount of funding available with City staff and the City elected to decline funding for their higher-ranked projects so that their Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities project could receive funding.
Attachment 4 includes footnotes for the projects that were impacted by this limitation. • The CTC requires projects to be fully funded following the award of ATP funds, which means an applicant who is recommended to receive a partial award must provide matching funds from non- ATP sources to make the project whole. The City of Chula Vista was recommended to receive a partial award of $7,280,460 for its F Street Promenade Phase 2 project, but was unable to provide sufficient matching funds and therefore declined the award. The next project on the list, also from the City of Chula Vista, was then recommended to receive its full funding request and resulting in the next project from the City of Oceanside recommended to receive a partial award of $4,270,460.
The City of Oceanside declined the partial award for its Coastal Rail Trail project due to insufficient matching funds, resulting in the next project on the list, the City of National City’s 22nd Street Separated Bikeway, to be recommended to receive its full funding request. The remaining balance was then recommended as a partial award for the next highest-ranked project, Civic Center Protected Bikeway from the City of National City. The City of National City declined the partial award due to insufficient matching funds, resulting in the next project on the list, the SANDAG Uptown Phase 4 project, to be recommended to receive the remaining balance of $982,460.
Following the process, 13 of the 35 projects are recommended for full funding, and 2 projects are recommended for partial funding. Grants Division staff is confirming with the two applicants that partial funding will be accepted, the funds can be used effectively on the project, and the scope of the proj ect will remain the same as the scope of the project in the original project application. The funding recommendations are outlined in Attachment 4.
In conformance with the CTC guidelines, a minimum of 25% of the funds distributed to each MPO must benefit disadvantaged communities. All projects recommended for funding will benefit disadvantaged communities, which exceeds the minimum requirement.
34 4
Contingency Projects
Under the ATP Guidelines, applications awarded ATP funding must be ready to allocate ATP funds within the applicable fiscal years of the program. ATP projects will be monitored closely by CTC staff to ensure timely delivery within the identified constraints of the program. If a project is unable to allocate the awarded funds or obtain an extension within the timeframe identified by the CTC, the next highest -ranked project on the contingency list (Attachment 4), including a project that may have been partially funded or a project that was impacted by the planning project funding limit would receive ATP funds in place of the originally selected project. In this instance, the project that fails to meet its delivery timeline would forfeit the unspent portion of its ATP funds and would have to compete again to receive ATP or other funds. The projects not recommended for funding in the 2023 ATP as well as those unable to meet the prior ATP cycle allocation deadlines may re-compete in the next ATP competition, the 2025 ATP, which is anticipated to occur in 2024. Contingency projects would be ineligible if they are awarded funds through the 2025 ATP competition or from another funding source. The contingency list would expire after the approval of the 2025 ATP funding recommendations.
35 California Transportation Commission October 20, 2022 2023 Active Transportation Program
Staff Recommendations
Statewide and Small Urban & Rural Components
The Active Transportation Program was created by Senate Bill 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. The Active Transportation Program consists of three components: the Statewide component (50% of the funds), the Small Urban & Rural component (10% of the funds), and the large Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) component (40% of the funds).
The 2023 Active Transportation Program Staff Recommendations for the Statewide and Small Urban & Rural Components are attached as Attachments A and B, respectively.
Please be advised that these are the staff recommendations only. The program of projects will not be finalized until the Commission adopts the program at its December 7-8, 2022 meeting. Projects located within the boundaries of one of the ten large MPOs (Fresno Council of Governments, Kern Council of Governments, Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments, San Joaquin Council of Governments, Southern California Association of Governments, Stanislaus Council of Governments, and Tulare County Association of Governments) that were not selected in the Statewide component will be considered for funding through the MPO component.
Recommendations for the MPO component will be released on May 12, 2023 and considered by the Commission at its June 2023 meeting.
The 2023 Active Transportation Program Staff Recommendations for the Statewide and Small Urban & Rural components are summarized below.
Statewide Component
67 projects worth $1.149 billion with $853.52 million in Active Transportation Program funding
100% of funds directly benefit disadvantaged communities 43 projects are Safe Routes to School projects
Small Urban and Rural Component
26 projects worth $209.187 million with $170.704 million in Active Transportation Program funding
100% of funds directly benefit disadvantaged communities 19 projects are Safe Routes to School projects
The one-time, $1.049 billion augmentation included in the Budget Act of 2022 significantly boosted the number of projects the Commission can fund through the 2023 Active Transportation Program. Without the augmentation, staff recommendations would have included 23 projects in the Statewide component and seven projects in the Small Urban & Rural component.
Attachment 2
5 36
California Transportation Commission October 20, 2022
Background
The Active Transportation Program continues to experience tremendous unmet demand, as communities across the state look to the program to fund critical active transportation projects necessary to meet safety, climate, and equity goals. In light of the unmet need, the Commission recently embarked on a year-long effort to secure more funding for the program. This effort commenced in March 2021, when the Commission proposed a one- time, $2 billion augmentation to reduce the backlog of critically needed, high-quality projects that had not received funding in previous cycles due to the program’s lack of adequate funding. In June 2022, the Governor signed the Budget Act of 2022, which included a one-time Active Transportation Program funding augmentation of $1.049 billion. While the Commission greatly appreciates this significant one-time augmentation from the Governor and Legislature to fund more projects, the need for additional funding for the program remains.
The Commission held a stakeholder workshop in July 2022 to discuss the distribution and implementation of the funding augmentation. Over 150 stakeholders attended, and there was widespread consensus to distribute all augmentation funding to the 2023 Active Transportation Program. Therefore, the Commission adopted an amended 2023 Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate at its August 2022 meeting, bringing the total funding available for the 2023 program to $1.707 billion. Under the 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines, the Commission may program up to $7 million of this total to Phase II Quick-Build Project Pilot Program projects in the Statewide component.
Applications to the 2023 Active Transportation Program were due on June 15, 2022.
The California Transportation Commission (Commission) received 434 applications, with projects valued at $4.3 billion and funding requests totaling a record $3.1 billion.
Additionally, the Commission received 11 applications to the Phase II Quick-Build Project Pilot Program, with projects valued at $8.7 million and funding requests totaling $8.2 million.
The Commission recruited 98 volunteer evaluators, who were divided into teams of two individuals. Each team reviewed nine to ten applications and scored them based on the screening and evaluation criteria set forth in the Commission's adopted 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. The evaluator teams consisted of active transportation stakeholders with a wide range of expertise and from a variety of organizations, including local government agencies, regional transportation planning organizations, state agencies, community-based organizations, and advocacy organizations. Evaluator teams provided scores based on consensus for each question within each application and were required to provide constructive comments on all score sheets. Concurrently, Commission scored each project application and compared the evaluator consensus score to the staff score, and Caltrans staff reviewed the applications for eligibility and deliverability. Once the evaluations were complete, Commission and Caltrans staff met with each evaluator team to discuss any scoring differences and significant technical issues.
6 37
California Transportation Commission October 20, 2022
Commission staff evaluated the Phase II Quick-Build Project Pilot Program project applications based on the project selection criteria outlined in Appendix D of the 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. Caltrans staff reviewed the projects for eligibility, deliverability, and alignment with quick-build project materials and principles.
The Active Transportation Program uses a sequential project selection process based on the scores the project applications received during the evaluation process. The project recommendation scoring threshold was 89 points for the Statewide component.
There is not sufficient funding to fully fund all projects that achieved this scoring threshold. Therefore, consistent with the 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines, Commission staff used a secondary ranking system to choose which projects to recommend. This secondary ranking consisted of first prioritizing project readiness and then prioritizing projects that scored the highest on Question 2 of the application – Potential for Increased Walking and Biking. None of the Phase II Quick- Build Project Pilot Program project applications met the scoring threshold for the Statewide component. Therefore, no quick-build projects are recommended for funding.
The project recommendation scoring threshold was 78 points for the Small Urban & Rural component. Only one Small Urban & Rural-eligible project achieved a score of 78, so a secondary ranking was not necessary.
During the eligibility screening process, Commission staff determined ten projects to be ineligible, including four quick-build projects. Commission staff contacted these applicants and informed them of their project’s ineligible status prior to posting the staff recommendations.
7 38
California Transportation Commission Attachment A
2023 Active Transportation Program
Statewide Component
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
Application ID Project Title County Total Project
Cos
t ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final
Score
Active Transportation Resource
Center Active Transportation Resource Center Statewide 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ Non-Infrastructure Yes N/A N/A 7-Bell Gardens, City of-1*
Bell Gardens Complete Streets Improvements -
Phase 2 Los Angeles 2,964 $ 2,964 $ 355 $ - $ 2,609 $ - $ 70 $ 285 $ - $ 2,609 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes No 99.5 7-Los Angeles County-2
Metro A Line Connections for Unincorporated Los
Angeles County Los Angeles 12,331 $ 9,864 $ 810 $ - $ 3,028 $ 6,026 $ 810 $ 520 $ 2,508 $ 6,026 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 99 3-Sacramento County-3 Stockton Blvd Complete Streets Project Sacramento 15,721 $ 363 $ 363 $ - $ - $ - $ 363 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 98 6-Visalia, City of-2* Houston Community Connectivity Project Tulare 2,385 $ 2,385 $ 275 $ 10 $ 2,100 $ - $ 75 $ 200 $ 10 $ 2,100 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 98 6-Dinuba, City of-7*§
Building Dinuba's Active Transportation Future -
Infrastructure & Non-Infrastructure Tulare 17,235 $ 13,147 $ 2,195 $ - $ 10,952 $ - $ 833 $ 1,223 $ - $ 10,952 $ 139 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 98 7-Los Angeles, City of-2*§ Western Our Way: Walk and Wheel Improvements Los Angeles 47,765 $ 37,737 $ 4,158 $ - $ 2,239 $ 31,340 $ 4,158 $ 2,239 $ - $ 31,340 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 98 5-Lompoc, City of-1
City of Lompoc Walkability, Community Safety and
School Investments Project Santa Barbara 3,041 $ 2,795 $ 830 $ 1,965 $ - $ - $ - $ 123 $ - $ 1,965 $ 707 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small Yes Yes 97.5 10-Stockton, City of-5
Downtown Stockton Weber Avenue Bike and Ped
Connectivity San Joaquin 11,842 $ 9,427 $ 420 $ 1,690 $ - $ 7,317 $ 420 $ 1,690 $ - $ 7,317 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 97 8-Jurupa Valley, City of-1*
Jurupa Valley Mira Loma Area SRTS Sidewalk Gap
Closure Riverside 3,499 $ 3,499 $ 389 $ 3,110 $ - $ - $ 10 $ 379 $ - $ 3,110 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 97 7-Los Angeles, City of-1*§ Osborne Street: Path to Park Access Project Los Angeles 49,832 $ 42,295 $ 5,287 $ - $ 2,266 $ 34,742 $ 5,287 $ 2,266 $ - $ 34,742 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 97 4-Bay Area Toll Authority-1*§ West Oakland Link of the Bay Skyway Alameda 65,035 $ 17,600 $ - $ 17,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 17,600 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 97 7-El Monte, City of-1* Traffic Calming for Parkway Dr/Denholm Dr Los Angeles 5,846 $ 4,334 $ 4,334 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,334 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 96.5 8-Riverside County-3 Desert Edge Mobility Plan Riverside 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300 $ Plan Yes No 96 5-Santa Barbara, City of-2*§
Westside and Lower West Neighborhood Active
Transportation Plan Implementation Santa Barbara 21,315 $ 19,182 $ 1,925 $ 1,100 $ - $ 16,157 $ 1,925 $ 1,000 $ 100 $ 16,059 $ 98 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 96 5-Monterey County-1
San Ardo Community and School Connections
Through Active Transportation Monterey 3,448 $ 3,448 $ 792 $ 364 $ 2,292 $ - $ 85 $ 326 $ 38 $ 2,292 $ 707 $ Infrastructure + NI - Small Yes Yes 96 7-Commerce, City of-1*
Slauson Avenue Corridor & Citywide Pedestrian,
Bike, Transit Improvements Los Angeles 2,109 $ 2,109 $ 150 $ - $ 1,959 $ - $ 10 $ 140 $ - $ 1,959 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 96 3-Rancho Cordova, City of-1*§
Zinfandel Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Sacramento 27,320 $ 19,956 $ 19,956 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,956 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 95 5-Santa Cruz County-1*§ Coastal Rail Trail Segments 10 and 11 Santa Cruz 84,672 $ 67,599 $ 5,764 $ 61,835 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,973 $ 1,796 $ 61,835 $ 995 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 95 5-Watsonville, City of-1* Safe Routes to Downtown Watsonville Santa Cruz 8,687 $ 6,948 $ 616 $ 507 $ - $ 5,825 $ - $ 507 $ - $ 5,825 $ 616 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium Yes Yes 95 7-Los Angeles, City of-7*§
LA River Greenway, East San Fernando Valley Gap
Closure Los Angeles 49,401 $ 34,401 $ 3,200 $ 4,200 $ - $ 27,001 $ 3,200 $ 3,600 $ 600 $ 27,001 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 95 4-Berkeley, City of-1* Addison Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Project Alameda 6,165 $ 4,870 $ 99 $ 529 $ - $ 4,242 $ 99 $ 529 $ - $ 4,242 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes No 95 3-Yuba County-1*§
West Linda Comprehensive Safe Routes to School
Project Yuba 26,624 $ 21,166 $ 2,269 $ 60 $ 18,837 $ - $ 756 $ 1,513 $ - $ 18,837 $ 60 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 95 11-San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)-2 Central Avenue Bikeway - The Missing Link San Diego 4,141 $ 2,834 $ 2,834 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,834 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 95 5-Santa Maria, City of-1*
Active Santa Maria Safe Routes to School Corridor
Improvements Santa Barbara 8,131 $ 7,721 $ 150 $ 1,040 $ 6,531 $ - $ 150 $ 440 $ 600 $ 6,531 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 94 6-Porterville, City of-1 HAWK Pedestrian Crossings Project Tulare 1,859 $ 1,519 $ - $ - $ 1,519 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,519 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes No 94 3-Sacramento, City of-1 Franklin Boulevard Complete Street - Phase 3 Sacramento 12,493 $ 1,577 $ 1,157 $ 420 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,157 $ 420 $ - $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 94 7-City of Los Angeles, City of-9*§
Skid Row Connectivity and Safety Project Los Angeles 47,566 $ 38,599 $ 4,260 $ - $ 3,246 $ 31,093 $ 4,260 $ 2,434 $ 812 $ 31,093 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 94 4-Contra Costa County-5 Pacifica Avenue Safe Routes to School Project Contra Costa 4,342 $ 3,902 $ 375 $ 200 $ - $ 3,327 $ 375 $ 200 $ - $ 3,327 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 94 4-Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority-1*§
Bascom Avenue Complete Street Project (I-880 to
Hamilton Avenue) Santa Clara 46,685 $ 39,103 $ - $ 39,103 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 39,103 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 93 3-Sacramento County-1* Elkhorn Boulevard Complete Streets Project Sacramento 9,122 $ 8,075 $ 44 $ 966 $ - $ 7,065 $ 44 $ 612 $ 354 $ 6,837 $ 228 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium Yes Yes 93 California Transportation Commission Page 1 of 4 October 20, 2022 8 39
California Transportation Commission Attachment A
2023 Active Transportation Program
Statewide Component
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
Application ID Project Title County Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final
Score
5-Santa Barbara, City of-3
Milpas Street Crosswalk Safety and Sidewalk
Widening Project Santa Barbara 9,995 $ 7,995 $ 1,000 $ 275 $ - $ 6,720 $ 1,000 $ 275 $ - $ 6,720 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 93 3-Nevada County Transportation
Commission-1
SR 174/49/20 Roundabout and Active Transportation
Safety Project Nevada 6,815 $ 5,439 $ 200 $ 1,125 $ - $ 4,114 $ 200 $ 900 $ 225 $ 4,114 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 93 10-Stockton, City of-1
Alpine Pershing Mendocino Bicycle-Pedestrian
Connectivity San Joaquin 8,238 $ 7,403 $ 389 $ 813 $ - $ 6,201 $ 389 $ 723 $ 90 $ 6,201 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes No 93 2-Redding, City of-1 Butte Street Boogie Network Project Shasta 8,048 $ 6,437 $ 821 $ 834 $ - $ 4,782 $ 555 $ 834 $ 4,782 $ 266 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium Yes Yes 93 7-Los Angeles, City of-5*§ Wilmington Safe Streets: A People First Approach Los Angeles 40,784 $ 32,331 $ 3,823 $ - $ 1,748 $ 26,760 $ 3,823 $ 1,748 $ - $ 26,760 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 93 3-Paradise, Town of-4§ Go Paradise: Pentz Student Pathway Butte 23,293 $ 22,009 $ 2,098 $ - $ 19,911 $ - $ - $ 150 $ 1,948 $ 19,911 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 93 7-Lancaster, City of-2
Lancaster SRTS Master Plan - Refresh, Rebuild,
Recruit, Sustain Los Angeles 902 $ 796 $ 796 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 796 $ Non-Infrastructure Yes Yes 92 10-San Joaquin County-4
Harrison Elementary Active Transportation
Improvements San Joaquin 4,889 $ 3,886 $ 114 $ 556 $ 3,216 $ - $ 114 $ 556 $ - $ 3,216 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes No 92 8-Coachella Valley Association
of Governments-1*§ Coachella Valley Arts & Music Line Riverside 46,099 $ 36,483 $ 36,483 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36,483 $ - $ Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 92 11-Na
tional City, City of-3* 24th Street Transit Center Connections San Diego 3,498 $ 3,496 $ 148 $ 445 $ - $ 2,903 $ 148 $ 445 $ - $ 2,903 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes No 92 5-San Luis Obispo, City of-1 South Higuera Complete Streets Project San Luis Obispo 8,817 $ 6,951 $ 6,951 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,951 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 92 6-Fresno County-1 Del Rey Sidewalk Project Fresno 3,014 $ 2,982 $ 99 $ 417 $ 61 $ 2,405 $ 99 $ 417 $ 61 $ 2,405 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 92 6-Kern County - D6-1 Norris Pedestrian and Railroad Safety Project Kern 9,793 $ 8,782 $ 1,059 $ 2,302 $ 5,421 $ - $ - $ 1,059 $ 2,302 $ 5,421 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 91 12-Orange County-1*§ OC Loop Segment P and Q Orange 60,187 $ 45,921 $ 5,699 $ 40,222 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,699 $ 40,222 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 91 10-Calaveras County-1*
San Andreas Pope Street and Safe Routes to School
Project Calaveras 9,997 $ 9,867 $ 470 $ - $ 1,600 $ 7,797 $ 470 $ 1,000 $ 600 $ 7,797 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 91 3-Sacramento, City of-2 Envision Broadway in Oak Park Sacramento 14,320 $ 1,101 $ - $ 1,101 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,101 $ - $ - $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 91 6-Corcoran, City of-1
City of Corcoran Equitable Health, Safety &
Connectivity Project Kings 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 50 $ 972 $ 2,478 $ - $ 50 $ 520 $ 452 $ 2,478 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 91 3-West Sacramento, City of-1*§ I Street Bridge Deck Conversion for Active Transportation Project Yolo 22,561 $ 16,029 $ 16,029 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 16,029 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 91 2-Susanville, City of-1* Riverside Drive Pedestrian and Bike Trail Project Lassen 3,111 $ 2,861 $ 400 $ - $ 2,461 $ - $ - $ - $ 400 $ 2,461 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes No 91 5-Santa Barbara, City of-1*§
Cliff Drive: Urban Highway to Complete Street
Transformation Project Santa Barbara 33,991 $ 27,191 $ 1,920 $ 1,116 $ - $ 24,155 $ 1,920 $ 1,086 $ 30 $ 24,087 $ 68 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 91 7-Hawaiian Gardens, City of-1 Hawaiian Gardens Bicycle Master Plan Los Angeles 370 $ 370 $ 370 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 370 $ Plan Yes No 91 7-Los Angeles, City of-4*§
Normandie Beautiful: Creating Neighborhood
Connections in South LA Los Angeles 27,774 $ 23,579 $ 2,740 $ - $ 1,475 $ 19,364 $ 2,740 $ 1,475 $ - $ 19,364 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 91 7-San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments-2* Montebello Railroad Safety Crossings Improvements Los Angeles 7,388 $ 5,906 $ 5,906 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,906 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 91 4-San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency-2*§ Bayview Multimodal Community Corridor San Francisco 15,445 $ 12,325 $ 2,807 $ - $ 9,518 $ - $ 300 $ 1,650 $ - $ 9,518 $ 857 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 90.5 11-Im
perial Beach, City of-1§ Palm Avenue Complete Multimodal Corridor San Diego 26,227 $ 23,112 $ 150 $ 1,220 $ - $ 21,742 $ 150 $ 1,100 $ 120 $ 21,742 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 90 8-Jurupa Valley, City of-2*
Jurupa Valley Granite Hill Area SRTS Sidewalk Gap
Closure Riverside 4,240 $ 3,390 $ 490 $ 2,900 $ - $ - $ 60 $ 430 $ - $ 2,900 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 90 5-El Paso De Robles, City of-1§ Niblick Road Complete and Sustainable Bike and Pedestrian Streets San Luis Obispo 17,257 $ 13,806 $ 922 $ 1,118 $ - $ 11,766 $ 922 $ 1,118 $ - $ 11,766 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes Yes 90 5-Santa Cruz, City of-1*§ Santa Cruz Rail Trail Segments 8 and 9 Construction Santa Cruz 48,719 $ 35,766 $ 35,766 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500 $ 34,274 $ 992 $ Infrastructure + NI - Large Yes Yes 90 7-Ventura County-1
Saticoy Pedestrian Improvement & Community
Connections Project Ventura 3,497 $ 3,497 $ 225 $ - $ 400 $ 2,872 $ 225 $ 400 $ - $ 2,872 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 90 3-Placerville, City of-1§
Placerville Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Phase 1 El Dorado 28,929 $ 15,417 $ - $ 15,417 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15,417 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 90 4-Contra Costa County-6§
San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets/Bay Trail Gap
Closure Project Contra Costa 11,717 $ 10,517 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 9,517 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 9,517 $ - $ Infrastructure - Large Yes No 90 California Transportation Commission Page 2 of 4 October 20, 2022 9 40
California Transportation Commission Attachment A
2023 Active Transportation Program
Statewide Component
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
Application ID Project Title County Total Project
Cost ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI Project Type DAC SRTS Final
Score
1-Eureka, City of-2* C Street Bike Boulevard Humboldt 2,405 $ 2,344 $ 2,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,344 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 90 12-Santa Ana, City of-13*
Orange Avenue Bike Lane and Bicycle Boulevard
Project Orange 5,827 $ 5,827 $ 85 $ 851 $ - $ 4,891 $ 85 $ 851 $ - $ 4,891 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 90 8-Jurupa Valley, City of-3* Jurupa Valley Agate Street Complete Streets Project Riverside 1,272 $ 1,272 $ 140 $ 1,132 $ - $ - $ 10 $ 130 $ - $ 1,132 $ - $ Infrastructure - Small Yes Yes 90 7-Long Beach, City of-1* Mid-City Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections Los Angeles 9,797 $ 8,817 $ - $ 1,604 $ - $ 7,213 $ - $ 750 $ - $ 7,213 $ 854 $ Infrastructure + NI - Medium Yes No 89.5 11-San
Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)-1*†
Howard Bikeway: Connecting Vibrant San Diego
Neighborhoods San Diego 9,800 $ 1,396 $ 1,396 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,396 $ - $ Infrastructure - Medium Yes Yes 89 1,149,392 $ 853,520 $
CON: DAC: Project benefits a Disadvantaged Community
NI:
PS&E:
R/W: SRTS:
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms
Right-of-Way Phase
Project Approval & Environmental Document
Phase PA&ED: Plans, Specifications & Estimates Phase
Safe Routes to School Project
Non-Infrastructure
†San Diego Association of Governments requested $8,137,000 for the Howard Bikeway: Connecting Vibrant San Diego Neighborhoods project. However, only $1,396,000 in programming capacity remains in the Statewide component. Commission staff will work with the applicant to determine if the project can be delivered with available ATP funding.
Notes
*Prior to programming, Caltrans will contact the applicant for project clarifications. §Project requires a Baseline Agreement. Please see the SB 1 Accountability and Transparency Guidelines for more information.
Construction Phase
California Transportation Commission Page 3 of 4 October 20, 2022 10 41
California Transportation Commission
2023 Active Transportation Program
Small Urban and Rural Component
Staff Recommendations ($1000s)
Attachment B
ATP Funding 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 PA&ED PS&E R/W CON CON NI SRTS Final
Score
3,036 $ 160 $ 220 $ 100 $ 2,556 $ 160 $ 220 $ 100 $ 2,556 $ - $ Yes 89 5,018 $ 233 $ 1,220 $ 3,565 $ - $ 233 $ 520 $ 700 $ 3,565 $ - $ Yes 89 7,786 $ 7,786 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,904 $ 882 $ Yes 88.5 6,463 $ 1,045 $ 488 $ 4,930 $ - $ 37 $ 450 $ 38 $ 4,930 $ 1,008 $ Yes 88.5 8,169 $ 1,304 $ 6,865 $ - $ - $ - $ 648 $ 656 $ 6,765 $ 100 $ Yes 88 4,299 $ 146 $ 308 $ 118 $ 3,727 $ 146 $ 308 $ 118 $ 3,727 $ - $ No 88 7,406 $ - $ 7,406 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,406 $ - $ Yes 88 8,075 $ 710 $ - $ 1,956 $ 5,409 $ 710 $ 1,044 $ 912 $ 5,359 $ 50 $ Yes 88 8,999 $ 118 $ 525 $ 8,356 $ - $ 118 $ - $ 525 $ 8,356 $ - $ Yes 87 12,348 $ 1,838 $ - $ 10,510 $ - $ - $ 352 $ 1,486 $ 10,510 $ - $ No 86 7,107 $ 308 $ 517 $ 6,272 $ 10 $ 308 $ 375 $ 142 $ 6,272 $ 10 $ Yes 87 6,349 $ 1,694 $ 4,655 $ - $ - $ 270 $ 513 $ 38 $ 4,617 $ 911 $ Yes 86 3,021 $ 144 $ 208 $ 2,669 $ - $ 144 $ 196 $ 12 $ 2,669 $ - $ Yes 86 998 $ 998 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 913 $ 85 $ Yes 86
2,968 $ 140 $ 25 $ 2,803 $ - $ 10 $ 130 $ 25 $ 2,803 $ - $ No 86 7,780 $ 447 $ - $ 7,333 $ - $ - $ 265 $ 182 $ 7,333 $ - $ No 85 2,837 $ 325 $ 95 $ 2,417 $ - $ 25 $ 300 $ 95 $ 2,417 $ - $ No 85 7,993 $ 904 $ 1,045 $ - $ 6,044 $ 700 $ 1,045 $ - $ 6,044 $ 204 $ Yes 84 1,881 $ 1,881 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,881 $ Yes 84 8,429 $ 1,508 $ 6,921 $ - $ - $ - $ 528 $ - $ 6,921 $ 980 $ Yes 84 13,863 $ 1,250 $ - $ 1,900 $ 10,713 $ 1,250 $ 1,750 $ 150 $ 10,637 $ 76 $ Yes 83.5 11,043 $ 3,695 $ 12 $ 7,336 $ - $ 350 $ 1,050 $ 12 $ 7,336 $ 2,295 $ Yes 81 6,704 $ 424 $ 1,073 $ - $ 5,207 $ 424 $ 715 $ 358 $ 5,207 $ - $ No 80 9,341 $ - $ - $ 9,341 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,141 $ 200 $ Yes 80 712 $ 712 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 712 $ No 79
8,079 $ 3,528 $ - $ 10,478 $ - $ 405 $ 1,575 $ - $ 10,478 $ 1,548 $ Yes 78 170,704 $
CON: DAC: Project benefits a Disadvantaged Community
NI:
PS&E:
R/W: SRTS: Right-of-Way Phase Safe Routes to School Project Construction Phase
Non-Infrastructure PA&ED: Project Approval & Environmental Document Phase Plans, Specifications & Estimates Phase
Notes
*Prior to programming, Caltrans will contact the applicant for project clarifications. §Project requires a Baseline Agreement. Please see the SB 1 Accountability and Transparency Guidelines for more information. ‡The City of Salinas requested $14,006,000 for the Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School Project. However, only $8,079,000 in programming capacity remains in the Small Urban & Rural component. Commission staff will work with the applicant to determine if the project can be delivered with available ATP funding.
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms
Application ID Project Title County
10-Tuolumne County-1
10-Sonora, City of-1
3-Butte County-1
5-Monterey County-3*
5-Arroyo Grande, City of-1
10-Groveland Community
Services District-1*
5-San Luis Obispo County-1
5-California Department of
Transportation-1
1-Eureka, City of-1
3-Paradise, Town of-2*§
5-Santa Barbara County-2*
5-Monterey County-2*
2-Modoc County-2*
5-Salinas, City of-2*
5-Santa Cruz, City of-2*
1-Mendocino Council of
Governments-1
6-Madera County-1
2-Redding, City of-2*
5-Santa Cruz Health Services
Agency-2
5-Transportation Agency for
Monterey County-1*
3-Nevada County Transportation
Commission-2*§
5-King City, City of-1*§
3-Paradise, Town of-1*
3-Williams, City of-1*
5-University of California - Santa
Cruz-1
5-Salinas, City of-1*
‡
Groveland Community Connectivity Project
SR 49 Gold Rush Multi-Use Path Phase 1
South Oroville Bike and Ped Connectivity Project
Community and School Connections Through Active
Transportation
Halcyon Road Complete Streets Project
Hetch Hetchy Railroad Trail Project
Morro Bay to Cayucos Multi-Use Trail Gap Closure
Project
Los Alamos Connected Community Project (SR 135)
Bay to Zoo Trail
Go Paradise: Neal Gateway Project
Isla Vista Bike and Pedestrian Improvements Project
Chualar Community and School Connections
Through Active Transportation
Surprise Valley School Safety and Community
Connectivity Project
Alisal Safe Routes to School Project
Swanton Delaware Multiuse Path
Gualala Downtown Streetscape Enhancement Project
La Vina Community Mobility and Safety
Enhancements Project
Victor Improvement Project
Safe Routes for Watsonville School Families and
Community
Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway: California
Avenue Segment
SR 49 Multimodal Corridor Improvements, Nevada
City
San Antonio Drive Path & Safe Routes to Schools
Go Paradise: Skyway Link Project
E Street Complete Streets Project
UCSC "SlugBikeLife" Bike Safety and Education
Program Phase 2
Harden Parkway Path & Safe Routes to School
project
Tuolumne
Tuolumne
Butte
Monterey
San Luis Obispo
Tuolumne
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Humboldt
Butte
Santa Barbara
Monterey
Modoc
Monterey
Santa Cruz
Mendocino
Madera
Shasta
Santa Cruz
Monterey
Nevada
Monterey
Butte
Colusa
Santa Cruz
Monterey
Total Project
Cost
$ 3,036
$ 6,418
$ 9,286
$ 6,463
$ 9,170
$ 5,443
$ 13,170
$ 8,525
$ 9,999
$ 13,068
$ 8,998
$ 6,349
$ 3,021
$ 1,084
$ 2,968
$ 9,995
$ 2,837
$ 9,992
$ 1,921
$ 10,670
$ 17,357
$ 14,543
$ 6,810
$ 11,760
$ 742
$ 15,562
$ 209,187
Project Type
Infrastructure - Small
Infrastructure - Medium
Infrastructure + NI - Medium
Infrastructure + NI - Medium
Infrastructure + NI - Medium
Infrastructure - Medium
Infrastructure - Large
Infrastructure + NI - Medium
Infrastructure - Medium
Infrastructure - Large
Infrastructure + NI - Medium
Infrastructure + NI - Medium
Infrastructure - Small
Infrastructure + NI - Small
Infrastructure - Small
Infrastructure - Medium
Infrastructure - Small
Infrastructure + NI - Medium
Non-Infrastructure
Infrastructure + NI - Large
Infrastructure + NI - Large
Infrastructure + NI - Large
Infrastructure - Medium
Infrastructure + NI - Large
Non-Infrastructure
Infrastructure + NI - Large
DAC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
California Transportation Commission Page 4 of 4 October 20, 2022 11 42
VIII. Infrastructure Scoring Criteria
Infrastructure projects will be scored based on how well the applicant responses meet the Infrastructure Scoring Criteria, below. The Infrastructure Scoring Rubric in a subsequent section of this document is a guide for SANDAG staff and the Evaluation Panel to assist with awarding points based on the criteria. Points calculated by SANDAG’s Department of Data Science or Grants staff are marked with an asterisk (*).
No. CRITERIA POINTS
POSSIBLE
1.* DEMAND ANALYSIS
Factor
s contributing to score: population and employment, population and employment densities, intersection density, vehicle ownership, and activity centers.
Up to 14
2. PROJECT CONNECTIONS
A.* Regional Bicycle Network: Will the project build or connect to the existing or planned Regional Bicycle Network? Up to 8
B.*
Existing or Programmed Transit:
• Bicycle improvement within 1.5 miles of a regional transit station (6 points)
• Pedestrian improvement within 0.25 mile of a local transit stop (2 points)
• Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a local transit stop (4 points)
• Pedestrian improvement within 0.5 mile of a regional transit station (4 points)
• Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a regional transit station (6 points)
Up to 12 C. Existing Bicycle Network: How well will the project close a gap between existing bicycle facilities? Up to 10
D. Existing Pedestrian Network: How well will the project close a gap in the existing pedestrian network? Up to 10
3. SAFETY AND QUALITY OF PROJECT
A.
Safety and Access Improvements: How well the project will:
• increase bicycle or pedestrian trips at a location with documented safety hazards or accident history within the last seven years? • create access or overcome barriers in an area where hazardous conditions prohibit safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians? • create a new or safer crossing for bicyclists and/or pedestrians across heavy or light rail?
Up to 18
B.
Impact and Effectiveness of Proposed Bicycle, Pedestrian, and/or Traffic Calming Measures: How well will the proposed traffic calming devices, pedestrian improvements, and/or bicycle improvements address the identified need in the project area? Are the proposed solutions appropriate for the situation?
Up to 18
C. Alignment with ATP Goals: How well does the project align with the ATP goals? Up to 18
Attachment 3
12 43
D.
Innovation: Is this project a Federal Highway Administration or state experimentation effort? Does the project propose innovative solutions that are new to the region/city? Does the project leverage advanced technologies?
Up to 12
4. SUPPORTIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
A.
Complementary Programs: Are capital improvements accompanied by supportive programs such as an awareness campaign, education efforts, and/or increased enforcement?
Up to 6
B.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reductions: How well will the proposed effort directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as through implementation of a Climate Action Plan, complete streets policy, parking strategies, advanced technologies, or other strategies? Up to 10
5. PROJECT READINESS/COMPLETION OF MAJOR MILESTONES
• Neig
hborhood-level plan, corridor study, or community active transportation strategy. (2 points)
• Environmental clearance (CEQA and NEPA) (4 points)
• Completed right-of-way acquisition (4 points)
• Progress toward obtaining final design
(Up to 10 points)
Up to 20
6. PUBLIC HEALTH
Does
the project improve public health by targeting populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues?
Up to 10
7. USE OF CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS OR A QUALIFIED
COMMUNITY CONSERVATION CORPS
Did
the applicant seek California Conservation Corps or a qualified Community Conservation Corps for participation on the project? Does the applicant intend not to utilize a corps in a project in which the corps can participate?
Up to 6
8. BENEFIT TO DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY
Does the project benefit a Disadvantaged Community? Up to 10
9.* MATCHING FUNDS
Poi
nts for matching funds will be awarded based on a scale. The matching fund percentage is derived by comparing the total matching funds relative to the total project cost.
Up to 8
10.* COST EFFECTIVENESS
Pro ject grant request, divided by score in criteria 1 through 9, ranked relative to each other. Up to 10
Total 200
13 44
IX. Inf rastructure Scoring Rubric
The following narrative descriptions will be used to assist the Evaluation Panel in scoring infrastructure project applications. The Infrastructure Scoring Criteria in the preceding pages is a summary of this information. References to the statewide application where additional information may be found are shown in pink italicized text below.
1. Demand Analysis
*NOTE: SANDAG Data Science staff will conduct a GIS analysis of the project area relative to the seven factors listed below. A half-mile buffer will be created around pedestrian improvement projects and a one-mile buffer will be created around bicycle improvement projects. Data will be gathered for each of the factors for each project buffer. This data will be provided to Grants staff who will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A3 Results for each factor will be ranked from highest to lowest (except for vehicle ownership, which will be ranked from lowest to highest) for all projects. The project(s) with the highest rank (or lowest rank in the case of vehicle ownership) will receive 2 points. The remaining projects will then receive points by comparing their rank for each factor to the best (highest or lowest) rank possible, then multiplying that number by the number of points available (up to 2 points per factor). Up to 14 points possible
• Pop
ulation
• Population Density
• Employment Density
• Intersection Density
• Activity Centers
• Employment
• Vehicle Ownership
2. Project Connections
A. Regional Bicycle Network
*NOTE: The SANDAG Data Science staff will calculate the points awarded for this criteria using the Regional Bicycle Network laid out in SANDAG Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bike Plan. Up to 8 points possible
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A3, A4 • The proposed project connects to part of the existing or planned Regional Bicycle Network. 6 points
• The proposed project constructs part of the existing or planned Regional Bicycle Network. 8 points
• The proposed project neither builds nor connects to the existing or planned Regional Bicycle Network. zero points
14 45
B. Exis
ting or Programmed Transit
*NOTE: The SANDAG Data Science staff will calculate the points awarded for these criteria. Up to 12 points will be awarded based on proximity to existing or programmed transit facilities included in the SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan (adopted in Dec ember 2021).
A regional transi t station is defined as any station served by COASTER, SPRINTER, Trolley, Rapid, or Rapid Express Routes. Distance refers to walking distance based on actual available pathways. Projects that propose both bicycle and pedestrian improvements will be eligible to receive points for both modes in this category. Up to 12 points possible
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A3 • Bicycle improvement within 1.5 miles of a regional transit station 6 points and/or
• Pedestrian improvement within 0.25 mile of a local transit stop 2 points • Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a local transit stop 4 points and/or
• Pedestrian improvement within 0.5 mile of a regional transit station 4 points • Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a regional transit station 6 points C. Completes Connection in Local Bicycle Network
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A4; and Part B, Question 2 Points will be awarded based on how well the project will close a gap between existing local bicycle facilities. The applicant must demonstrate evidence of an existing gap. A gap is defined as a lack of facilities between two existing facilities, or a situation where there is an undesirable change in facility type. For example, a project upgrading a connection between two Class II segments from a Class III to a Class II segment could be considered as closing a gap. Up to 10 points possible Projects that do not propose to close a gap between existing local bicycle facilities will receive zero points.
D. Existing Pedestrian Network
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A4; and Part B, Question 3 Points will be awarded based on how well the project will close a gap in the existing pedestrian network. Applicant must demonstrate evidence of an existing gap.
Examples include missing sidewalk segments, or enhancement of one or more blocks in between blocks that have previously been upgraded. Up to 10 points possible 15 46
Pro
jects that do not propose to close a gap in the existing pedestrian network will receive zero points.
3. Safety and Quality of Project
Points will be awarded based on the quality of proposed measures and the potential to address community needs identified by the applicant. The highest scoring projects will make significant infrastructure changes that result in reduced speeds and safer environments for bicyclists and pedestrians, balance the needs of all modes, and include a broad array of devices to calm traffic and/or prioritize bicyclists and pedestrians. Low-scoring projects will have fewer features and make minimal improvements.
A. Safety and Access Improvements
Points for this section will be awarded based on the applicant’s description of safety hazards and/or collision history within the last 7 years, the degree of hazard(s), and potential for increasing bicycle or pedestrian trips. Some hazards may be so unsafe as to prohibit access and therefore lack collision data. Projects lacking collision data may still receive points for creating safe access or overcoming hazardous conditions. To earn points without collision data, the applicant must describe detractors in the project area that prohibit safe access (e.g., lack of facilities, high traffic volumes/speeds where bicycle/pedestrian trips would increase with safer access, freeway on/off ramps, blind curves, steep slopes, etc.) Vehicle speed limit and average daily traffic information will be considered in identifying the degree of hazard. Up to 18 points possible Infrastructure Application (large and medium size projects): Part B, Questions 3 and 5 Infrastructure Application (small size projects): Part B, Question 3 • One to two correctable collisions involving non-motorized users 2 points • Three to four correctable collisions involving non-motorized users 4 points • Five or more correctable collisions involving non-motorized users 6 points • Creates access or overcomes barriers in an area where hazardous conditions prohibit safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians 6 points • Creates a new or safer crossing for bicyclists and/or pedestrians across railroad or light rail tracks 6 points.
B. Impact and Effectiveness of Proposed Bicycle, Pedestrian, and/or Traffic Calming Measures
Points are available within three project categories: bicycle, pedestrian, and/or traffic calming measures. Projects that propose improvements in more than one category are eligible to earn more points. Up to 18 points possible
Infrastructure Application (large size projects): Part B, Questions 3, 4 and 6 Infrastructure Application (small and medium size projects): Part B, Questions 3 and 4 16 47
Poi
nts will be distributed based on how well the application addresses the following:
• How well will the proposed bicycle improvements address the identified need in the project area? Up to 6 points
• How well will the proposed pedestrian improvements address the identified need in the project area? Up to 6 points
• How well will the proposed traffic calming devices address the identified need in the project area? Are the proposed solutions appropriate for the situation? Up to 6 points
In scoring traffic calming measures, the following minimum thresholds for frequency/effectiveness of traffic calming devices along a roadway will be taken into consideration:
• Residential street (20 mph) = Devices every 250 feet (on either side) • Collector or main street (25 mph) = Devices every 400 feet • Arterial street (35 mph) = Devices every 800 feet
Traffic calming measures that consist of roadway improvements that benefit motorists only will receive zero points.
C. Alignment with ATP Goals
Points will be awarded based on how well the proposed project aligns with the ATP goals. The highest scoring projects will demonstrate the potential for measurable impact across multiple objectives. Up to 18 points possible • How well will the proposed project increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking? Up to 3 points
Infrastructure Application (large size projects): Part B, Questions 2, 3, 5 and 6 Infrastructure Application (medium size projects): Part B, Questions 2, 3 and 5 Infrastructure Application (small size projects): Part B, Questions 2 and 3 • How well will the proposed project increase the safety and mobility of non- motorized users? Up to 3 points
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part B, Questions 2 and 3 • How well will the proposed project advance the active transportation efforts of SANDAG to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals? Up to 3 points Infrastructure Application (large size projects): Part B, Questions 2, 5 and 6 Infrastructure Application (medium size projects): Part B, Questions 2 and 5 Infrastructure Application (small size projects): Part B, Question 2 17 48
• How w
ell will the proposed project enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity through the use of programs including but not limited to projects eligible for Safe Routes to School Program funding? Up to 3 points Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A3; Part B, Questions 2 and 3 • How well will the proposed project ensure that Disadvantaged Communities fully share in the benefits of the project? Up to 3 points
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part B, Question 1 • How well will the proposed project benefit many types of active transportation users? Up to 3 points
Infrastructure Application (large size projects): Part B, Questions 2, 5 and 6 Infrastructure Application (medium size projects): Part B, Questions 2 and 5 Infrastructure Application (small size projects): Part B, Question 2 D. Innovation
Points will be awarded based on the breadth of solutions proposed by the project that are new to the region/city and if the project leverages advanced technologies. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide will be referred to for examples of innovative improvements, such as:
• Bike signals and beacons
• Intersection treatments (e.g., bike boxes, intersection crossing markings, median refuge islands, through bike lanes)
• Bikeway signing and marking (e.g., colored bike facilities, bike route wayfinding signage/markings)
No points will be awarded for facilities or treatments that have received Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval (e.g., Sharrows), unless they are new to the region/city. Up to 12 points possible
Infrastructure Application (large and medium size projects): Part A4; Part B, Question 5 Infrastructure Application (small size projects): Part A4 • Is this project an FHWA or state experimentation effort? 4 points • Does this project propose innovative solutions that are included in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide or propose solutions that are new to the region/city? 6 points
• Does the project leverage advanced technologies? 2 points
4. Supportive Policies and Programs
This section will be scored based upon the applicant’s demonstration of plans, policies, and programs that support the proposed project. Consideration will be given to both the breadth and depth of plans, policies, and programs.
18 49
A. Com
plementary Programs
Points will be awarded based on how well the applicant demonstrated that the proposed project will be complemented by supportive programs including, but not limited to: awareness campaigns, education efforts, increased enforcement, and/or bicycle parking. Projects that demonstrate collaboration and integration with the supportive program(s) will be given higher scores. Up to 6 points possible Infrastructure Application (large size projects): Part B, Questions 4 and 6 Infrastructure Application (medium and small size projects): Part B, Question 4 B. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reductions
Points will be awarded based on how well the applicant demonstrates that the proposed project will directly reduce GHG emissions such as through implementation of a CAP, parking strategies, advanced technologies, and/or other strategies. The highest-scoring projects will provide supportive evidence, including quantitative analyses, that demonstrate the project will directly reduce GHG emissions. Up to 8 points possible
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part B, Question 2
5. Project Readiness/Completion of Major Milestones
Points will be awarded based on the completed project development milestones.
Up to 20 points possible
• Neighborhood-level plan, corridor study, or community active transportation strategy. 2 points
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A7; Part B, Question 4 • Environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, or evidence that environmental clearance is not required. 4 points
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A5 • Completion of right-of-way acquisition and all necessary entitlements (if appropriate), or evidence that right-of-way acquisition is not required. 4 points Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A5; Project Programming Request • Progress toward obtaining final design (plans, specifications, and estimates):
o 30% design completed 3 points
o 60% design completed 6 points
o 90% design completed 9 points
o Final design completed 10 points
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part A5; Project Programming Request 19 50
6. Public
Health
Points will be awarded based on how well the project will improve public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues. Up to 10 points possible
Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part B, Questions 1 and 2
7. Use of California Conservation Corps or a Qualified Community Conservation Corps
Projects should seek to use the California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps, as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code, as partners to undertake or construct applicable projects in accordance with Section 1524 of Public Law 112-141. Applicants will not be penalized if either corps determines that they cannot participate in a project. Points will be awarded as follows. Up to 6 points possible • The applicant sought California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps participation on the project 6 points • The applicant did not seek California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps for participation on the project, or the applicant intends not to use a corps on a project in which the corps can participate zero points.
Infrastructure Application (large size projects): Part B, Question 10 Infrastructure Application (medium size projects): Part B, Question 8 Infrastructure Application (large size projects): Part B, Question 6
8. Benefit to Disadvantaged Communities
For a project to contribute toward the Disadvantaged Communities funding requirement, the project must clearly demonstrate, with verifiable information, a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to a Disadvantaged Community as defined using the criteria outlined below. A project is considered beneficial if it fulfills an important need of a Disadvantaged Community in a way that provides a significant value. The project’s benefits must primarily target a Disadvantaged Community while avoiding substantial burdens on that community.
For a project to qualify as directly benefiting a Disadvantaged Community, the project must:
• be located within, or be within reasonable proximity to, the Disadvantaged Community served by the project,
• have a direct connection to the Disadvantaged Community, or • be an extension or a segment of a larger project that connects to or is directly adjacent to the Disadvantaged Community.
20 51
Poi
nts will be distributed in relation to the severity of and the benefit provided to the Disadvantaged Community affected by the project. Up to 10 points possible Infrastructure Application (all size projects): Part B, Question 1 • How well does the project benefit a Disadvantaged Community? Up to 10 points • The project does not benefit a Disadvantaged Community. zero points
9. Matching Funds
*NOTE: SANDAG Grants staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
Infrastructure Application (large size projects): Part A6; Part B, Question 8 Infrastructure Application (medium size projects): Part A6; Part B, Question 6 Infrastructure Application (small size projects): Part A6 Points for matching funds will be awarded based on the following scale. The matching fund percentage is derived by comparing the total matching funds relative to the total project cost. Up to 8 points possible
Percentage of Matching Funds Points
0% zero points
0.01– 7.99% 2 points
8.00 – 15.99% 3 points
16.00 – 23.99% 4 points
24.00 – 31.99% 5 points
32.00 – 39.99% 6 points
40.00 – 47.99% 7 points
48.00% and above 8 points
10. Cost Effectiveness
*NOTE: SANDAG Grants staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
A ratio of the ATP funding request to the project score will be calculated by dividing the total ATP funding request amount by the sum of points earned in criteria 1 through 9. The ratios will then be ranked in descending order. The project(s) with the highest rank will receive 10 points. The remaining projects will then receive points by comparing their rank to the highest rank possible, then multiplying that number by the number of points possible. Up to 10 points possible
21 52
X. Non-Infrastructure Scoring Criteria
Non-Infrastructure projects will be scored based on how well the applicant responses meet the Non-Infrastructure Scoring Criteria below. The Non-Infrastructure Scoring Rubric in a subsequent section of this document is a guide for SANDAG staff and the Evaluation Panel to assist with awarding points based on the criteria. Points calculated by the SANDAG Department of Data Science or Grants staff are marked with an asterisk (*).
POINTS POSSIBLE
No. CRITERIA PLANS EEA
1* Demand Analysis
Fact
ors contributing to score: population and employment,
population and employment densities, intersection density, vehicle ownership, and activity centers.
Up to 28 N/A
2. Alignment with ATP Goals
How well does the proposed project align with the ATP goals? Up to 30 Up to 30
3. Comprehensiveness and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions A.
Comprehensiveness: How comprehensive is the proposed project, plan, or program? Does this effort accompany an existing or proposed capital improvement project?
Up to 30 Up to 30
B.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions: Does the relevant local jurisdiction have an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP)? How well will the proposed effort directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as through implementation of a CAP, parking strategies, advanced technologies, or other strategies?
Up to 10 Up to 10
4. Methodology
How well will the planning process or proposed effort meet the demonstrated need and project goals? Up to 30 Up to 30
5. Community Support
Does the planning project include an inclusive process? Does the project involve broad segments of the community and does it have broad and meaningful community support?
Up to 15 Up to 15
6. Project Effectiveness
How wi ll the project evaluate its effectiveness? N/A Up to 20
7. Innovation
Does the project propose solutions that show the potential to serve as a replicable model to the region/city? N/A Up to 15
8. Public Health
Doe
s the project improve public health by targeting populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues?
Up to 15 Up to 15
9. Use of California Conservation Corps or a Qualified Community Conservation Corps Did
the applicant seek California Conservation Corps or a qualified Community Conservation Corps for participation on the project? Does the applicant intend not to utilize a corps in a project in which the corps can participate?
N/A Up to 5
22 53
10. Benefit to Disadvantaged Community
Does the project benefit a Disadvantaged Community? Up to 20 Up to 10
11.* Matching Funds
Points for matching funds are awarded based on a scale. The matching fund percentage is derived by comparing the total matching funds relative to the total project cost.
Up to 10 Up to 10
12.* Cost Effectiveness
Total ATP funding request, divided by score in criteria 1 through 11, ranked relative to each other. Up to 12 Up to 10
TOTAL 200 200
XI. Non-Infrastructure Scoring Rubric
The following narrative descriptions will be used to assist the Evaluation Panel in scoring non-infrastructure project applications. The Non-Infrastructure Scoring Criteria on the preceding pages is a summary of this information. References to the statewide application where additional information may be found are shown in pink italicized text below.
1. Demand Analysis
*NOTE: SANDAG Data Science staff will conduct a GIS analysis of the project area relative to the seven factors listed below. A half-mile buffer will be created around pedestrian improvement projects and a one-mile buffer will be created around bicycle improvement projects. Data will be gathered for each of the factors for each project buffer. This data will be provided to Grants staff who will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
Plan Application: Part A2
Results for each factor will be ranked from highest to lowest (except for vehicle ownership, which will be ranked from lowest to highest) for all projects. The project(s) with the highest rank (or lowest rank in the case of vehicle ownership) will receive 4 points. The remaining projects will then receive points by comparing their rank for each factor to the best (highest or lowest) rank possible, then multiplying that number by the number of points available (up to 4 points per factor). Plans: Up to 28 points possible; Non-Infrastructure Projects: Not Applicable
• Population
• Population Density
• Employment Density
• Intersection Density
• Activity Centers
• Employment
• Vehicle Ownership
23 54
2. Alignm
ent With ATP Goals
Points will be awarded based on how well the proposed project aligns with the ATP goals.
The highest scoring projects will demonstrate the potential for measurable impact across multiple objectives. Up to 30 points possible
• How well will the proposed project increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking? Up to 5 points possible
Plan Application: Part B, Questions 2 and 4; Exhibit 22-Plan Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 2
• How well will the proposed project increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users? Up to 5 points possible
Plan Application: Part B, Questions 2 and 4; Exhibit 22-Plan Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 3
• How well will the proposed project advance the active transportation efforts of SANDAG to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals? Up to 5 points possible Plan Application: Part B, Questions 2 and 4; Exhibit 22-Plan Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 2
• How well will the proposed project enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity though the use of programs including but not limited to projects eligible for Safe Routes to School Program funding? Up to 5 points possible Plan Application: Part A3; Part B, Questions 2 and 4; Exhibit 22-Plan Non-Infrastructure Application: Part A3; Part B, Questions 2 and 3 • How well will the proposed project ensure that Disadvantaged Communities fully share in the benefits of the project? Up to 5 points possible
Plan Application: Part B, Question 1; Exhibit 22-Plan
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 1
• How well will the proposed project benefit many types of active transportation users? Up to 5 points possible
Plan Application: Part A3; Part B, Question 2; Exhibit 22-Plan Non-Infrastructure Application: Part A3; Part B, Question 2
3. Comprehensiveness and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reductions A. Comprehensiveness
Points will be awarded according to the comprehensiveness of the proposed project, plan, or program in terms of both scope and scale. The quality of the proposed project and its potential to address community needs identified by the applicant will be considered.
24 55
• Pla
ns: The highest scoring projects will aim to address Complete Streets principles, incorporate traffic calming measures for the benefit of pedestrians and bicycles, prioritize bike/pedestrian access, and/or be considered a Community Active Transportation Strategy (CATS). Up to 30 points possible Plan Application: Part B, Question 2; Exhibit 22-Plan
• Non-Infrastructure Projects: The highest scoring projects will be larger in scope, scale, or duration; reach underserved or vulnerable populations that lack vehicular access; complement a capital improvement project and/or be part of a larger Transportation Demand Management (TDM) effort. Lower-scoring projects will be smaller in scope, scale, or duration, and will be independent of any capital improvement project. Up to 30 points possible
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Questions 2 and 7 B. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reductions
Points will be awarded based on how well the proposed effort will directly reduce GHG emissions. The highest scoring projects will directly reduce GHG emissions such as through implementation of a CAP, parking strategies, advanced technologies, and/or other strategies. Up to 10 points possible
Plan Application: Part B, Question 4; Exhibit 22-Plan
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 2
4. Methodology
Points will be awarded according to how well the proposed effort will meet the demonstrated need and project goals.
• Plans: Highest scoring projects will include a comprehensive planning process in their scope of work that addresses the goals of Complete Streets, prioritizes bicyclist and pedestrian access, plans for traffic calming, and ties into Safe Routes to School efforts in the project area. Up to 30 points possible
Plan Application: Part B, Questions 2 and 3; Exhibit 22-Plan • Non-Infrastructure Projects: Highest scoring projects will clearly and succinctly demonstrate how the project scope of work will directly address the proposed program goals and objectives and will also list measurable objectives and/or deliverables. Lower scoring projects will state a generic need, broad goals, and/or will fail to clearly articulate how the scope of work will address project goals. Up to 30 points possible Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Questions 2, 4, and 7
5. Community Support
Points will be awarded according to the inclusiveness of the planning process and evidence that key stakeholders will be active participants in the process. The highest scoring projects will demonstrate strong community support for the project; substantial community input into the planning or other process; identification of key stakeholders, including underserved and limited English proficiency populations, and ensuring a meaningful role in the effort. 25 56
Lower
scoring projects will have minimal opportunities for community engagement in the scope of work, include generic letters of support that fail to demonstrate substantive stakeholder involvement, and/or fail to account for limited English proficiency populations.
Up to 15 points possible
Plan Application: Part B, Question 3; Exhibit 22-Plan; Letters of Support Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 4; Letters of Support
6. Project Effectiveness
Points will be awarded for applications that clearly demonstrate a commitment to monitoring and evaluating the impact and effectiveness of the proposed project. The highest scoring projects will have identified performance measures in the application or will include a task for identification of performance measures in the scope of work and/or include specific pre- and post-data collection efforts as part of the project scope, budget, and schedule in support of evaluating the project’s effectiveness. Lower scoring projects will lack meaningful evaluation methods or data collection as part of the project. Plans: Not Applicable; Non-Infrastructure Projects: Up to 20 points possible
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 5
7. Innovation
Points will be awarded for applications that propose innovative solutions that show the potential to serve as a replicable model for the region/city. The highest scoring projects will include innovative methods of accomplishing project goals that have not yet been pursued numerous times in the region/city. For innovations that have been implemented in other regions/cities, the applicant must demonstrate that the measure was successful and effective in those cases. Examples of innovative solutions may include but are not limited to:
CiclosDias or Sunday Streets programs; bike sharing programs; bike corrals; bike stations; or bike parking ordinances. Plans: Not Applicable; Non-Infrastructure Projects: Up to 15 points possible
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 6
8. Public Health
Points will be awarded based on how well the project will improve public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues. Up to 15 points possible
Plan Application: Part B, Questions 1 and 4
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Questions 1 and 2
9. Use Of California Conservation Corps or A Qualified Community Conservation Corps Projects should seek to use the California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps, as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code, as partners to undertake or construct applicable projects in accordance with Section 1524 of Public Law 112- 141. Applicants will not be penalized if either corps determines that they cannot participate in a project.
26 57
Poi
nts will be awarded as follows:
• The applicant sought California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps participation on the project Plans: Not Applicable; Non-Infrastructure Projects: 5 points
• The applicant did not seek California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps for participation on the project, or the applicant intends not to use a corps on a project in which the corps can participate. Plans: Not Applicable; Non- Infrastructure Projects: zero points
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 8
10. Benefit To Disadvantaged Communities
For a project to contribute toward the Disadvantaged Communities funding requirement, the project must clearly demonstrate, with verifiable information, a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to a Disadvantaged Community as defined using the criteria outlined below.
A project is considered beneficial if it fulfills an important need of a Disadvantaged Community in a way that provides a significant value. The project’s benefits must primarily target a Disadvantaged Community while avoiding substantial burdens on that community.
For a project to qualify as directly benefiting a Disadvantaged Community, the project must:
• Be located within, or be within reasonable proximity to, the Disadvantaged Community served by the project,
• have a direct connection to the Disadvantaged Community, or • be an extension or a segment of a larger project that connects to or is directly adjacent to the Disadvantaged Community.
Points will be distributed in relation to the severity of and the benefit provided to the Disadvantaged Community affected by the project.
• How well does the project benefit a Disadvantaged Community? Plans: Up to 20 points possible; Non-Infrastructure Projects: Up to 10 points possible • The project does not benefit a Disadvantaged Community. zero points Plan Application: Part B, Question 1; Exhibit 22-Plan
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part B, Question 1
11. Matching Funds
NOTE: SANDAG Grants staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
Points for matching funds will be awarded based on the following scale. The matching fund percentage is derived by comparing the total matching funds relative to the total project cost. Up to 10 points possible
27 58
Percentage of Matching Funds Points
0% zero points
0.01– 4.99% 1 point
5.00 – 9.99% 2 points
10.00– 14.99% 3 points
15.00 – 19.99% 4 points
20.00 – 24.99% 5 points
25.00 – 29.99% 6 points
30.00 – 34.99% 7 points
35.00 – 39.99% 8 points
40.00 – 44.99% 9 points
45.00% and above 10 points
Plan Application: Part A6; Project Programming Request
Non-Infrastructure Application: Part A6; Project Programming Request
12. Cost Effectiveness
*NOTE: SANDAG Grants staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
A ratio of the ATP funding request to the project score will be calculated by dividing the total ATP funding request amount by the sum of points earned in criteria 1 through 11. The ratios will then be ranked in descending order. The project(s) with the highest rank will receive the maximum number of points possible. The remaining projects will then receive points by comparing their rank to the highest rank possible, then multiplying that number by the number of points possible. Plans: Up to 12 points possible; Non-Infrastructure Projects: Up to 10 points
28 59
2023 Regional ATP Application Rankings, Funding Recommendations, and Contingency Project List 61,927,000
Unique ID
Implementing
Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type (I, NI, Plan) Total ATP $ E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 SAN3 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways I - Large $4,614,000 116.0 170.3 169.0 133.7 175.6 166.6 139.3 5 1 1 6 3 6 6 28 1 $4,614,000 NC5 National City 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 I - Medium $2,072,000 110.5 163.5 154.5 140.8 174.5 169.5 145.5 8 2 6 4 4 4 5 33 2 $2,072,000 CV1 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway I - Large $9,762,000 122.4 147.7 162.7 119.7 176.7 168.7 133.7 4 11 3 10 2 5 12 47 3 $9,762,000 NC6 National City 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements I - Medium $2,248,000 112.1 163.4 147.4 119.4 166.1 174.4 135.4 7 3 13 11 10 1 9 54 4 $2,248,000 1 SD1 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update NI - Plan $750,000 147.0 149.0 164.0 161.0 153.0 147.0 166.0 1 10 2 2 22 18 1 56 5 $0 SAN5 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) I - Large $3,818,000 112.8 159.1 132.0 125.8 180.1 162.1 136.4 6 5 23 7 1 7 8 57 6 $3,818,000 1 SD3 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School NI - Plan $563,000 132.0 161.0 141.0 166.0 150.0 141.0 160.0 3 4 19 1 25 24 2 78 7 $0 1 SD2 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP NI - Plan $750,000 140.6 154.6 142.6 151.6 144.6 130.6 155.6 2 7 17 3 29 29 3 90 8 $0 EC1 El Cajon 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout I - Medium $5,984,000 95.2 139.2 153.5 108.2 166.2 172.5 134.2 20 21 8 19 9 3 11 91 9 $5,984,000 SD5 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6 Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities NI - Plan $1,500,000 97.2 156.2 140.2 117.2 157.2 151.2 149.2 17 6 21 12 18 15 4 93 10 $1,238,540 SD4 San Diego 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot NI - EEA $500,000 109.3 147.0 107.0 140.3 151.0 173.0 134.7 9 12 33 5 23 2 10 94 11 $500,000 SAN6 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway I - Medium $5,172,000 98.3 141.7 160.4 121.1 153.3 151.7 125.7 16 18 4 8 21 14 16 97 12 $5,172,000 LG3 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 I - Medium $4,890,000 98.3 145.7 146.3 109.0 168.7 159.7 113.6 15 13 14 18 7 8 23 98 13 $4,890,000 LG2 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 I - Medium $8,004,000 97.1 144.1 144.4 114.4 166.4 158.4 117.4 18 15 16 13 8 9 21 100 14 $8,004,000 SAN7 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements I - Medium $6,344,000 98.7 144.7 155.0 111.7 169.7 144.7 101.7 14 14 5 16 6 21 26 102 15 $6,344,000 2 CV4 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue I - Large $10,843,000 90.4 142.7 153.1 112.1 165.7 154.1 131.1 25 17 9 15 11 11 15 103 16 $0 CV2 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A I - Medium $3,010,000 107.4 139.0 124.3 113.0 165.7 157.3 133.7 10 22 25 14 12 10 13 106 17 $3,010,000 2 OC1 Oceanside 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street I - Large $12,118,000 104.6 152.3 151.3 110.3 149.3 148.3 124.6 12 8 11 17 26 16 18 108 18 $0 NC2 National City 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway I - Small $3,288,000 95.6 140.6 152.6 121.0 156.6 146.6 132.6 19 20 10 9 19 19 14 110 19 $3,288,000 2 NC1 National City 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway I - Small $2,580,000 91.6 141.6 154.0 103.0 157.3 147.3 112.6 24 19 7 22 17 17 24 130 20 $0 SAN4 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway I - Medium $7,995,000 85.8 151.5 142.2 104.2 159.2 142.2 115.2 26 9 18 20 15 22 22 132 21 $982,460 CV3 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B I - Medium $4,818,000 94.2 135.5 116.2 103.5 164.5 153.5 124.9 22 26 30 21 13 12 17 141 22 $0 NC4 National City 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station I - Small $2,944,000 81.9 143.2 140.6 100.9 171.2 141.6 111.6 29 16 20 25 5 23 25 143 23 $0 SD6 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail I - Small $2,044,000 104.8 137.5 126.1 102.5 163.8 106.4 101.5 11 24 24 23 14 34 27 157 24 $0 VS1 Vista 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project I - Medium $4,755,000 100.8 129.7 134.1 91.7 154.1 120.4 117.4 13 27 22 26 20 32 20 160 25 $0 CV5 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan NI - Plan $500,000 59.2 112.2 148.2 81.2 142.2 153.2 138.2 35 32 12 29 32 13 7 160 25 $0 LG1 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS I +NI Combo $3,491,000 93.1 127.8 146.2 78.1 145.8 145.1 92.4 23 28 15 31 28 20 31 176 27 $0 SB2 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project I - Large $12,765,000 84.7 137.7 118.7 84.7 142.7 137.7 118.1 28 23 28 28 31 26 19 183 28 $0 EN1 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path I - Small $1,245,000 85.1 137.1 110.1 87.8 150.1 137.1 92.1 27 25 32 27 24 27 32 194 29 $0 CO2 County 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration I - Small $2,327,000 75.6 115.3 106.6 102.3 158.0 129.6 98.3 31 31 34 24 16 30 29 195 30 $0 ES1 Escondido 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements I - Small $2,206,000 95.0 124.7 89.3 74.6 146.3 140.4 99.7 21 29 35 32 27 25 28 197 31 $0 EN2 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements I - Medium $2,457,000 80.1 109.5 121.8 71.4 138.8 131.5 95.8 30 34 26 33 33 28 30 214 32 $0 CO1 County 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway I +NI Combo $8,098,000 75.2 116.2 111.8 79.8 143.2 106.8 71.1 32 30 31 30 30 33 34 220 33 $0 EN3 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks I - Medium $3,092,000 71.3 105.3 117.0 61.3 135.0 122.7 91.7 33 35 29 35 34 31 33 230 34 $0 SB1 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project I - Small $1,799,000 64.3 110.3 118.7 66.9 129.3 103.0 65.6 34 33 27 34 35 35 35 233 35 $0 Recommended for full funding
Recommended for partial funding
Contingency List project
1 Declined funding to allow another Plan project to be funded 2 Declined funding due to partial award and insufficient matching funds to supplement the project budget Notes
Available funding:
ATP Funding
Recommendation
SUM of
Ranks
Final
Rank
Final Scores Ranks
Attachment 4
29 60
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Application Index
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Project Location
Resubmittal from
Prior Cycles - Yes/No
Shapefile -
Yes/No PA&ED $ PS&E $ R/W $ CON $ NI $ Plan $ Total ATP $ Total Non-
ATP $
Total
Project $ Contact Person Phone Number Contact Email
Partnering Agency
Name
Bicycle
Transportation
Pedestrian
Transportation
Safe Routes
to School
Safe Routes
for Seniors Trails
Benefits a
DAC?
(MHI, CalEnviro, School
Lunch, Regional Definition,
CO1 County I +NI Combo 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway multi-use pedestrian safety improvements between South Mission Road and Reche Road in
Fallbrook, CA No No $175 $900 $445 $6,503 $75 $8,098 $900 $8,998 Cynthia Curtis 619-981-6294 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X No Yes School Lunch not able to open? CO2 County I - Small 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration Final design plans, specifications, and estimate for
pedestrian, bike, and safety improvements on
Campo Road between Rogers Road and Granada
Avenue. Pre-construction funds only.
Campo Road between Rogers Road and Granada
Avenue, including surrounding circulation routes
within the neighborhood of Casa de Oro in the
unincorporated San Diego County. No No $250 $1,367 $710 $0 $0 $0 $2,327 $745 $3,072 Luis Duran 619-214-4698 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes No Yes School Lunch Casa de Oro Alliance, Spring Valley Chamber of Commerce CV1 Chula Vista I - Large 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway 12-ft wide multi-use path for pedestrians and
Bikes, high visibility crosswalks, mid-block
crossings, lighting, trees, bulb outs, striping,
signing and roundabout
East of San Diego N=Bay in northwestern Chula
Vista. Yes No
$78 $1,295 $8,389 $9,762 $9,083 $18,845 Frank Rivera 619-691-5045 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X X No Yes MHI MTS, CV Elementary School District, PORT of SD, Bike Walk Chula Vista, Bike Coalition CV2 Chula Vista I - Medium 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A 1/4 mile Class 1 bikeway, high-visibility crosswalk,
installation of a new ped/bike HAWK beacon
MTS RR Corridor parallel to the west of Bay
Boulevard from E Street. to Lagoon Drive/F Street Yes No $100 $150 $2,760 $3,010 $800 $3,810 Frank Rivera 619-691-5045 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes No Yes Healthy Places Index SANDAG, MTS, SD County Bike Coalition, City of Coronado, City of IB, National City, Port of SD, Bile Walk Chula Vista
CV3 Chula Vista I - Medium 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B Construct 1/2 mile of Class I Bikeway, install: 2X
five foot wide path lanes + 2X two foot wide
shoulders, high-visibility crosswalks and a new
pedestrian/bike HAWK beacon signal.
Within the inactive San Diego and Arizona Eastern
Railway Railroad Corridor parallel to & west of
Interstate-5 & Bay Blvd from Lagoon Dr./F St. to H
St. in the City of Chula Vista. No No $100 $480 $0 $4,238 $0 $0 $4,818 $0 $4,818 Frank Rivera 619-691-5045 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X X Yes Yes CalEnviro MTS, CV4 Chula Vista I - Large 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue Construct 12-ft wide multi-use path for pedestrians
and bicycles, high visibility crosswalks and mid-
block crossings, lighting, trees, bulb-outs, signing
and striping.
East of San Diego Bay in northwestern Chula Vista.
On F Street from Broadway to Fourth Avenue in the
City of Chula Vista's Urban Core District. Typical
project width 80 feet ROW. No No $84 $469 $0 $10,290 $0 $0 $10,843 $5,261 $16,104 Frank Rivera 619-691-5046 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X X Yes Yes MHI Feaster Charter School, Port of San Diego, BikeWalk Chula Vista, Bike Coalition CV5 Chula Vista NI - Plan 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan Prepare a master planning document to establish a
city-wide network of trails and a priority list of
capital improvement projects to be constructed as
funding becomes available.
The Trails Master Plan will encompass open spaces
throughout the city's boundary, outside of the
public right-of-way. The city's boundary is the same
boundary as the project limits No No
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 $0 $500 Marc Caro 619-476-2385 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X Yes Yes CalEnviro San Diego Mountain Biking Association, EC1 El Cajon I - Medium 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout Class IV bicycle facilities, improved sidewalks,
traffic calming, pavement markings, ADA curb
ramps
On Main Street from Johnson Avenue to El Cajon
Boulevard in the City of El Cajon Yes No
$3 $572 $5,409 $5,984 $816 $6,800 Mario Sanchez 619-441-1651 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes School Lunch SD River Conservancy, MTS, Cajon Valley Union School District, Literacy First Charter Schools, El Cajon Collaborative, Rady Childrens Hospital
EN1 Encinitas I - Small 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path Construct interim North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use
Path, bike lane and enhanced pedestrian crossings
on the west side of N. Vulcan Ave. between La
Costa Blvd. and Leucadia Blvd.
West side of North Vulcan Avenue between La Costa
Boulevard and Leucadia Boulevard in the City of
Encinitas, CA.
No No $0 $0 $0 $1,245 $0 $0 $1,245 $135 $1,380 Abe Bandegan 760-633-2705 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X X No No Encinitas Fire Department, NOWLeucadia. Circulate SD, Bike Coalition EN2 Encinitas I - Medium 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements New sidewalks, enhanced pedestrian crossings,
and buffered bike lanes on Leucadia Blvd from
Hermes Ave to Eolus Ave. Construct new
roundabout at the intersection with Hygeia Ave.
Both sides of Leucadia Boulevard from Hermes
Avenue to Eolus Avenue in the City of Encinitas, CA. No No $0 $0 $0 $2,457 $0 $0 $2,457 $2,700 $5,157 Abe Bandegan 760-633-2706 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X No No EN3 Encinitas I - Medium 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks Construct sidewalks, enhanced pedestrian
crossings and buffered bike lanes along La Costa
Avenue between North Coast Highway 101 and
Interstate 5 in the City of Encinitas, CA.
Both sides of La Costa Avenue between North Coast
Highway 101 and Interstate 5 in the City of
Encinitas, CA. No No $0 $0 $0 $3,092 $0 $0 $3,092 $1,200 $4,292 Abe Bandegan 760-633-2707 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X No No
ES1 Escondido I - Small 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements constructs a continuous, separated pedestrian
pathway, upgrades crosswalks, installs Class III bike
facility and calms traffic
Citrus Avenue between Glenridge Road and Bear
Valley Parkway Yes No $89 $297 $1,820 $2,206 $50 $2,256 Julie Procopio 760-839-4001 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X No Yes School Lunch Orange Glen High School, Hidden Valley Middle School LG1 Lemon Grove I +NI Combo 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS safety infrastructure and non-infrastructure
improvements improving safety and convenience
for walking/biking City of Lemon Grove No No $50 $315 $3,030 $96 $3,491 $0 $3,491 Lydia Romero 619-825-3800 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X No Yes School Lunch Lemon Grove School District, San Miguel Elementary School, Thrive Lemon Grove, SD County Sheriff's Department, SRTS San Diego
LG2 Lemon Grove I - Medium 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 Active transportation corridor project includes class
1 multi-use paths, DG pedestrian trail, and bike
boulevard treatments
Main Street between Mt. Vernon Street and
Massachusetts Avenue Yes No $115 $1,194 $6,695 $8,004 $81 $8,085 Lydia Romero 619-825-3800 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes CalEnviro THRIVE Lemon Grove, SD County Sheriff's Department, LG Historical Society, SD County Bike Coalition
LG3 Lemon Grove I - Medium 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 Connect Main Street is an active transportation
corridor project including class 1 multi-use paths,
DG pedestrian trails, and bike boulevard
treatments.
Lemon Grove, California; Located on Main Street
Between Mt. Vernon Street/Buena Vista Ave and
Burnell Ave. No No $0 $374 $0 $4,516 $0 $0 $4,890 $1 $4,891 Lydia Romero 619-825-3801 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes MHI THRIVE Lemon Grove, SD County Sheriff's Department, LG Historical Society, SD County Bike Coalition
NC1 National City I - Small 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway connects disadvantaged residents living east of I-5
to the Bayshore Bikeway.
National City, along Civic Center Drive, between
Harbor Drive and Wilson Avenue. Yes No
$73 $375 $2,132 $2,580 $2 $2,582 Robert Yano 619-336-4380 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes MHI Circulate SD, ARTS, Rady Childrens, SRTS San Diego NC2 National City I - Small 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway 3,000 feet of separated bikeway (Class I and IV),
curb extensions, a new traffic signal with bike
signals, continental crosswalks, curb ramps, and
400 feet of new sidewalk.
Along East 22nd Street between Wilson Avenue and
D Avenue in National City No No $148 $380 $2,760 $3,288 $2 $3,290 Robert Yano 619-336-4380 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X Yes Yes MHI SRTS San Diego, MTS, Circulate SD, ARTS, Rady Childrens Hospital NC4 National City I - Small 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station
Signal modification at the rail crossing, benches,
trees planted, and various lighting and safety
improvements (3 RRFBs and 1 new drainage inlet).
Located in western National City at 8th Street
Transit Station and along Roosevelt Ave from 8th
Street to Division Street No No
$0 $50 $85 $2,809 $0 $0 $2,944 $550 $3,494 Robert Yano 619-336-4381 [email protected] MTS Yes Yes No Yes CalEnviro MTS, National City Chamber of Commerce, Circulate SD, Southwestern College NC5 National City I - Medium 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 The construction of a Class 1 and 4 bicycle facilities, improved signalized and unsignalized intersections,
improve rail crossings, coastal sage mitigation, and
add safety lighting
Adjacent to Marina Way from 32nd Street to Bay
Marina Drive, Bay Marina Drive from Marina Way to
McKinley Avenue, and McKinley Avenue from Bay
Marina Drive to Civic Center Drive
No No $0 $0 $0 $2,072 $0 $0 $2,072 $7,516 $9,588 Robert Yano 619-336-4382 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes No Yes CalEnviro City of Coronado, Bike Coalition, BNSF Railway, A Reason To Service (ARTS), City of Imperial Beach, Circulate SD, MTS, Port of SD, Rady Childrens Hospital, SANDAG, NC6 National City I - Medium 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements Construct a two-way Class 1 safe crossing of the
rail tracks near 8th and Harbor in National City for
bicyclists and pedestrians. Removal of a vehicle
free right-turn lane.
Between the Bayshore Bikeway at the intersection
of 8th St and Harbor Dr, crossing the rail tracks to
the east of the intersection, ending west of the 8th
St MTS transit station No No
$100 $370 $130 $1,648 $0 $0 $2,248 $4,125 $6,373 Robert Yano 619-336-4383 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes No Yes CalEnviro Dept of the Navy, Rady Childrens Hospital, SD Board of Supervisors OC1 Oceanside I - Large 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street Construct a class 1 bike/pedestrian facility with a
bridge across Loma Alta Creek between Oceanside
Blvd. and Morse Street to close the gap in the
existing Coastal Rail Tral network.
Located between Oceanside Blvd. and Morse Street
and provides bicycle/pedestrian access across the
Loma Alta Creek west of the RR tracks Yes No $250 $11,868 $12,118 $2,160 $14,278 Dara Woods 760-435-5094 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X X X No Yes MHI
La Salina Mobile Village HOA, City of Oceanside Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Bike WalkOceanside, SANDAG, Circulate SD, SRTS, NCTD, South Oceanside Community and Merchants Association, Bike Coalition
SAN3 SANDAG I - Large 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways 2 way 7.9 miles of continuous bike boulevards,
buffered bike lanes, Class iii/iv facilities, 15 traffic circles, 7 roundabouts, 35 intersection treatments
multiple roads to connect cities of National City,
Chula Vista, and San Diego from Imperial Ave/47 th
Street in San Diego to J Street, Bay Blvd in Chula
Vista No No $4,614 $4,614 $63,982 $68,596 Mary McGuirk-Lizarraga 619-849-6769 [email protected] City of San Diego Yes Yes X No Yes School Lunch Scott Peters -U.S. Congress House of Reps, Monica Montgomery -City of SD Council, MTS, National City, Mary Salas - Chula Vista, Nora Vargas - County of SD, Circulate SD, Bike SD, Bike Coalition SD County, Environmental Health Coalition
SAN4 SANDAG I - Medium 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway Improve and construct new bikeway infrastructure,
bike lanes, pavement markings, curb extensions,
mini-roundabouts, enhanced pedestrian crossings,
and wayfinding signage
City of San Diego along Congress Street/San Diego
Avenue from Taylor Street to Noell Street on Old
Town and on University Avenue from lbis Street to
first Avenue in Mission Hills Yes No
$339 $366 $98 $7,192 $7,995 $805 $8,800 Madai Parra 619-699-1924 [email protected] City of San Diego Yes Yes X No Yes MHI Circulate SD, Bike SD, Bike Coalition, Climate Action Campaign, Chris Ward, CA Assembly, MTS, Urban Collaborative Project
SAN5 SANDAG I - Large 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) 11miles of Class IV cycle tracks on Pacific Highway
and connecting streets including at-grade rail
safety and intersection enhancements
Pacific Coast Highway and connecting street
between Sea World Drive and Grape Street in the
City of San Diego No No $3,818 $3,818 $84,313 $88,131 Danny Veeh 619-699-7317 [email protected] City of San Diego Yes Yes No Yes MHI SAN6 SANDAG I - Medium 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway ROW and construction funding to construct the
elevated bikeway, bikeway and buffers, paving
markings and signing, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb
ramps, drainage improvement.
In North Park neighborhood of the City of San Diego,
along Robinson Avenue between Alabama Street
and Park Boulevard.
No No $0 $0 $546 $4,626 $0 $0 $5,172 $4,358 $9,530 Angela Anderson 619-699-6934 [email protected] City of San Diego Yes Yes X No No Bile Coalition, Circulate SD, Bike SD, MTS SAN7 SANDAG I - Medium 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements
Install advanced preemption systems, ADA
compliant sidewalks, wider medians, pavement
markings, chain link fence, and traffic signal
modification.
Along Harbor Drive at Sampson Street, Schley
Street, and 28th Street in the City of San Diego,
Community of Barrio Logan. No No $0 $0 $0 $6,344 $0 $0 $6,344 $3,001 $9,345 Dinara Ussenova 619-699-7339 [email protected] City of San Diego Yes Yes No Yes MHI SD Transportation Dept., MTS, SD County Board of Supervisors, Bike Coalition, Circulate SD, Bike SD
SB1 Solana Beach I - Small 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project Narrow roadway and add pedestrian pathway.
Construct curb extensions with pedestrian ramps
at the intersection. Install pavement marking for
bile lanes and crosswalks
Santa Helena from Sun Valley Road to northerly
dead end No No $1,799 $1,799 $220 $2,019 Mo Sammak 858-720-2470 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X No No Solana Beach School District, San Dieguito Union High School District, SD County Sheriff's Department, BikeWalkSolana
SB2 Solana Beach I - Large 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project A complete streets project that improves safety,
connectivity, and accessibility to schools, parks.
transits. and retail by integrating traffic calming
and multi-use trail
Along both sides of Lomas Santa Fe from Highway
101 to Highland Drive, including intersections and I-
5/Lomas Santa Fe Interchange. Yes No $400 $12,365 $12,765 $1,164 $13,929 Mo Sammak 858-720-2470 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X X No No Solana Beach School District, San Dieguito Union High School District, SD County Sheriff's Department, BikeWalkSolana
SD1 San Diego NI - Plan 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update A comprehensive and inclusive plan for the
guidance of bike facility implementation and
priority list.
City wide project with special emphasis on all
disadvantages communities. - (50
communities)over 370 sq. miles
No No $750 $750 $225 $975 Emanuel Alforja 619-236-6883 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes CalEnviro Circulate SD, Bike Coalition, Laurie Waters CTC, Steven Keck Cal DOT, SD2 San Diego NI - Plan 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP provides a comprehensive active transportation
plan (CATP) for the Mid-City communities of City
Height, Eastern area, Kensington-Talmadge and
Normal Heights.
Mid-City Communities of City Heights, Eastern Area,
Kensington-Talmadge and Normal Heights. No No
$750 $750 $225 $975 Dana Long 619-414-8072 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes MHI SANDAG, Circulate SD, City Heights Community Development, Bike SD, SD3 San Diego NI - Plan 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School Focuses on Health Promotion Model to influence
behavior of students and families to choose active
transportation.
City of San Diego. Includes schools in the
Southeaster San Diego (92113), Encanto (92114)
and Mid-City Eastern Area (92102)
Yes No $563 $563 $563 Joe Whitaker 858-335-9829 [email protected] Rady Children's
Hospital Yes Yes X No Yes CalEnviro The Urban Collaborative Project, SD4 San
Diego NI - EEA 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot A pilot project to establish a self-funding, and
regularly recurring ciclovia (CicloSDia) event. This
project is modeled after the City of Los Angeles
'CicLAvia' program, which has successfully been
holding open streets events for cyclists and
pedestrians for over 12 years.
A variety of Communities of Concern within the City
of San Diego, Pacific Beach, San Diego No No $500 $500 $500 Joe Whitaker 858-335-9829 [email protected]
Rady Childrens
Hospital Yes No No Yes CalEnviro beautifulPB, Bike Coalition, Circulate SD SD5 San
Diego NI - Plan 11-San Diego, City of-6
Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities
Evaluation of barriers in the PROW for people with
disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities
communities south of 1-8, west of 1-5 between 1-8
and Laurel Street, south of Laurel Street includes all
of City of SD west of the San Diego Bay. No No
$1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Thyme Curtis 619-665-7796 [email protected] N/A No Yes No Yes MHI SANDAG, PVA, SD6 San Diego I - Small 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail PS&E, PA&ED, and Construction funding to
construct a 1.83 mile active transportation trail,
two steel bridges, four informational kiosks, and an
ADA loop trail.
Trail will run east of Sunshine Berardini Park along
Chollas Creek to Chollas Parkway-54th Street
intersection, all property is owned by the City of San
Diego. No $175 $234 $0 $1,635 $0 $0 $2,044 $555 $2,599 Melissa Garcia 619-236-6173 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes X No Yes CalEnviro Ground Work SD Cholas Creek, San Diego Canyonlands, SANDAG VS1 Vista I - Medium 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project roundabouts, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. Emerald Drive from Olive Ave to West Drive Yes No $50 $600 $225 $3,880 $0 $0 $4,755 $1,189 $5,944 Husam Hasenin 760-643-5411 [email protected] N/A Yes Yes No Yes Regional Definition City of Oceanside, Vista Unified School District, Vista Community Clinic Disadvantaged Community
Letter of Support
(Name of Agencies or Organizations)Unique ID
For GIS
Project Description
ATP Funded Components ($1,000s) Project Funding Information ($1,000s) Implementing Agency Project Sub-Type State only funding
request?Implementing Agency
Project Type
Expanded
(Select from drop down) Project Application No. (Assigned by CTC) Project Name 30 61
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - E1
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type (I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $
(1,000s) 2 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Subtotal Maximum 150 points Plan; 180 points EEA CV5 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan NI - Plan $500 $500 12 5 1 1 15 N/A N/A 5 N/A 5 CV5 44 SD1 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update NI - Plan $975 $750 28 25 10 15 15 N/A N/A 5 N/A 12 SD1 110 SD2 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP NI - Plan $975 $750 28 25 10 15 13 N/A N/A 5 N/A 20 SD2 116 SD3 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School NI - Plan $563 $563 30 20 5 20 13 N/A N/A 10 N/A 10 SD3 108 SD4 San Diego 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot NI - EEA $500 $500 30 15 5 20 8 15 1 1 5 1 SD4 101 SD5 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6 Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities NI - Plan $1,500 $1,500 17 10 1 10 13 N/A N/A 1 N/A 20 SD5 72
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type
(I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 5 6 7 8 Subtotal Maximum 148 points CO1 County 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway I +NI Combo $8,998 $8,098 0 0 8 12 18 1 6 2 1 1 6 10 CO1 65 CO2 County 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration I - Small $3,072 $2,327 0 0 6 12 14 1 1 2 1 1 0 8 CO2 46 CV1 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway I - Large $18,845 $9,762 0 10 18 14 15 1 1 3 5 1 6 10 CV1 84 CV2 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A I - Medium $3,810 $3,010 5 0 12 8 15 6 1 3 2 1 6 10 CV2 69 CV3 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B I - Medium $4,818 $4,818 5 0 8 8 15 6 1 3 2 1 6 10 CV3 65 CV4 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue I - Large $16,104 $10,843 0 0 10 9 15 1 1 3 5 1 6 10 CV4 61 EC1 El Cajon 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout I - Medium $6,800 $5,984 0 0 8 14 15 1 1 3 2 1 6 10 EC1 61 EN1 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path I - Small $1,380 $1,245 5 5 8 9 11 1 1 3 2 1 6 0 EN1 52 EN2 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements I - Medium $5,157 $2,457 0 10 10 8 12 1 1 3 2 1 6 0 EN2 54 EN3 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks I - Medium $4,292 $3,092 0 10 7 7 12 1 1 3 2 1 6 0 EN3 50 ES1 Escondido 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements I - Small $2,256 $2,206 0 10 8 9 18 1 1 4 6 3 6 10 ES1 76 LG1 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS I +NI Combo $3,491 $3,491 0 10 10 8 17 1 1 1 2 5 6 10 LG1 71 LG2 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 I - Medium $8,085 $8,004 5 5 8 9 15 1 1 2 2 3 6 10 LG2 67 LG3 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 I - Medium $4,891 $4,890 5 5 8 9 15 1 1 2 2 3 6 10 LG3 67 NC1 National City 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway I - Small $2,582 $2,580 10 0 8 6 13 1 1 2 2 3 6 10 NC1 62 NC2 National City 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway I - Small $3,290 $3,288 10 0 8 8 13 1 1 3 2 3 6 10 NC2 65 NC4 National City 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station I - Small $3,494 $2,944 0 0 10 4 11 1 1 2 2 3 6 10 NC4 50 NC5 National City 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 I - Medium $9,588 $2,072 10 0 16 6 13 1 1 2 6 1 6 3 NC5 65 NC6 National City 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements I - Medium $6,373 $2,248 0 5 14 12 11 1 1 2 2 3 6 10 NC6 67 OC1 Oceanside 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street I - Large $14,278 $12,118 10 0 12 8 15 1 1 3 9 1 6 10 OC1 76 SAN3 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways I - Large $68,596 $4,614 10 0 18 12 13 1 1 1 2 3 0 10 SAN3 71 SAN4 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway I - Medium $8,800 $7,995 0 0 12 10 12 1 1 3 2 1 0 7 SAN4 49 SAN5 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) I - Large $88,131 $3,818 5 0 18 9 13 1 1 3 2 3 0 10 SAN5 65 SAN6 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway I - Medium $9,530 $5,172 10 0 8 8 10 1 1 3 8 1 6 0 SAN6 56 SAN7 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements I - Medium $9,345 $6,344 0 5 16 12 9 1 1 1 2 1 6 10 SAN7 64 SB1 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project I - Small $2,019 $1,799 10 0 5 11 10 1 1 2 6 1 6 0 SB1 53 SB2 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project I - Large $13,929 $12,765 2 5 9 11 10 1 4 2 7 1 6 0 SB2 58 SD6 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail I - Small $2,599 $2,044 3 7 8 12 15 1 1 2 6 3 6 10 SD6 74 VS1 Vista 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project I - Medium $5,944 $4,755 7 8 8 16 15 1 1 2 2 1 6 10 VS1 77 31 62
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - E2
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type (I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ (1,000s) 2 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Subtotal Maximum 150 points Plan; 180 points EEA CV5 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan NI - Plan $500 $500 18 20 5 15 7 N/A N/A 8 N/A 20 CV5 93 SD1 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update NI - Plan $975 $750 26 24 9 26 14 N/A N/A 12 N/A 5 SD1 116 SD2 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP NI - Plan $975 $750 27 26 9 24 15 N/A N/A 14 N/A 15 SD2 130 SD3 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School NI - Plan $563 $563 26 28 8 28 15 N/A N/A 14 N/A 20 SD3 139 SD4 San Diego 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot NI - EEA $500 $500 21 24 7 22 10 16 14 10 5 8 SD4 137 SD5 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6 Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities NI - Plan $1,500 $1,500 26 26 4 28 13 N/A N/A 14 N/A 20 SD5 131
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type
(I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 5 6 7 8 Subtotal Maximum 148 points CO1 County 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway I +NI Combo $8,998 $8,098 10 10 12 16 16 6 6 6 4 6 6 8 CO1 106 CO2 County 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration I - Small $3,072 $2,327 7 7 12 16 15 3 6 4 4 4 0 7 CO2 85 CV1 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway I - Large $18,845 $9,762 8 8 12 16 18 8 6 8 2 8 6 10 CV1 110 CV2 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A I - Medium $3,810 $3,010 10 0 12 16 14 8 6 8 4 8 6 10 CV2 102 CV3 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B I - Medium $4,818 $4,818 10 4 12 16 14 8 6 8 4 8 6 10 CV3 106 CV4 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue I - Large $16,104 $10,843 10 2 14 16 18 10 6 8 5 8 6 10 CV4 113 EC1 El Cajon 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout I - Medium $6,800 $5,984 10 10 12 16 15 8 6 6 6 10 6 0 EC1 105 EN1 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path I - Small $1,380 $1,245 10 10 16 16 15 6 6 10 4 5 6 0 EN1 104 EN2 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements I - Medium $5,157 $2,457 4 8 12 16 15 6 6 2 4 5 6 0 EN2 84 EN3 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks I - Medium $4,292 $3,092 6 10 12 16 15 2 6 2 4 5 6 0 EN3 84 ES1 Escondido 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements I - Small $2,256 $2,206 6 10 12 16 18 6 6 2 4 10 6 10 ES1 106 LG1 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS I +NI Combo $3,491 $3,491 6 8 12 16 18 8 6 2 4 10 6 10 LG1 106 LG2 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 I - Medium $8,085 $8,004 10 10 16 16 16 10 6 2 4 10 6 8 LG2 114 LG3 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 I - Medium $4,891 $4,890 10 10 16 16 16 10 6 2 4 10 6 8 LG3 114 NC1 National City 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway I - Small $2,582 $2,580 10 4 16 16 16 8 6 8 4 10 6 8 NC1 112 NC2 National City 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway I - Small $3,290 $3,288 8 8 12 16 16 8 6 8 4 10 6 8 NC2 110 NC4 National City 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station I - Small $3,494 $2,944 4 10 12 16 16 10 6 8 4 10 6 8 NC4 110 NC5 National City 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 I - Medium $9,588 $2,072 10 10 16 16 16 8 6 8 4 10 6 8 NC5 118 NC6 National City 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements I - Medium $6,373 $2,248 10 10 16 16 16 8 6 8 4 10 6 8 NC6 118 OC1 Oceanside 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street I - Large $14,278 $12,118 10 10 16 16 16 12 6 10 4 10 6 8 OC1 124 SAN3 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways I - Large $68,596 $4,614 10 10 17 16 17 11 6 9 4 10 6 9 SAN3 125 SAN4 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway I - Medium $8,800 $7,995 6 6 16 16 16 12 6 8 4 10 6 8 SAN4 114 SAN5 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) I - Large $88,131 $3,818 6 6 16 16 16 8 6 10 4 10 6 8 SAN5 112 SAN6 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway I - Medium $9,530 $5,172 9 9 12 16 15 12 6 4 6 4 6 0 SAN6 99 SAN7 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements I - Medium $9,345 $6,344 9 7 12 16 18 8 6 4 4 10 6 10 SAN7 110 SB1 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project I - Small $2,019 $1,799 4 10 10 16 15 4 6 5 18 4 6 0 SB1 98 SB2 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project I - Large $13,929 $12,765 4 10 16 16 15 10 6 8 12 8 6 0 SB2 111 SD6 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail I - Small $2,599 $2,044 2 2 10 16 18 6 6 7 14 10 6 10 SD6 107 VS1 Vista 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project I - Medium $5,944 $4,755 6 6 12 16 18 6 6 7 4 10 6 10 VS1 107 32 63
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - E3
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type (I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ (1,000s) 2 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Subtotal Maximum 150 points Plan; 180 points EEA CV5 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan NI - Plan $500 $500 25 25 8 24 14 N/A N/A 13 N/A 16 CV5 125 SD1 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update NI - Plan $975 $750 25 25 9 25 14 N/A N/A 13 N/A 16 SD1 127 SD2 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP NI - Plan $975 $750 24 23 7 22 14 N/A N/A 14 N/A 16 SD2 120 SD3 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School NI - Plan $563 $563 28 18 9 26 9 N/A N/A 14 N/A 15 SD3 119 SD4 San Diego 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot NI - EEA $500 $500 18 15 3 15 8 10 15 8 5 5 SD4 102 SD5 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6 Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities NI - Plan $1,500 $1,500 22 25 5 20 9 N/A N/A 14 N/A 20 SD5 115
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type
(I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 5 6 7 8 Subtotal Maximum 148 points CO1 County 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway I +NI Combo $8,998 $8,098 6 8 12 16 12 4 3 4 16 8 6 7 CO1 102 CO2 County 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration I - Small $3,072 $2,327 5 6 10 10 14 8 3 4 4 6 0 7 CO2 77 CV1 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway I - Large $18,845 $9,762 9 8 16 16 16 9 5 7 17 8 6 8 CV1 125 CV2 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A I - Medium $3,810 $3,010 9 3 8 8 12 6 4 4 17 6 6 5 CV2 88 CV3 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B I - Medium $4,818 $4,818 9 3 8 8 12 6 4 4 17 6 6 5 CV3 88 CV4 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue I - Large $16,104 $10,843 9 9 15 15 15 9 5 7 16 8 6 9 CV4 123 EC1 El Cajon 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout I - Medium $6,800 $5,984 6 5 17 16 13 11 5 9 15 7 6 9 EC1 119 EN1 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path I - Small $1,380 $1,245 5 2 10 9 12 5 4 2 12 6 6 4 EN1 77 EN2 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements I - Medium $5,157 $2,457 3 8 13 14 15 6 3 3 16 6 6 2 EN2 95 EN3 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks I - Medium $4,292 $3,092 2 9 12 13 13 5 5 4 16 8 6 2 EN3 95 ES1 Escondido 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements I - Small $2,256 $2,206 2 6 6 6 8 4 4 4 12 7 6 8 ES1 73 LG1 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS I +NI Combo $3,491 $3,491 2 9 16 17 17 8 6 7 16 9 6 10 LG1 123 LG2 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 I - Medium $8,085 $8,004 7 7 16 16 15 8 5 6 12 7 6 9 LG2 114 LG3 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 I - Medium $4,891 $4,890 8 7 16 16 15 8 5 6 12 7 6 9 LG3 115 NC1 National City 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway I - Small $2,582 $2,580 9 9 17 17 17 10 3 6 14 7 6 9 NC1 124 NC2 National City 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway I - Small $3,290 $3,288 8 6 16 14 15 10 5 8 17 7 6 9 NC2 121 NC4 National City 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station I - Small $3,494 $2,944 6 4 15 13 14 8 4 5 17 5 6 10 NC4 107 NC5 National City 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 I - Medium $9,588 $2,072 9 6 13 12 16 8 3 3 16 8 6 9 NC5 109 NC6 National City 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements I - Medium $6,373 $2,248 5 5 12 12 16 9 4 5 14 5 6 9 NC6 102 OC1 Oceanside 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street I - Large $14,278 $12,118 9 9 17 17 17 7 6 6 12 9 6 8 OC1 123 SAN3 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways I - Large $68,596 $4,614 9 7 17 15 17 9 4 8 14 8 6 10 SAN3 124 SAN4 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway I - Medium $8,800 $7,995 8 5 12 15 15 9 4 6 14 6 6 5 SAN4 105 SAN5 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) I - Large $88,131 $3,818 7 5 8 8 12 6 5 8 6 8 6 7 SAN5 86 SAN6 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway I - Medium $9,530 $5,172 8 7 15 15 16 7 4 7 17 9 6 6 SAN6 117 SAN7 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements I - Medium $9,345 $6,344 7 7 14 15 17 9 5 6 18 8 6 8 SAN7 120 SB1 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project I - Small $2,019 $1,799 6 8 15 15 16 4 3 5 18 7 6 3 SB1 106 SB2 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project I - Large $13,929 $12,765 6 6 11 10 12 7 3 4 18 5 6 4 SB2 92 SD6 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail I - Small $2,599 $2,044 5 9 6 15 14 6 3 6 9 8 6 9 SD6 96 VS1 Vista 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project I - Medium $5,944 $4,755 6 7 15 16 14 7 4 7 14 8 6 7 VS1 111 33 64
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - E4
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type (I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ (1,000s) 2 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Subtotal Maximum 150 points Plan; 180 points EEA CV5 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan NI - Plan $500 $500 14 5 2 10 10 N/A N/A 10 N/A 15 CV5 66 SD1 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update NI - Plan $975 $750 28 25 7 25 15 N/A N/A 14 N/A 10 SD1 124 SD2 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP NI - Plan $975 $750 28 25 7 25 13 N/A N/A 14 N/A 15 SD2 127 SD3 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School NI - Plan $563 $563 27 30 5 30 15 N/A N/A 15 N/A 20 SD3 142 SD4 San Diego 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot NI - EEA $500 $500 21 28 2 20 8 12 15 13 5 8 SD4 132 SD5 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6 Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities NI - Plan $1,500 $1,500 21 5 1 25 15 N/A N/A 5 N/A 20 SD5 92
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type
(I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 5 6 7 8 Subtotal Maximum 148 points CO1 County 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway I +NI Combo $8,998 $8,098 3 7 4 8 12 1 5 1 6 7 6 10 CO1 70 CO2 County 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration I - Small $3,072 $2,327 5 0 10 16 14 6 1 1 2 6 0 10 CO2 71 CV1 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway I - Large $18,845 $9,762 6 5 8 16 14 1 1 2 9 4 6 10 CV1 82 CV2 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A I - Medium $3,810 $3,010 9 5 9 12 13 2 1 2 2 6 6 8 CV2 75 CV3 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B I - Medium $4,818 $4,818 9 5 8 12 13 2 1 2 2 6 6 8 CV3 74 CV4 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue I - Large $16,104 $10,843 6 5 8 16 14 1 1 2 9 4 6 10 CV4 82 EC1 El Cajon 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout I - Medium $6,800 $5,984 5 0 11 12 12 6 1 2 2 7 6 10 EC1 74 EN1 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path I - Small $1,380 $1,245 4 7 12 9 9 1 1 2 2 2 6 0 EN1 55 EN2 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements I - Medium $5,157 $2,457 3 8 4 11 7 1 1 1 3 2 6 0 EN2 47 EN3 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks I - Medium $4,292 $3,092 1 10 4 9 5 1 1 1 2 1 6 0 EN3 41 ES1 Escondido 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements I - Small $2,256 $2,206 2 8 10 6 9 1 1 1 3 5 6 6 ES1 58 LG1 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS I +NI Combo $3,491 $3,491 1 7 2 7 10 1 4 1 3 6 6 9 LG1 57 LG2 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 I - Medium $8,085 $8,004 5 9 11 11 12 6 1 2 6 7 6 8 LG2 84 LG3 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 I - Medium $4,891 $4,890 5 9 6 11 12 1 1 2 9 7 6 8 LG3 77 NC1 National City 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway I - Small $2,582 $2,580 10 4 6 1 15 5 1 2 6 7 6 10 NC1 73 NC2 National City 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway I - Small $3,290 $3,288 8 6 10 12 15 5 1 2 6 8 6 10 NC2 89 NC4 National City 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station I - Small $3,494 $2,944 3 5 6 12 10 1 1 1 5 8 6 10 NC4 68 NC5 National City 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 I - Medium $9,588 $2,072 10 8 10 12 14 1 1 2 12 9 6 10 NC5 95 NC6 National City 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements I - Medium $6,373 $2,248 4 4 8 18 12 1 1 2 2 6 6 10 NC6 74 OC1 Oceanside 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street I - Large $14,278 $12,118 10 9 6 10 14 1 1 2 9 8 6 6 OC1 82 SAN3 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways I - Large $68,596 $4,614 8 6 8 16 15 6 1 2 2 8 6 10 SAN3 88 SAN4 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway I - Medium $8,800 $7,995 6 5 8 13 9 8 1 1 2 2 6 6 SAN4 67 SAN5 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) I - Large $88,131 $3,818 10 5 12 15 13 6 1 2 2 5 0 7 SAN5 78 SAN6 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway I - Medium $9,530 $5,172 10 10 10 14 12 4 1 1 12 3 0 0 SAN6 77 SAN7 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements I - Medium $9,345 $6,344 8 8 6 12 12 1 1 1 2 10 6 10 SAN7 77 SB1 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project I - Small $2,019 $1,799 7 7 1 11 9 1 1 1 10 2 6 0 SB1 56 SB2 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project I - Large $13,929 $12,765 5 7 6 12 12 1 1 1 6 1 6 0 SB2 58 SD6 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail I - Small $2,599 $2,044 6 6 5 11 14 1 1 1 2 9 6 10 SD6 72 VS1 Vista 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project I - Medium $5,944 $4,755 7 10 6 13 11 1 1 1 2 3 6 8 VS1 69 34 65
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - E5
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type (I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $
(1,000s) 2 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Subtotal Maximum 150 points Plan; 180 points EEA CV5 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan NI - Plan $500 $500 27 26 6 28 14 N/A N/A 11 N/A 9 CV5 121 SD1 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update NI - Plan $975 $750 26 26 7 27 14 N/A N/A 11 N/A 7 SD1 118 SD2 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP NI - Plan $975 $750 27 27 6 27 14 N/A N/A 12 N/A 9 SD2 122 SD3 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School NI - Plan $563 $563 28 28 7 29 14 N/A N/A 14 N/A 10 SD3 130 SD4 San Diego 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot NI - EEA $500 $500 28 28 6 29 13 5 10 10 5 7 SD4 141 SD5 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6 Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities NI - Plan $1,500 $1,500 27 26 6 29 15 N/A N/A 11 N/A 18 SD5 132
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type
(I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 5 6 7 8 Subtotal Maximum 148 points CO1 County 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway I +NI Combo $8,998 $8,098 10 10 16 18 17 8 5 6 18 9 6 10 CO1 133 CO2 County 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration I - Small $3,072 $2,327 10 10 18 17 17 8 5 6 18 8 0 10 CO2 127 CV1 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway I - Large $18,845 $9,762 10 10 18 18 17 8 6 7 20 9 6 10 CV1 139 CV2 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A I - Medium $3,810 $3,010 9 9 17 17 17 9 5 5 17 8 6 10 CV2 129 CV3 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B I - Medium $4,818 $4,818 9 9 18 17 17 10 5 7 18 9 6 10 CV3 135 CV4 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue I - Large $16,104 $10,843 10 10 18 18 17 8 5 5 20 9 6 10 CV4 136 EC1 El Cajon 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout I - Medium $6,800 $5,984 10 10 18 17 17 7 4 6 18 9 6 10 EC1 132 EN1 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path I - Small $1,380 $1,245 9 9 18 17 16 6 3 7 19 7 6 0 EN1 117 EN2 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements I - Medium $5,157 $2,457 7 8 17 17 16 7 3 7 19 6 6 0 EN2 113 EN3 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks I - Medium $4,292 $3,092 6 10 18 16 16 7 3 6 19 6 6 0 EN3 113 ES1 Escondido 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements I - Small $2,256 $2,206 7 10 18 18 17 7 3 6 17 9 6 10 ES1 128 LG1 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS I +NI Combo $3,491 $3,491 6 10 16 16 17 6 6 5 18 8 6 10 LG1 124 LG2 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 I - Medium $8,085 $8,004 10 8 18 18 17 10 4 8 18 9 6 10 LG2 136 LG3 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 I - Medium $4,891 $4,890 10 8 18 18 17 10 4 8 19 9 6 10 LG3 137 NC1 National City 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway I - Small $2,582 $2,580 10 8 16 16 17 7 4 8 19 8 6 9 NC1 128 NC2 National City 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway I - Small $3,290 $3,288 10 8 16 16 17 6 4 7 18 8 6 10 NC2 126 NC4 National City 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station I - Small $3,494 $2,944 10 10 18 17 17 10 4 7 20 9 6 10 NC4 138 NC5 National City 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 I - Medium $9,588 $2,072 9 7 18 17 17 9 3 7 19 8 6 9 NC5 129 NC6 National City 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements I - Medium $6,373 $2,248 7 7 16 16 17 7 3 7 18 8 6 9 NC6 121 OC1 Oceanside 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street I - Large $14,278 $12,118 8 7 17 16 17 6 3 8 17 7 6 9 OC1 121 SAN3 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways I - Large $68,596 $4,614 9 7 18 18 17 8 4 9 16 9 6 10 SAN3 131 SAN4 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway I - Medium $8,800 $7,995 7 7 18 16 17 7 4 8 17 7 6 8 SAN4 122 SAN5 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) I - Large $88,131 $3,818 10 10 18 18 18 10 4 10 16 9 0 10 SAN5 133 SAN6 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway I - Medium $9,530 $5,172 8 8 17 16 16 6 3 7 17 7 6 0 SAN6 111 SAN7 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements I - Medium $9,345 $6,344 10 10 18 18 18 8 4 8 17 8 6 10 SAN7 135 SB1 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project I - Small $2,019 $1,799 9 9 17 17 16 8 3 7 19 6 6 0 SB1 117 SB2 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project I - Large $13,929 $12,765 9 10 17 17 16 7 3 7 18 6 6 0 SB2 116 SD6 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail I - Small $2,599 $2,044 9 9 18 18 18 7 4 8 19 7 6 10 SD6 133 VS1 Vista 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project I - Medium $5,944 $4,755 10 10 18 18 17 7 3 7 19 6 6 10 VS1 131 35 66
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - E6
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type (I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $
(1,000s) 2 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Subtotal Maximum 150 points Plan; 180 points EEA CV5 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan NI - Plan $500 $500 30 26 8 30 15 N/A N/A 13 N/A 10 CV5 132 SD1 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update NI - Plan $975 $750 30 28 8 26 5 N/A N/A 5 N/A 10 SD1 112 SD2 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP NI - Plan $975 $750 30 10 10 25 15 N/A N/A 10 N/A 8 SD2 108 SD3 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School NI - Plan $563 $563 28 22 8 26 12 N/A N/A 15 N/A 10 SD3 121 SD4 San Diego 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot NI - EEA $500 $500 28 26 8 28 15 18 15 12 5 8 SD4 163 SD5 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6 Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities NI - Plan $1,500 $1,500 26 28 2 30 15 N/A N/A 15 N/A 10 SD5 126
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type
(I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 5 6 7 8 Subtotal Maximum 148 points CO1 County 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway I +NI Combo $8,998 $8,098 0 10 16 18 16 4 3 2 10 8 0 10 CO1 97 CO2 County 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration I - Small $3,072 $2,327 5 5 16 16 16 1 6 8 8 10 0 8 CO2 99 CV1 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway I - Large $18,845 $9,762 9 10 16 18 18 10 4 8 18 10 0 10 CV1 131 CV2 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A I - Medium $3,810 $3,010 10 8 16 18 18 10 4 6 10 10 0 10 CV2 120 CV3 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B I - Medium $4,818 $4,818 9 8 12 18 18 10 4 5 20 10 0 10 CV3 124 CV4 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue I - Large $16,104 $10,843 6 10 10 16 18 8 4 8 20 10 4 10 CV4 124 EC1 El Cajon 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout I - Medium $6,800 $5,984 10 10 16 18 16 12 6 8 16 10 6 10 EC1 138 EN1 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path I - Small $1,380 $1,245 8 8 18 16 18 6 6 5 8 5 6 0 EN1 104 EN2 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements I - Medium $5,157 $2,457 5 8 16 16 18 10 6 8 12 6 0 0 EN2 105 EN3 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks I - Medium $4,292 $3,092 8 8 16 16 16 1 4 8 16 2 6 0 EN3 101 ES1 Escondido 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements I - Small $2,256 $2,206 5 10 15 18 18 1 6 10 18 10 0 10 ES1 121 LG1 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS I +NI Combo $3,491 $3,491 5 8 16 18 18 10 1 10 13 8 6 10 LG1 123 LG2 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 I - Medium $8,085 $8,004 10 10 18 16 18 8 5 8 11 8 6 10 LG2 128 LG3 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 I - Medium $4,891 $4,890 10 10 18 16 18 8 5 8 11 8 6 10 LG3 128 NC1 National City 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway I - Small $2,582 $2,580 10 8 18 18 18 1 4 8 10 8 6 8 NC1 117 NC2 National City 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway I - Small $3,290 $3,288 7 6 16 15 18 1 5 10 12 10 6 10 NC2 116 NC4 National City 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station I - Small $3,494 $2,944 2 10 15 18 18 1 5 8 12 10 0 10 NC4 109 NC5 National City 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 I - Medium $9,588 $2,072 10 5 16 18 18 1 4 8 20 8 6 10 NC5 124 NC6 National City 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements I - Medium $6,373 $2,248 10 10 15 18 18 8 2 10 14 8 6 10 NC6 129 OC1 Oceanside 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street I - Large $14,278 $12,118 10 10 18 18 18 6 2 8 17 2 6 5 OC1 120 SAN3 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways I - Large $68,596 $4,614 10 8 16 16 18 8 6 10 10 10 0 10 SAN3 122 SAN4 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway I - Medium $8,800 $7,995 0 0 16 18 18 8 5 10 8 8 6 8 SAN4 105 SAN5 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) I - Large $88,131 $3,818 10 8 18 10 18 12 4 10 6 9 0 10 SAN5 115 SAN6 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway I - Medium $9,530 $5,172 10 10 15 18 18 10 4 8 8 8 0 0 SAN6 109 SAN7 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements I - Medium $9,345 $6,344 0 0 12 15 18 10 6 8 18 10 3 10 SAN7 110 SB1 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project I - Small $2,019 $1,799 1 3 14 16 18 1 4 7 16 5 6 0 SB1 91 SB2 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project I - Large $13,929 $12,765 3 5 18 18 18 8 5 10 18 8 0 0 SB2 111 SD6 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail I - Small $2,599 $2,044 2 4 8 10 16 1 2 5 14 8 0 8 SD6 78 VS1 Vista 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project I - Medium $5,944 $4,755 2 8 9 16 16 10 5 5 16 5 0 6 VS1 98 36 67
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - E7
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type (I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $
(1,000s) 2 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Subtotal Maximum 150 points Plan; 180 points EEA CV5 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-5 Chula Vista Trails Master Plan NI - Plan $500 $500 24 22 7 22 14 N/A N/A 11 N/A 17 CV5 117 SD1 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update NI - Plan $975 $750 25 27 8 27 15 N/A N/A 13 N/A 16 SD1 131 SD2 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-2 Mid-City Communities Comprehensive ATP NI - Plan $975 $750 26 27 8 27 15 N/A N/A 13 N/A 17 SD2 133 SD3 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-4 Southeastern SD Safe Routes to School NI - Plan $563 $563 26 27 7 28 15 N/A N/A 14 N/A 19 SD3 136 SD4 San Diego 11_San Diego, City of-5 San Diego CicloSDias Pilot NI - EEA $500 $500 19 21 7 21 13 14 10 12 5 6 SD4 128 SD5 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-6 Accessibility Safety Plan for Individuals with Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities NI - Plan $1,500 $1,500 24 25 7 24 14 N/A N/A 15 N/A 15 SD5 124
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Unique ID Implementing Agency Project Application No. Project Name Project Type
(I, NI, Plan) Total Project $ Total ATP $ 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 5 6 7 8 Subtotal Maximum 148 points CO1 County 11-San Diego County-1 Stage Coach Lane Multi-Use Pathway I +NI Combo $8,998 $8,098 0 10 4 14 13 2 1 2 2 2 6 6 CO1 62 CO2 County 11-San Diego County-1 Casa de Oro Road Reconfiguration I - Small $3,072 $2,327 0 6 12 16 13 2 3 2 6 2 0 6 CO2 68 CV1 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-1 F Street Promenade Phase 1, from Bay Boulevard to Broadway I - Large $18,845 $9,762 8 10 12 18 16 2 5 4 2 4 6 9 CV1 96 CV2 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6A I - Medium $3,810 $3,010 10 4 12 18 13 8 1 4 6 5 6 8 CV2 95 CV3 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-3 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 6B I - Medium $4,818 $4,818 10 4 12 18 13 8 1 4 6 5 6 8 CV3 95 CV4 Chula Vista 11-Chula Vista, City of-4 F Street Promenade Phase 2, from Broadway to Fourth Avenue I - Large $16,104 $10,843 8 10 12 18 16 2 4 4 6 6 6 9 CV4 101 EC1 El Cajon 11-El Cajon, City of- 1 Main Street Green Street Phase 2 Roundabout I - Medium $6,800 $5,984 10 8 12 18 12 6 3 4 6 8 6 7 EC1 100 EN1 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-1 North Vulcan Avenue Multi-Use Path I - Small $1,380 $1,245 0 6 15 12 8 2 1 2 6 1 6 0 EN1 59 EN2 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-2 Leucadia Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements I - Medium $5,157 $2,457 0 8 12 18 10 6 1 2 6 1 6 0 EN2 70 EN3 Encinitas 11-Encinitas, City of-3 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks I - Medium $4,292 $3,092 8 8 10 14 8 6 1 2 6 1 6 0 EN3 70 ES1 Escondido 11-Escondido, City of -1 Hidden Valley Middle School SRTS Improvements I - Small $2,256 $2,206 0 10 12 12 13 2 4 2 6 6 6 8 ES1 81 LG1 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 San Miguel Elementary SRTS I +NI Combo $3,491 $3,491 0 0 12 12 11 2 6 2 6 6 6 8 LG1 71 LG2 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-1 Connect Main Street Phases 4 thru 6 I - Medium $8,085 $8,004 8 10 12 18 13 2 2 2 6 2 6 6 LG2 87 LG3 Lemon Grove 11-Lemon Grove, City of-3 Connect Main Street Phases 2 and 3 I - Medium $4,891 $4,890 8 10 14 12 13 2 2 2 6 2 6 6 LG3 83 NC1 National City 11-National City, City of-1 Civic Center Protected Bikeway I - Small $2,582 $2,580 10 0 16 16 12 6 2 2 2 2 6 9 NC1 83 NC2 National City 11-National City, City of-2 22nd Street Separated Bikeway I - Small $3,290 $3,288 10 10 12 18 14 6 2 4 6 4 6 9 NC2 101 NC4 National City 11-National City, City of-4 Improving Active Transportation Connections to 8th Street Transit Station I - Small $3,494 $2,944 6 10 14 10 12 2 2 2 2 4 6 9 NC4 79 NC5 National City 11-National City, City of-2 Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 I - Medium $9,588 $2,072 10 10 18 16 14 6 2 2 2 6 6 8 NC5 100 NC6 National City 11-National City, City of-2 8th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Enhancements I - Medium $6,373 $2,248 8 8 12 18 13 6 2 2 2 4 6 9 NC6 90 OC1 Oceanside 11-Oceanside-1 Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse Street I - Large $14,278 $12,118 10 10 12 18 14 6 2 2 2 4 6 10 OC1 96 SAN3 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-3 Bayshore to Imperial Bikeway: Connecting Regional Bikeways I - Large $68,596 $4,614 10 2 18 18 16 6 2 2 2 4 6 8 SAN3 94 SAN4 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-4 Uptown Phase 4: Mission Hills to Old Town Bikeway I - Medium $8,800 $7,995 8 0 12 12 14 6 2 2 5 2 6 9 SAN4 78 SAN5 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-5 Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) I - Large $88,131 $3,818 10 0 12 18 14 6 4 4 5 2 6 8 SAN5 89 SAN6 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-6 Bridging the North Park/Mid-City Gap: Robinson Bikeway I - Medium $9,530 $5,172 10 10 12 18 13 6 2 2 2 2 6 0 SAN6 83 SAN7 SANDAG 11-San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)-7 Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Phase 2: Intersection Safety Improvements I - Medium $9,345 $6,344 0 0 18 18 9 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 SAN7 67 SB1 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-1 Santa Helena Complete Streets Project I - Small $2,019 $1,799 0 5 4 12 8 6 2 2 10 1 6 0 SB1 56 SB2 Solana Beach 11-Solana Beach, City of-2 Lomas Santa Fe Complete Streets Project I - Large $13,929 $12,765 10 10 12 18 13 6 6 2 6 2 6 0 SB2 91 SD6 San Diego 11-San Diego, City of-1 Chollas Creek Oak Park Branch Trail I - Small $2,599 $2,044 2 10 8 6 11 6 2 2 6 2 6 10 SD6 71 VS1 Vista 11-Vista, City of-1 Emerald Drive Complete Street Project I - Medium $5,944 $4,755 10 10 12 18 16 6 2 2 2 2 6 8 VS1 94 37 68
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Pop(2020)
1 2 3 4
ObjectID Name UniqueID Travelshed_
miles Concatenate Pop_rate_2022 Acres Pop_density
1 CO1 : 0 - 2640 CO1 0.5 CO10.5 1893.017947 487.3627532 3.884207267 2 CO1 : 2640 - 5280 CO1 1 CO11 6557.420773 1630.906466 4.020721551 3 CO1 : 5280 - 7920 CO1 1.5 CO11.5 11400.49681 2647.416221 4.306272933 4 CO2 : 0 - 2640 CO2 0.5 CO20.5 6192.161424 359.9420012 17.20321998 5 CO2 : 2640 - 5280 CO2 1 CO21 14036.57291 1154.083994 12.16252283 6 CO2 : 5280 - 7920 CO2 1.5 CO21.5 23005.58052 2298.502387 10.0089435 7 CV1 : 0 - 2640 CV1 0.5 CV10.5 8618.570855 134.4928631 64.08199405 8 CV1 : 2640 - 5280 CV1 1 CV11 25764.36734 456.4551847 56.44446203 9 CV1 : 5280 - 7920 CV1 1.5 CV11.5 26091.74107 690.0609083 37.81077982 10 CV2 : 0 - 2640 CV2 0.5 CV20.5 676.8821317 6.252062857 108.2654073 11 CV2 : 2640 - 5280 CV2 1 CV21 13722.64447 220.7046987 62.17649444 12 CV2 : 5280 - 7920 CV2 1.5 CV21.5 17211.30947 345.6259328 49.79750601 13 CV3 : 0 - 2640 CV3 0.5 CV30.5 3126.075706 43.31216233 72.17547078 14 CV3 : 2640 - 5280 CV3 1 CV31 17988.51379 337.8883934 53.23803404 15 CV3 : 5280 - 7920 CV3 1.5 CV31.5 30234.31259 641.3114136 47.14451038 16 CV4 : 0 - 2640 CV4 0.5 CV40.5 16472.99012 278.292144 59.19315539 17 CV4 : 2640 - 5280 CV4 1 CV41 33411.78723 746.74547 44.74320712 18 CV4 : 5280 - 7920 CV4 1.5 CV41.5 32683.33072 1144.474856 28.55749128 19 EC1 : 0 - 2640 EC1 0.5 EC10.5 7362.177359 139.4987241 52.77594765 20 EC1 : 2640 - 5280 EC1 1 EC11 19370.72635 487.3106917 39.7502593 21 EC1 : 5280 - 7920 EC1 1.5 EC11.5 30061.90365 977.348352 30.75863748 22 EN1 : 0 - 2640 EN1 0.5 EN10.5 6036.579495 355.3358391 16.98837784 23 EN1 : 2640 - 5280 EN1 1 EN11 10929.18221 719.1787946 15.19675259 24 EN1 : 5280 - 7920 EN1 1.5 EN11.5 15076.68846 1140.189372 13.22296877 25 EN2 : 0 - 2640 EN2 0.5 EN20.5 4437.598648 305.101942 14.54464242 26 EN2 : 2640 - 5280 EN2 1 EN21 9144.766907 715.9284824 12.77329668 27 EN2 : 5280 - 7920 EN2 1.5 EN21.5 9254.228638 709.9573783 13.03490733 28 EN3 : 0 - 2640 EN3 0.5 EN30.5 1515.513184 107.1005247 14.15038057 29 EN3 : 2640 - 5280 EN3 1 EN31 4838.08198 321.8700694 15.03116456 30 EN3 : 5280 - 7920 EN3 1.5 EN31.5 8368.102719 612.1314452 13.67043432 31 ES1 : 0 - 2640 ES1 0.5 ES10.5 4376.030564 315.8861458 13.85318926 32 ES1 : 2640 - 5280 ES1 1 ES11 18359.80064 1079.999239 16.99982738 33 ES1 : 5280 - 7920 ES1 1.5 ES11.5 28252.20277 1618.219159 17.45882355 34 LG1 : 0 - 2640 LG1 0.5 LG10.5 4610.712239 303.156361 15.20902357 35 LG1 : 2640 - 5280 LG1 1 LG11 14382.89629 822.0164727 17.49709011 36 LG1 : 5280 - 7920 LG1 1.5 LG11.5 22223.83542 1322.832259 16.80019162 37 LG2 : 0 - 2640 LG2 0.5 LG20.5 5155.484611 310.4148462 16.60836997 38 LG2 : 2640 - 5280 LG2 1 LG21 19452.91202 1093.64616 17.78720827 39 LG2 : 5280 - 7920 LG2 1.5 LG21.5 30763.38502 1798.036126 17.10943655 40 LG3 : 0 - 2640 LG3 0.5 LG30.5 5316.942044 258.3301752 20.58196275 41 LG3 : 2640 - 5280 LG3 1 LG31 16323.70222 836.1136332 19.52330589 42 LG3 : 5280 - 7920 LG3 1.5 LG31.5 22638.07364 1327.625086 17.0515561 43 NC1 : 0 - 2640 NC1 0.5 NC10.5 1658.92767 28.2751151 58.67094314 44 NC1 : 2640 - 5280 NC1 1 NC11 7148.562458 100.5938829 71.06359007 45 NC1 : 5280 - 7920 NC1 1.5 NC11.5 17495.27506 321.4097079 54.43293913 46 NC2 : 0 - 2640 NC2 0.5 NC20.5 9367.45837 144.7404805 64.71899458 47 NC2 : 2640 - 5280 NC2 1 NC21 18791.76341 382.4057002 49.14090819 48 NC2 : 5280 - 7920 NC2 1.5 NC21.5 22914.05355 499.0056644 45.91942573 49 NC3 : 0 - 2640 NC3 0.5 NC30.5 5895.802495 129.3107915 45.59404846 50 NC3 : 2640 - 5280 NC3 1 NC31 21523.15282 414.0998545 51.97575556 51 NC3 : 5280 - 7920 NC3 1.5 NC31.5 38987.5198 897.2285041 43.4532782 52 NC4 : 0 - 2640 NC4 0.5 NC40.5 7072.970418 126.6101621 55.86416053 53 NC4 : 2640 - 5280 NC4 1 NC41 22360.69505 417.1750503 53.60026931 54 NC4 : 5280 - 7920 NC4 1.5 NC41.5 37850.95509 776.4043536 48.75160077 38 69
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Pop(2020)
55 NC5 : 0 - 2640 NC5 0.5 NC50.5 1505.396516 23.78031919 63.30430234 56 NC5 : 2640 - 5280 NC5 1 NC51 11911.42458 173.2550115 68.75082273 57 NC5 : 5280 - 7920 NC5 1.5 NC51.5 26017.04871 505.4914274 51.46882282 58 NC6 : 0 - 2640 NC6 0.5 NC60.5 714.2573259 4.937074246 144.6721865 59 NC6 : 2640 - 5280 NC6 1 NC61 6594.453117 107.9584969 61.08322462 60 NC6 : 5280 - 7920 NC6 1.5 NC61.5 16065.60714 321.7215207 49.93637697 61 O1 : 0 - 2640 OC1 0.5 OC10.5 5205.235623 161.1124216 32.30809624 62 O1 : 2640 - 5280 OC1 1 OC11 12486.89823 503.2228433 24.81385413 63 O1 : 5280 - 7920 OC1 1.5 OC11.5 15089.16789 560.2535245 26.93274961 64 SAN2 : 0 - 2640 SAN2 0.5 SAN20.5 27243.52292 461.7050522 59.00633486 65 SAN2 : 2640 - 5280 SAN2 1 SAN21 63399.48383 1237.119862 51.24764849 66 SAN2 : 5280 - 7920 SAN2 1.5 SAN21.5 95800.655 1970.973765 48.60574845 67 SAN3 : 0 - 2640 SAN3 0.5 SAN30.5 58783.03136 1920.611742 30.60641049 68 SAN3 : 2640 - 5280 SAN3 1 SAN31 133886.3968 4085.762015 32.76901502 69 SAN3 : 5280 - 7920 SAN3 1.5 SAN31.5 193065.259 6042.99023 31.94863002 70 SAN4 : 0 - 2640 SAN4 0.5 SAN40.5 13765.96032 322.0918675 42.73923594 71 SAN4 : 2640 - 5280 SAN4 1 SAN41 30158.10396 805.1469995 37.4566433 72 SAN4 : 5280 - 7920 SAN4 1.5 SAN41.5 54614.44295 1313.006161 41.59496321 73 SAN5 : 0 - 2640 SAN5 0.5 SAN50.5 25558.77141 342.9024734 74.53656184 74 SAN5 : 2640 - 5280 SAN5 1 SAN51 53828.16983 957.5447954 56.21477981 75 SAN5 : 5280 - 7920 SAN5 1.5 SAN51.5 89691.0457 1624.078374 55.22581123 76 SAN6 : 0 - 2640 SAN6 0.5 SAN60.5 16871.56568 254.1973543 66.37191692 77 SAN6 : 2640 - 5280 SAN6 1 SAN61 28326.4675 491.1207354 57.6771972 78 SAN6 : 5280 - 7920 SAN6 1.5 SAN61.5 41737.14143 747.4466827 55.83962361 79 SAN7 : 0 - 2640 SAN7 0.5 SAN70.5 2832.494888 42.882493 66.05247713 80 SAN7 : 2640 - 5280 SAN7 1 SAN71 11523.33651 195.3565573 58.98617723 81 SAN7 : 5280 - 7920 SAN7 1.5 SAN71.5 34496.7168 406.7657073 84.80733795 82 SB1 : 0 - 2640 SB1 0.5 SB10.5 1343.546462 143.7953311 9.343463735 83 SB1 : 2640 - 5280 SB1 1 SB11 1931.359814 196.3354013 9.837043146 84 SB1 : 5280 - 7920 SB1 1.5 SB11.5 2823.649581 445.4806877 6.338433201 85 SB2 : 0 - 2640 SB2 0.5 SB20.5 5823.575088 551.25468 10.56421886 86 SB2 : 2640 - 5280 SB2 1 SB21 13648.93877 1475.913108 9.247792903 87 SB2 : 5280 - 7920 SB2 1.5 SB21.5 16119.95987 2105.816167 7.654970137 88 SD6 : 0 - 2640 SD6 0.5 SD60.5 5244.425287 185.8179974 28.22345176 89 SD6 : 2640 - 5280 SD6 1 SD61 26482.25047 803.0185406 32.97837986 90 SD6 : 5280 - 7920 SD6 1.5 SD61.5 67130.93997 2006.766214 33.45229728 91 V1 : 0 - 2640 VS1 0.5 VS10.5 9211.30563 378.7198342 24.32221605 92 V1 : 2640 - 5280 VS1 1 VS11 18667.0415 939.6695201 19.86553901 93 V1 : 5280 - 7920 VS1 1.5 VS11.5 29190.87818 1610.649305 18.12367105 94 CV5 CV5 CV5 269,499.17 9971.190861 27.02778126 95 SD1 SD1 SD1 1,364,715.94 53286.19544 25.61105986 96 SD2 SD2 SD2 139,337.39 3900.009554 35.72744841 97 SD3 SD3 SD3 142,078.35 5193.890716 27.3548987 98 SD4 SD4 SD4 1,364,715.94 53286.19544 25.61105986 99 SD5 SD5 SD5 590,281.25 17020.2138 34.68118915 Non-infrastructure/ Polygons
39 70
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Intersections
1 2
ObjectID Name UniqueID Travelshed_
miles Concatenate Intersections_
count
1 CO1 : 0 - 2640 CO1 0.5 CO10.5 117
2 CO1 : 2640 - 5280 CO1 1 CO11 296
3 CO1 : 5280 - 7920 CO1 1.5 CO11.5 475
4 CO2 : 0 - 2640 CO2 0.5 CO20.5 111
5 CO2 : 2640 - 5280 CO2 1 CO21 285
6 CO2 : 5280 - 7920 CO2 1.5 CO21.5 533
7 CV1 : 0 - 2640 CV1 0.5 CV10.5 101
8 CV1 : 2640 - 5280 CV1 1 CV11 294
9 CV1 : 5280 - 7920 CV1 1.5 CV11.5 355
10 CV2 : 0 - 2640 CV2 0.5 CV20.5 12
11 CV2 : 2640 - 5280 CV2 1 CV21 151
12 CV2 : 5280 - 7920 CV2 1.5 CV21.5 206
13 CV3 : 0 - 2640 CV3 0.5 CV30.5 30
14 CV3 : 2640 - 5280 CV3 1 CV31 238
15 CV3 : 5280 - 7920 CV3 1.5 CV31.5 354
16 CV4 : 0 - 2640 CV4 0.5 CV40.5 188
17 CV4 : 2640 - 5280 CV4 1 CV41 397
18 CV4 : 5280 - 7920 CV4 1.5 CV41.5 462
19 EC1 : 0 - 2640 EC1 0.5 EC10.5 99
20 EC1 : 2640 - 5280 EC1 1 EC11 228
21 EC1 : 5280 - 7920 EC1 1.5 EC11.5 310
22 EN1 : 0 - 2640 EN1 0.5 EN10.5 161
23 EN1 : 2640 - 5280 EN1 1 EN11 279
24 EN1 : 5280 - 7920 EN1 1.5 EN11.5 440
25 EN2 : 0 - 2640 EN2 0.5 EN20.5 112
26 EN2 : 2640 - 5280 EN2 1 EN21 235
27 EN2 : 5280 - 7920 EN2 1.5 EN21.5 261
28 EN3 : 0 - 2640 EN3 0.5 EN30.5 60
29 EN3 : 2640 - 5280 EN3 1 EN31 113
30 EN3 : 5280 - 7920 EN3 1.5 EN31.5 207
31 ES1 : 0 - 2640 ES1 0.5 ES10.5 144
32 ES1 : 2640 - 5280 ES1 1 ES11 383
33 ES1 : 5280 - 7920 ES1 1.5 ES11.5 507
34 LG1 : 0 - 2640 LG1 0.5 LG10.5 85
35 LG1 : 2640 - 5280 LG1 1 LG11 276
36 LG1 : 5280 - 7920 LG1 1.5 LG11.5 460
37 LG2 : 0 - 2640 LG2 0.5 LG20.5 105
38 LG2 : 2640 - 5280 LG2 1 LG21 379
39 LG2 : 5280 - 7920 LG2 1.5 LG21.5 583
40 LG3 : 0 - 2640 LG3 0.5 LG30.5 109
41 LG3 : 2640 - 5280 LG3 1 LG31 322
42 LG3 : 5280 - 7920 LG3 1.5 LG31.5 411
43 NC1 : 0 - 2640 NC1 0.5 NC10.5 113
44 NC1 : 2640 - 5280 NC1 1 NC11 255
40 71
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Intersections
45 NC1 : 5280 - 7920 NC1 1.5 NC11.5 394
46 NC2 : 0 - 2640 NC2 0.5 NC20.5 245
47 NC2 : 2640 - 5280 NC2 1 NC21 486
48 NC2 : 5280 - 7920 NC2 1.5 NC21.5 470
49 NC3 : 0 - 2640 NC3 0.5 NC30.5 200
50 NC3 : 2640 - 5280 NC3 1 NC31 484
51 NC3 : 5280 - 7920 NC3 1.5 NC31.5 773
52 NC4 : 0 - 2640 NC4 0.5 NC40.5 250
53 NC4 : 2640 - 5280 NC4 1 NC41 554
54 NC4 : 5280 - 7920 NC4 1.5 NC41.5 694
55 NC5 : 0 - 2640 NC5 0.5 NC50.5 121
56 NC5 : 2640 - 5280 NC5 1 NC51 378
57 NC5 : 5280 - 7920 NC5 1.5 NC51.5 666
58 NC6 : 0 - 2640 NC6 0.5 NC60.5 34
59 NC6 : 2640 - 5280 NC6 1 NC61 255
60 NC6 : 5280 - 7920 NC6 1.5 NC61.5 411
61 O1 : 0 - 2640 OC1 0.5 OC10.5 184
62 O1 : 2640 - 5280 OC1 1 OC11 385
63 O1 : 5280 - 7920 OC1 1.5 OC11.5 431
64 SAN2 : 0 - 2640 SAN2 0.5 SAN20.5 406
65 SAN2 : 2640 - 5280 SAN2 1 SAN21 946
66 SAN2 : 5280 - 7920 SAN2 1.5 SAN21.5 1474
67 SAN3 : 0 - 2640 SAN3 0.5 SAN30.5 829
68 SAN3 : 2640 - 5280 SAN3 1 SAN31 1924
69 SAN3 : 5280 - 7920 SAN3 1.5 SAN31.5 3057
70 SAN4 : 0 - 2640 SAN4 0.5 SAN40.5 424
71 SAN4 : 2640 - 5280 SAN4 1 SAN41 869
72 SAN4 : 5280 - 7920 SAN4 1.5 SAN41.5 1323
73 SAN5 : 0 - 2640 SAN5 0.5 SAN50.5 565
74 SAN5 : 2640 - 5280 SAN5 1 SAN51 1214
75 SAN5 : 5280 - 7920 SAN5 1.5 SAN51.5 1823
76 SAN6 : 0 - 2640 SAN6 0.5 SAN60.5 212
77 SAN6 : 2640 - 5280 SAN6 1 SAN61 482
78 SAN6 : 5280 - 7920 SAN6 1.5 SAN61.5 728
79 SAN7 : 0 - 2640 SAN7 0.5 SAN70.5 94
80 SAN7 : 2640 - 5280 SAN7 1 SAN71 262
81 SAN7 : 5280 - 7920 SAN7 1.5 SAN71.5 496
82 SB1 : 0 - 2640 SB1 0.5 SB10.5 37
83 SB1 : 2640 - 5280 SB1 1 SB11 52
84 SB1 : 5280 - 7920 SB1 1.5 SB11.5 103
85 SB2 : 0 - 2640 SB2 0.5 SB20.5 181
86 SB2 : 2640 - 5280 SB2 1 SB21 367
87 SB2 : 5280 - 7920 SB2 1.5 SB21.5 457
88 SD6 : 0 - 2640 SD6 0.5 SD60.5 98
89 SD6 : 2640 - 5280 SD6 1 SD61 379
90 SD6 : 5280 - 7920 SD6 1.5 SD61.5 1034
91 V1 : 0 - 2640 VS1 0.5 VS10.5 158
41 72
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Intersections
92 V1 : 2640 - 5280 VS1 1 VS11 366
93 V1 : 5280 - 7920 VS1 1.5 VS11.5 591
94 CV5 CV5 CV5 4328
95 SD1 SD1 SD1 25019
96 SD2 SD2 SD2 2212
97 SD3 SD3 SD3 2655
98 SD4 SD4 SD4 25019
99 SD5 SD5 SD5 9569
Non-infrastructure/ Polygons
42 73
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Emp (2020)
1 2 3 4
OBJECTID UniqueID Travelshed_
miles Concatenate Jobs_2020 Acres Employ_density
1 CO1 0.5 CO10.5 846 1457.571612 0.580417451
2 CO1 1 CO11 1139 2362.508136 0.482114742
3 CO1 1.5 CO11.5 2477 3846.121329 0.644025445
4 CO2 0.5 CO20.5 990 683.46637 337.86021
5 CO2 1 CO21 3134 1837.656611 1523.723604
6 CO2 1.5 CO21.5 3935 3313.665725 1412.962211
7 CV1 0.5 CV10.5 2469 214.4714641 11.51202101
8 CV1 1 CV11 8237 548.2248059 15.02485825
9 CV1 1.5 CV11.5 11327 973.3097684 11.63761052
10 CV2 0.5 CV20.5 683 47.15092769 14.48539898
11 CV2 1 CV21 3410 312.9144011 10.89754894
12 CV2 1.5 CV21.5 7113 497.275802 14.30393349
13 CV3 0.5 CV30.5 1197 79.61069894 15.03566752
14 CV3 1 CV31 6060 450.6740145 13.44652632
15 CV3 1.5 CV31.5 10407 808.2260297 12.87634847
16 CV4 0.5 CV40.5 6745 349.40732 19.30411761
17 CV4 1 CV41 12383 1021.002517 12.12827568
18 CV4 1.5 CV41.5 9305 1341.945464 6.933962854
19 EC1 0.5 EC10.5 2605 179.4176223 14.5191981
20 EC1 1 EC11 7344 702.3944345 10.45566371
21 EC1 1.5 EC11.5 9202 1476.145426 6.233803146
22 EN1 0.5 EN10.5 1349 499.7572285 2.699310631
23 EN1 1 EN11 2319 878.204852 2.640613969
24 EN1 1.5 EN11.5 4393 1313.090378 3.345542756
25 EN2 0.5 EN20.5 1006 404.3758854 2.487784352
26 EN2 1 EN21 2310 952.1470441 2.426095858
27 EN2 1.5 EN21.5 3014 1024.304924 2.942483171
28 EN3 0.5 EN30.5 344 236.5835833 1.454031574
29 EN3 1 EN31 761 512.7030837 1.484289883
30 EN3 1.5 EN31.5 1987 741.8662582 2.678380339
31 ES1 0.5 ES10.5 740 600.0015339 1.23333018
32 ES1 1 ES11 1835 1465.375597 1.252238678
33 ES1 1.5 ES11.5 2611 2330.511928 1.120354704
34 LG1 0.5 LG10.5 653 509.6820443 1.281190906
35 LG1 1 LG11 2731 1186.127306 2.302450998
36 LG1 1.5 LG11.5 4339 2052.449197 2.114059635
37 LG2 0.5 LG20.5 800 543.6989135 1.471402609
38 LG2 1 LG21 2600 1480.09816 1.756640249
39 LG2 1.5 LG21.5 5210 2448.614824 2.127733586
40 LG3 0.5 LG30.5 962 397.0928395 2.42260727
41 LG3 1 LG31 3723 1220.019722 3.051590014
42 LG3 1.5 LG31.5 5022 1955.766443 2.567791271
43 NC1 0.5 NC10.5 2596 30.51055805 85.0853005
44 NC1 1 NC11 3204 129.8336983 24.67772267
45 NC1 1.5 NC11.5 4148 417.6828474 9.930979992
46 NC2 0.5 NC20.5 3538 161.9538299 21.84573222
47 NC2 1 NC21 6081 405.5150725 14.99574347
43 74
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Emp (2020)
48 NC2 1.5 NC21.5 6225 613.4984894 10.14672425
49 NC3 0.5 NC30.5 2552 158.3445329 16.11675473
50 NC3 1 NC31 6961 541.3342928 12.85896736
51 NC3 1.5 NC31.5 10289 1075.147157 9.569852776
52 NC4 0.5 NC40.5 2424 158.4397781 15.29918831
53 NC4 1 NC41 6651 519.7045848 12.79765504
54 NC4 1.5 NC41.5 7807 946.1531347 8.251307018
55 NC5 0.5 NC50.5 2577 25.53674697 100.9134015
56 NC5 1 NC51 5360 200.8549558 26.68592358
57 NC5 1.5 NC51.5 7696 612.5476921 12.56391967
58 NC6 0.5 NC60.5 473 6.325915682 74.77178384
59 NC6 1 NC61 3606 122.8057345 29.36344964
60 NC6 1.5 NC61.5 4341 433.6869547 10.00952404
61 OC1 0.5 OC10.5 1589 219.7892654 7.229652446
62 OC1 1 OC11 2208 617.3551509 3.576547465
63 OC1 1.5 OC11.5 3287 736.8594723 4.460823432
64 SAN2 0.5 SAN20.5 3997 654.7836815 6.104306068
65 SAN2 1 SAN21 8073 1420.502976 5.683198229
66 SAN2 1.5 SAN21.5 14866 2257.146545 6.58619177
67 SAN3 0.5 SAN30.5 16567 2424.99235 6.831774129
68 SAN3 1 SAN31 27868 4727.809437 5.894484617
69 SAN3 1.5 SAN31.5 38719 6759.89536 5.727751383
70 SAN4 0.5 SAN40.5 14334 430.7865337 33.27402061
71 SAN4 1 SAN41 22651 917.7005026 24.68234455
72 SAN4 1.5 SAN41.5 36090 1493.60839 24.16296014
73 SAN5 0.5 SAN50.5 19030 441.8698228 43.06698267
74 SAN5 1 SAN51 40772 1143.71333 35.64879322
75 SAN5 1.5 SAN51.5 71156 1797.215428 39.59235987
76 SAN6 0.5 SAN60.5 4012 327.759544 12.24068093
77 SAN6 1 SAN61 14306 629.8845323 22.71209923
78 SAN6 1.5 SAN61.5 19540 947.2286638 20.62859872
79 SAN7 0.5 SAN70.5 1791 61.85395159 28.95530445
80 SAN7 1 SAN71 3922 214.9233701 18.24836451
81 SAN7 1.5 SAN71.5 8736 497.6667738 17.55391451
82 SB1 0.5 SB10.5 150 184.4211277 0.813355833
83 SB1 1 SB11 172 282.3274588 0.609221649
84 SB1 1.5 SB11.5 663 821.5159254 0.80704461
85 SB2 0.5 SB20.5 3166 774.318093 4.088758908
86 SB2 1 SB21 4219 1872.252781 2.253435029
87 SB2 1.5 SB21.5 4823 2461.716969 1.959201671
88 SD6 0.5 SD60.5 1275 388.5298363 3.281601259
89 SD6 1 SD61 3500 1178.738707 2.969275531
90 SD6 1.5 SD61.5 9161 2434.170202 3.763500182
91 VS1 0.5 VS10.5 836 526.3522326 1.588290024
92 VS1 1 VS11 3244 1377.77342 2.354523576
93 VS1 1.5 VS11.5 4161 2064.423011 2.015575286
94 CV5 CV5 38216 10574.51269 3.613972683
95 SD1 SD1 259814 53412.04128 4.864333843
96 SD2 SD2 15686 3900.009554 4.022041429
Non-infrastructure/ Polygons
44 75
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Emp (2020)
97 SD3 SD3 20123 5263.86629 3.822855462
98 SD4 SD4 259814 53412.04128 4.864333843
99 SD5 SD5 126,706.00 17,080. 85 7.418014263 45 76
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - ActivityCenters
1 2
ObjectID Name UniqueID Travelshed_
miles Concatenate Activity_Centers
1 CO1 : 0 - 2640 CO1 0.5 CO10.5 15
2 CO1 : 2640 - 5280 CO1 1 CO11 38
3 CO1 : 5280 - 7920 CO1 1.5 CO11.5 90
4 CO2 : 0 - 2640 CO2 0.5 CO20.5 106
5 CO2 : 2640 - 5280 CO2 1 CO21 164
6 CO2 : 5280 - 7920 CO2 1.5 CO21.5 136
7 CV1 : 0 - 2640 CV1 0.5 CV10.5 114
8 CV1 : 2640 - 5280 CV1 1 CV11 348
9 CV1 : 5280 - 7920 CV1 1.5 CV11.5 317
10 CV2 : 0 - 2640 CV2 0.5 CV20.5 24
11 CV2 : 2640 - 5280 CV2 1 CV21 132
12 CV2 : 5280 - 7920 CV2 1.5 CV21.5 251
13 CV3 : 0 - 2640 CV3 0.5 CV30.5 34
14 CV3 : 2640 - 5280 CV3 1 CV31 203
15 CV3 : 5280 - 7920 CV3 1.5 CV31.5 374
16 CV4 : 0 - 2640 CV4 0.5 CV40.5 287
17 CV4 : 2640 - 5280 CV4 1 CV41 421
18 CV4 : 5280 - 7920 CV4 1.5 CV41.5 227
19 EC1 : 0 - 2640 EC1 0.5 EC10.5 183
20 EC1 : 2640 - 5280 EC1 1 EC11 270
21 EC1 : 5280 - 7920 EC1 1.5 EC11.5 155
22 EN1 : 0 - 2640 EN1 0.5 EN10.5 71
23 EN1 : 2640 - 5280 EN1 1 EN11 155
24 EN1 : 5280 - 7920 EN1 1.5 EN11.5 240
25 EN2 : 0 - 2640 EN2 0.5 EN20.5 53
26 EN2 : 2640 - 5280 EN2 1 EN21 114
27 EN2 : 5280 - 7920 EN2 1.5 EN21.5 137
28 EN3 : 0 - 2640 EN3 0.5 EN30.5 20
29 EN3 : 2640 - 5280 EN3 1 EN31 59
30 EN3 : 5280 - 7920 EN3 1.5 EN31.5 105
31 ES1 : 0 - 2640 ES1 0.5 ES10.5 20
32 ES1 : 2640 - 5280 ES1 1 ES11 99
33 ES1 : 5280 - 7920 ES1 1.5 ES11.5 175
34 LG1 : 0 - 2640 LG1 0.5 LG10.5 6
35 LG1 : 2640 - 5280 LG1 1 LG11 152
36 LG1 : 5280 - 7920 LG1 1.5 LG11.5 337
37 LG2 : 0 - 2640 LG2 0.5 LG20.5 19
38 LG2 : 2640 - 5280 LG2 1 LG21 192
39 LG2 : 5280 - 7920 LG2 1.5 LG21.5 375
40 LG3 : 0 - 2640 LG3 0.5 LG30.5 67
41 LG3 : 2640 - 5280 LG3 1 LG31 271
46 77
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - ActivityCenters
42 LG3 : 5280 - 7920 LG3 1.5 LG31.5 219
43 NC1 : 0 - 2640 NC1 0.5 NC10.5 75
44 NC1 : 2640 - 5280 NC1 1 NC11 238
45 NC1 : 5280 - 7920 NC1 1.5 NC11.5 255
46 NC2 : 0 - 2640 NC2 0.5 NC20.5 127
47 NC2 : 2640 - 5280 NC2 1 NC21 329
48 NC2 : 5280 - 7920 NC2 1.5 NC21.5 434
49 NC3 : 0 - 2640 NC3 0.5 NC30.5 94
50 NC3 : 2640 - 5280 NC3 1 NC31 356
51 NC3 : 5280 - 7920 NC3 1.5 NC31.5 690
52 NC4 : 0 - 2640 NC4 0.5 NC40.5 183
53 NC4 : 2640 - 5280 NC4 1 NC41 355
54 NC4 : 5280 - 7920 NC4 1.5 NC41.5 421
55 NC5 : 0 - 2640 NC5 0.5 NC50.5 64
56 NC5 : 2640 - 5280 NC5 1 NC51 264
57 NC5 : 5280 - 7920 NC5 1.5 NC51.5 513
58 NC6 : 0 - 2640 NC6 0.5 NC60.5 39
59 NC6 : 2640 - 5280 NC6 1 NC61 254
60 NC6 : 5280 - 7920 NC6 1.5 NC61.5 270
61 O1 : 0 - 2640 OC1 0.5 OC10.5 145
62 O1 : 2640 - 5280 OC1 1 OC11 260
63 O1 : 5280 - 7920 OC1 1.5 OC11.5 330
64 SAN2 : 0 - 2640 SAN2 0.5 SAN20.5 270
65 SAN2 : 2640 - 5280 SAN2 1 SAN21 596
66 SAN2 : 5280 - 7920 SAN2 1.5 SAN21.5 963
67 SAN3 : 0 - 2640 SAN3 0.5 SAN30.5 533
68 SAN3 : 2640 - 5280 SAN3 1 SAN31 1163
69 SAN3 : 5280 - 7920 SAN3 1.5 SAN31.5 1725
70 SAN4 : 0 - 2640 SAN4 0.5 SAN40.5 422
71 SAN4 : 2640 - 5280 SAN4 1 SAN41 650
72 SAN4 : 5280 - 7920 SAN4 1.5 SAN41.5 857
73 SAN5 : 0 - 2640 SAN5 0.5 SAN50.5 511
74 SAN5 : 2640 - 5280 SAN5 1 SAN51 983
75 SAN5 : 5280 - 7920 SAN5 1.5 SAN51.5 1554
76 SAN6 : 0 - 2640 SAN6 0.5 SAN60.5 133
77 SAN6 : 2640 - 5280 SAN6 1 SAN61 467
78 SAN6 : 5280 - 7920 SAN6 1.5 SAN61.5 635
79 SAN7 : 0 - 2640 SAN7 0.5 SAN70.5 108
80 SAN7 : 2640 - 5280 SAN7 1 SAN71 258
81 SAN7 : 5280 - 7920 SAN7 1.5 SAN71.5 433
82 SB1 : 0 - 2640 SB1 0.5 SB10.5 2
83 SB1 : 2640 - 5280 SB1 1 SB11 7
84 SB1 : 5280 - 7920 SB1 1.5 SB11.5 39
85 SB2 : 0 - 2640 SB2 0.5 SB20.5 146
86 SB2 : 2640 - 5280 SB2 1 SB21 202
47 78
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - ActivityCenters
87 SB2 : 5280 - 7920 SB2 1.5 SB21.5 299
88 SD6 : 0 - 2640 SD6 0.5 SD60.5 37
89 SD6 : 2640 - 5280 SD6 1 SD61 153
90 SD6 : 5280 - 7920 SD6 1.5 SD61.5 498
91 V1 : 0 - 2640 VS1 0.5 VS10.5 63
92 V1 : 2640 - 5280 VS1 1 VS11 125
93 V1 : 5280 - 7920 VS1 1.5 VS11.5 211
94 CV5 CV5 CV5 1321
95 SD1 SD1 SD1 26737
96 SD2 SD2 SD2 4482
97 SD3 SD3 SD3 4261
98 SD4 SD4 SD4 26737
99 SD5 SD5 SD5 17039
Non-infrastructure/ Polygons
48 79
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - ZeroCarHouseholds
1 2 3 4
OBJECTID Name UniqueID Travelshed_
miles
Concatenat
e Total_hh hh_zero_car pct_zerocar_hh
1 CO1 : 0 - 2640 CO1 0.5 CO10.5 349 8 0.151004426
2 CO1 : 2640 - 5280 CO1 1 CO11 2242 26 0.502312373
3 CO1 : 5280 - 7920 CO1 1.5 CO11.5 3844 82 1.24517332
4 CO2 : 0 - 2640 CO2 0.5 CO20.5 2051 122 1.159281
5 CO2 : 2640 - 5280 CO2 1 CO21 5077 233 2.919991
6 CO2 : 5280 - 7920 CO2 1.5 CO21.5 7667 288 4.236076
7 CV1 : 0 - 2640 CV1 0.5 CV10.5 4188 1118 6.081057063
8 CV1 : 2640 - 5280 CV1 1 CV11 11612 2744 14.22584075
9 CV1 : 5280 - 7920 CV1 1.5 CV11.5 10178 1602 11.46156516 10 CV2 : 0 - 2640 CV2 0.5 CV20.5 797 194 0.844784003
11 CV2 : 2640 - 5280 CV2 1 CV21 5652 1435 6.698711884
12 CV2 : 5280 - 7920 CV2 1.5 CV21.5 7760 1686 9.277147025 13 CV3 : 0 - 2640 CV3 0.5 CV30.5 2345 661 2.354881305
14 CV3 : 2640 - 5280 CV3 1 CV31 8310 2182 9.982830065
15 CV3 : 5280 - 7920 CV3 1.5 CV31.5 12197 2318 15.17430582 16 CV4 : 0 - 2640 CV4 0.5 CV40.5 8020 1950 10.75361
17 CV4 : 2640 - 5280 CV4 1 CV41 14797 3136 17.746581
18 CV4 : 5280 - 7920 CV4 1.5 CV41.5 12496 1706 11.196576 19 EC1 : 0 - 2640 EC1 0.5 EC10.5 2823 514 5.035351616
20 EC1 : 2640 - 5280 EC1 1 EC11 9146 1677 15.47644771
21 EC1 : 5280 - 7920 EC1 1.5 EC11.5 11465 1933 13.34581412 22 EN1 : 0 - 2640 EN1 0.5 EN10.5 2803 145 2.71499232
23 EN1 : 2640 - 5280 EN1 1 EN11 4883 215 4.502516749
24 EN1 : 5280 - 7920 EN1 1.5 EN11.5 6826 294 7.875703476 25 EN2 : 0 - 2640 EN2 0.5 EN20.5 2071 103 2.165423087
26 EN2 : 2640 - 5280 EN2 1 EN21 3762 159 3.885586849
27 EN2 : 5280 - 7920 EN2 1.5 EN21.5 4264 205 4.626840713 28 EN3 : 0 - 2640 EN3 0.5 EN30.5 510 15 0.24621978
29 EN3 : 2640 - 5280 EN3 1 EN31 1920 84 1.194324036
30 EN3 : 5280 - 7920 EN3 1.5 EN31.5 3883 147 2.104836631 31 ES1 : 0 - 2640 ES1 0.5 ES10.5 1320 59 1.481358179
32 ES1 : 2640 - 5280 ES1 1 ES11 6255 487 4.129256554
33 ES1 : 5280 - 7920 ES1 1.5 ES11.5 8965 657 5.176046141 34 LG1 : 0 - 2640 LG1 0.5 LG10.5 1645 83 1.393316477
35 LG1 : 2640 - 5280 LG1 1 LG11 4904 333 5.823227375
36 LG1 : 5280 - 7920 LG1 1.5 LG11.5 8415 635 10.40559243 37 LG2 : 0 - 2640 LG2 0.5 LG20.5 1525 71 1.203120604
38 LG2 : 2640 - 5280 LG2 1 LG21 6898 501 9.017431487
39 LG2 : 5280 - 7920 LG2 1.5 LG21.5 11472 865 13.69844086 40 LG3 : 0 - 2640 LG3 0.5 LG30.5 1802 146 2.358526594
41 LG3 : 2640 - 5280 LG3 1 LG31 6558 640 10.53166051
42 LG3 : 5280 - 7920 LG3 1.5 LG31.5 7958 536 8.023662312 43 NC1 : 0 - 2640 NC1 0.5 NC10.5 1365 327 8.13742145
44 NC1 : 2640 - 5280 NC1 1 NC11 10432 2287 19.92512658
45 NC1 : 5280 - 7920 NC1 1.5 NC11.5 9570 1569 25.33777755 46 NC2 : 0 - 2640 NC2 0.5 NC20.5 3637 778 13.5151959
47 NC2 : 2640 - 5280 NC2 1 NC21 9081 2033 32.21426114
48 NC2 : 5280 - 7920 NC2 1.5 NC21.5 15102 2816 31.28827337 49 NC3 : 0 - 2640 NC3 0.5 NC30.5 2249 395 9.06611084
50 NC3 : 2640 - 5280 NC3 1 NC31 8236 1589 26.53762356
51 NC3 : 5280 - 7920 NC3 1.5 NC31.5 16304 2997 43.97524099 52 NC4 : 0 - 2640 NC4 0.5 NC40.5 3890 858 15.75649086
53 NC4 : 2640 - 5280 NC4 1 NC41 23810 4310 35.48217426
54 NC4 : 5280 - 7920 NC4 1.5 NC41.5 30106 4740 35.3383295 49 80
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - ZeroCarHouseholds
55 NC5 : 0 - 2640 NC5 0.5 NC50.5 909 156 5.999519569
56 NC5 : 2640 - 5280 NC5 1 NC51 11203 2338 22.63731037
57 NC5 : 5280 - 7920 NC5 1.5 NC51.5 19317 3483 43.83097596 58 NC6 : 0 - 2640 NC6 0.5 NC60.5 5618 1074 2.51041652
59 NC6 : 2640 - 5280 NC6 1 NC61 4314 1005 20.51577982
60 NC6 : 5280 - 7920 NC6 1.5 NC61.5 18961 3019 25.60956763 61 O1 : 0 - 2640 OC1 0.5 OC10.5 2517 222 4.753334356
62 O1 : 2640 - 5280 OC1 1 OC11 5786 474 10.64654068
63 O1 : 5280 - 7920 OC1 1.5 OC11.5 7492 872 15.49954371 67 SAN2 : 0 - 2640 SAN2 0.5 SAN20.5 10949 1992 21.64516793 68 SAN2 : 2640 - 5280 SAN2 1 SAN21 25400 4487 44.2929572 69 SAN2 : 5280 - 7920 SAN2 1.5 SAN21.5 40160 6991 64.92381021 70 SAN3 : 0 - 2640 SAN3 0.5 SAN30.5 19668 2166 22.01855 71 SAN3 : 2640 - 5280 SAN3 1 SAN31 47848 6589 66.683239 72 SAN3 : 5280 - 7920 SAN3 1.5 SAN31.5 69189 9577 101.267008 73 SAN4 : 0 - 2640 SAN4 0.5 SAN40.5 13546 2494 21.34313664 74 SAN4 : 2640 - 5280 SAN4 1 SAN41 30619 5478 38.45268485 75 SAN4 : 5280 - 7920 SAN4 1.5 SAN41.5 42562 7175 55.0077825 76 SAN5 : 0 - 2640 SAN5 0.5 SAN50.5 29810 6923 50.38695781 77 SAN5 : 2640 - 5280 SAN5 1 SAN51 51875 13843 94.10189293 78 SAN5 : 5280 - 7920 SAN5 1.5 SAN51.5 77270 24407 156.8998535 79 SAN6 : 0 - 2640 SAN6 0.5 SAN60.5 8716 1568 10.27733326 80 SAN6 : 2640 - 5280 SAN6 1 SAN61 15844 2692 23.80294533 81 SAN6 : 5280 - 7920 SAN6 1.5 SAN61.5 23817 3680 31.84483222 82 SAN7 : 0 - 2640 SAN7 0.5 SAN70.5 2164 273 3.594618501 83 SAN7 : 2640 - 5280 SAN7 1 SAN71 8509 1185 11.12853495 84 SAN7 : 5280 - 7920 SAN7 1.5 SAN71.5 34790 10783 43.731849 85 SB1 : 0 - 2640 SB1 0.5 SB10.5 514 8 0.320941558
86 SB1 : 2640 - 5280 SB1 1 SB11 694 11 0.474645262
87 SB1 : 5280 - 7920 SB1 1.5 SB11.5 1446 51 1.525765773 88 SB2 : 0 - 2640 SB2 0.5 SB20.5 2679 106 3.66856
89 SB2 : 2640 - 5280 SB2 1 SB21 6460 269 7.014873
90 SB2 : 5280 - 7920 SB2 1.5 SB21.5 7531 311 8.209825
91 SD6 : 0 - 2640 SD6 0.5 SD60.5 1589 140 1.589836819
92 SD6 : 2640 - 5280 SD6 1 SD61 9246 1519 13.44931448
93 SD6 : 5280 - 7920 SD6 1.5 SD61.5 26316 4410 38.46494371 94 V1 : 0 - 2640 VS1 0.5 VS10.5 2709 126 1.606852764
95 V1 : 2640 - 5280 VS1 1 VS11 5566 252 3.030857655
96 V1 : 5280 - 7920 VS1 1.5 VS11.5 9540 473 4.65185255
94 CV5 CV5 CV5 91578 7976 45.882129
95 SD1 SD1 SD1 680913 93348 585.221941
96 SD2 SD2 SD2 55341 8677 82.971119
97 SD3 SD3 SD3 49878 5323 66.255039
98 SD4 SD4 SD4 680913 93348 585.221941
99 SD5 SD5 SD5 286021 60649 426.457491
Non-infrastructure/ Polygons
50 81
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Demand Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 4.00 max. points per category Unique ID Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank S core Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score CV5 269,499 3 2.4 27.02778126 2 1.6 4328 3 2.4 38216 3 2.4 3.613972683 1 0.8 1321 1 0.8 45.88 1 0.8 11. 2 SD1 1,364,716 5 4.0 25.61105986 1 0.8 25019 5 4.0 259814 5 4.0 4.864333843 4 3.2 26737 5 4.0 585.22 5 4.0 24. 0 SD2 139,337 1 0.8 35.72744841 5 4.0 2212 1 0.8 15686 1 0.8 4.022041429 3 2.4 4482 3 2.4 82.97 3 2.4 13. 6 SD3 142,078 2 1.6 27.3548987 3 2.4 2655 2 1.6 20123 2 1.6 3.822855462 2 1.6 4261 2 1.6 66.26 2 1.6 12. 0 SD5 590,281 4 3.2 34.68118915 4 3.2 9569 4 3.2 126706 4 3.2 7.418014263 5 4.0 17039 4 3.2 426.46 4 3.2 23. 2
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
2.00 max. points per category
Unique ID
Bic
ycle Transportation
(1 mile buffer)
Pedestrian
Transportation
(0.5 mile buffer)
Buffer Extent (miles) CONCATENATE Raw Data Rank Score Raw D ata Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score Raw Data Rank Score Choose from drop-down:
Connects, Constructs, or Neither Points Choose from drop- down: Yes or No Points
Choose
from drop-down:
within 0.25 mi, directly
connects, or neither
Points
Choose
from drop-down:
within 0.5 mi, directly
connects, or neither
Points
CO1 Yes Y
es 1 CO11 6,557 3 0.2 4.02 1 0.1 296 14 1.0 1, 139 3 0.2 0. 48 1 0.1 38 2 0.1 0. 50 2 0.1 1. 8 Neither 0 No 0 directly connects 4 neither 0 4 CO2 Yes Yes 1 CO21 14,037 13 0.9 12.16 4 0.3 285 12 0.8 3, 134 10 0.7 1, 523.72 29 2.0 164 11 0.8 2. 92 4 0.3 5. 7 Constructs 8 No 0 directly connects 4 neither 0 4 CV1 Yes Yes 1 CV11 25,764 23 1.6 56.44 23 1.6 294 13 0.9 8, 237 24 1.7 15. 02 21 1.4 348 23 1.6 14. 23 18 1.2 10. 0 Connects 6 Yes 6 directly connects 4 within 0.5 mile 4 12 CV2 Yes Yes 1 CV21 13,723 12 0.8 62.18 27 1.9 151 3 0.2 3, 410 13 0.9 10. 90 16 1.1 132 7 0.5 6. 70 10 0.7 6. 1 Constructs 8 Yes 6 within 0.25 mile 2 within 0.5 mile 4 12 CV3 Yes Yes 1 CV31 17,989 16 1.1 53.24 20 1.4 238 6 0.4 6, 060 20 1.4 13. 45 19 1.3 203 14 1.0 9. 98 13 0.9 7. 4 Connects 6 Yes 6 within 0.25 mile 2 within 0.5 mile 4 12 CV4 Yes Yes 1 CV41 33,412 27 1.9 44.74 18 1.2 397 23 1.6 12, 383 25 1.7 12. 13 17 1.2 421 25 1.7 17. 75 20 1.4 10. 7 Neither 0 Yes 6 directly connects 4 within 0.5 mile 4 12 EC1 Yes Yes 1 EC11 19,371 20 1.4 39.75 17 1.2 228 4 0.3 7, 344 23 1.6 10. 46 15 1.0 270 20 1.4 15. 48 19 1.3 8. 1 Constructs 8 Yes 6 directly connects 4 within 0.5 mile 4 12 EN1 Yes Yes 1 EN11 10,929 7 0.5 15.20 7 0.5 279 11 0.8 2, 319 7 0.5 2. 64 10 0.7 155 10 0.7 4. 50 8 0.6 4. 1 Constructs 8 Yes 6 within 0.25 mile 2 neither 0 8 EN2 Yes Yes 1 EN21 9,145 6 0.4 12.77 5 0.3 235 5 0.3 2, 310 6 0.4 2. 43 9 0.6 114 5 0.3 3. 89 6 0.4 2. 9 Neither 0 Yes 6 within 0.25 mile 2 neither 0 8 EN3 Yes Yes 1 EN31 4,838 2 0.1 15.03 6 0.4 113 2 0.1 761 2 0.1 1. 48 4 0.3 59 3 0.2 1. 19 3 0.2 1. 5 Connects 6 No 0 directly connects 4 neither 0 4 ES1 Yes Yes 1 ES11 18,360 17 1.2 17.00 8 0.6 383 21 1.4 1, 835 4 0.3 1. 25 3 0.2 99 4 0.3 4. 13 7 0.5 4. 4 Neither 0 No 0 directly connects 4 neither 0 4 LG1 Yes Yes 1 LG11 14,383 14 1.0 17.50 9 0.6 276 10 0.7 2, 731 9 0.6 2. 30 7 0.5 152 8 0.6 5. 82 9 0.6 4. 6 Neither 0 Yes 6 directly connects 4 within 0.5 mile 4 12 LG2 Yes Yes 1 LG21 19,453 21 1.4 17.79 10 0.7 379 19 1.3 2, 600 8 0.6 1. 76 5 0.3 192 12 0.8 9. 02 12 0.8 6. 0 Constructs 8 Yes 6 neither 0 directly connects 6 12 LG3 Yes Yes 1 LG31 16,324 15 1.0 19.52 11 0.8 322 15 1.0 3, 723 16 1.1 3. 05 12 0.8 271 21 1.4 10. 53 14 1.0 7. 2 Constructs 8 Yes 6 neither 0 within 0.5 mile 4 10 NC1 Yes Yes 1 NC11 7,149 5 0.3 71.06 29 2.0 255 7 0.5 3, 204 11 0.8 24. 68 24 1.7 238 15 1.0 19. 93 21 1.4 7. 7 Neither 0 Yes 6 directly connects 4 within 0.5 mile 4 12 NC2 Yes Yes 1 NC21 18,792 19 1.3 49.14 19 1.3 486 25 1.7 6, 081 21 1.4 15. 00 20 1.4 329 22 1.5 32. 21 25 1.7 10. 4 Neither 0 Yes 6 directly connects 4 directly connects 6 12 NC4 Yes Yes 1 NC41 22,361 22 1.5 53.60 21 1.4 554 26 1.8 6, 651 22 1.5 12. 80 18 1.2 355 24 1.7 35. 48 26 1.8 11. 0 Neither 0 Yes 6 directly connects 4 within 0.5 mile 4 12 NC5 Yes Yes 1 NC51 11,911 9 0.6 68.75 28 1.9 378 18 1.2 5, 360 19 1.3 26. 69 26 1.8 264 19 1.3 22. 64 23 1.6 9. 8 Connects 6 Yes 6 within 0.25 mile 2 within 0.5 mile 4 12 NC6 Yes Yes 1 NC61 6,594 4 0.3 61.08 26 1.8 255 7 0.5 3, 606 15 1.0 29. 36 27 1.9 254 16 1.1 20. 52 22 1.5 8. 1 Constructs 8 Yes 6 directly connects 4 directly connects 6 12 OC1 Yes Yes 1 OC11 12,487 10 0.7 24.81 13 0.9 385 22 1.5 2, 208 5 0.3 3. 58 13 0.9 260 18 1.2 10. 65 15 1.0 6. 6 Connects 6 Yes 6 directly connects 4 directly connects 6 12 SAN3 Yes Yes 1 SAN31 133,886 29 2.0 32.77 14 1.0 1, 924 29 2.0 27, 868 28 1.9 5. 89 14 1.0 1, 163 29 2.0 66. 68 28 1.9 11. 8 Constructs 8 Yes 6 directly connects 4 directly connects 6 12 SAN4 Yes Yes 1 SAN41 30,158 26 1.8 37.46 16 1.1 869 27 1.9 22, 651 27 1.9 24. 68 25 1.7 650 27 1.9 38. 45 27 1.9 12. 1 Constructs 8 Yes 6 directly connects 4 directly connects 6 12 SAN5 Yes Yes 1 SAN51 53,828 28 1.9 56.21 22 1.5 1, 214 28 1.9 40, 772 29 2.0 35. 65 28 1.9 983 28 1.9 94. 10 29 2.0 13. 2 Constructs 8 Yes 6 directly connects 4 directly connects 6 12 SAN6 Yes Yes 1 SAN61 28,326 25 1.7 57.68 24 1.7 482 24 1.7 14, 306 26 1.8 22. 71 23 1.6 467 26 1.8 23. 80 24 1.7 11. 9 Constructs 8 Yes 6 within 0.25 mile 2 within 0.5 mile 4 12 SAN7 Yes Yes 1 SAN71 11,523 8 0.6 58.99 25 1.7 262 9 0.6 3, 922 17 1.2 18. 25 22 1.5 258 17 1.2 11. 13 16 1.1 7. 9 Connects 6 Yes 6 within 0.25 mile 2 within 0.5 mile 4 12 SB1 Yes Yes 1 SB11 1,931 1 0.1 9.84 3 0.2 52 1 0.1 172 1 0.1 0. 61 2 0.1 7 1 0.1 0. 47 1 0.1 0. 7 Neither 0 No 0 neither 0 neither 0 0 SB2 Yes Yes 1 SB21 13,649 11 0.8 9.25 2 0.1 367 17 1.2 4, 219 18 1.2 2. 25 6 0.4 202 13 0.9 7. 01 11 0.8 5. 4 Connects 6 Yes 6 directly connects 4 directly connects 6 12 SD6 Yes Yes 1 SD61 26,482 24 1.7 32.98 15 1.0 379 19 1.3 3, 500 14 1.0 2. 97 11 0.8 153 9 0.6 13. 45 17 1.2 7. 5 Constructs 8 No 0 within 0.25 mile 2 neither 0 2 VS1 Yes Yes 1 VS11 18,667 18 1.2 19.87 12 0.8 366 16 1.1 3, 244 12 0.8 2. 35 8 0.6 125 6 0.4 3. 03 5 0.3 5. 3 Neither 0 Yes 6 directly connects 4 neither 0 10 Do not delete these rows. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Option Points Option Points Option Poi nts Option Points Connects 6 Yes 6 within 0.25 mile 2 with in 0.5 mile 4
Constructs 8 No 0 directly connects 4 directly connects 6 Neither 0 neither 0 neither 0
Criteria 1 Final Score = sum of scores for each category Population Population Density Intersection Density Employment Employment Density Activity Centers Low Vehicle Ownership FINAL SCORE
Criteria 1 Final Score = sum of scores for each category 2A 2B Population Population Density Intersection Density Employment Employment Density Activity Centers Low Vehicle Ownership FINAL
SCORE
Regional Bicycle Network? Bike Improvement w/in 1.5 mi. of regional transit stop Ped Improvement vis a vis local transit stop Fina
l 2B Score
(Max 12 points)
VLOOKUP - #2A
Bike Improvement w/in 1.5 mi. of regional
transit stop
Ped Improvement vis a vis
local transit stop
Ped Improvement vis a vis
regional transit stop
Ped Improvement vis a vis regional transit stop
51 82
2022 ATP Evaluation Workbook - Other Quant.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Unique ID Plan or EEA? Total Project $ Total ATP $ Matching Funds Percent Matching Funds 11 Criteria 1 Total Quant E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 Unique ID E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 CV5 NI - Plan $500 $500 $0 0.00% 0 11.2 11.2 44.0 93.0 125.0 66.0 121.0 132.0 117.0 55.2 104.2 136.2 77.2 132.2 143.2 128.2 9 5 4 6 4 3 4 2 4 6 2 5 5 5 4.0 8.0 12.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 CV5 59.2 112.2 148.2 81.2 142.2 153.2 138.2 SD1 NI - Plan $975 $750 $225 23.08% 5 24.0 29.0 110.0 116.0 127.0 124.0 118.0 112.0 131.0 139.0 145.0 156.0 153.0 147.0 141.0 160.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 2 4 4 3 3 3 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 SD1 147.0 149.0 164.0 161.0 153.0 147.0 166.0 SD2 NI - Plan $975 $750 $225 23.08% 5 13.6 18.6 116.0 130.0 120.0 127.0 122.0 108.0 133.0 134.6 148.6 138.6 145.6 140.6 126.6 151.6 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 SD2 140.6 154.6 142.6 151.6 144.6 130.6 155.6 SD3 NI - Plan $563 $563 $0 0.00% 0 12.0 12.0 108.0 139.0 119.0 142.0 130.0 121.0 136.0 120.0 151.0 131.0 154.0 142.0 133.0 148.0 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 5 5 6 4 4 6 12.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 SD3 132.0 161.0 141.0 166.0 150.0 141.0 160.0 SD4 NI - EEA $500 $500 $0 0.00% 0 N/A 0.0 101.0 137.0 102.0 132.0 141.0 163.0 128.0 101.0 137.0 102.0 132.0 141.0 163.0 128.0 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 6 3 5 6 6 4 8.3 10.0 5.0 8.3 10.0 10.0 6.7 SD4 109.3 147.0 107.0 140.3 151.0 173.0 134.7 SD5 NI - Plan $1,500 $1,500 $0 0.00% 0 23.2 23.2 72.0 131.0 115.0 92.0 132.0 126.0 124.0 95.2 154.2 138.2 115.2 155.2 149.2 147.2 16 10 11 13 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 SD5 97.2 156.2 140.2 117.2 157.2 151.2 149.2
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Unique ID Total Project $ Total ATP $ Matching Funds
Percent
Matching Funds 9 Criteria 1 Criteria
2A
Criteria
2B Total Quant E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 Unique ID E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 CO1 $8,998 $8,098 $900 10.00% 3 1.8 0 4 8.8 65.0 106.0 102.0 70.0 133.0 97.0 62.0 73.8 114.8 110.8 78.8 141.8 105.8 70.8 110 71 73 103 57 77 114 4 4 3 3 4 3 1 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.3 CO1 75.2 116.2 111.8 79.8 143.2 106.8 71.1 CO2 $3,072 $2,327 $745 24.25% 5 5.7 8 4 22.7 46.0 85.0 77.0 71.0 127.0 99.0 68.0 68.7 107.7 99.7 93.7 149.7 121.7 90.7 34 22 23 25 16 19 26 20 22 20 25 24 23 22 6.9 7.6 6.9 8.6 8.3 7.9 7.6 CO2 75.6 115.3 106.6 102.3 158.0 129.6 98.3 CV1 $18,845 $9,762 $9,083 48.20% 8 10.0 6 12 36.0 84.0 110.0 125.0 82.0 139.0 131.0 96.0 120.0 146.0 161.0 118.0 175.0 167.0 132.0 81 67 61 83 56 58 74 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 CV1 122.4 147.7 162.7 119.7 176.7 168.7 133.7 CV2 $3,810 $3,010 $800 21.00% 4 6.1 8 12 30.1 69.0 102.0 88.0 75.0 129.0 120.0 95.0 99.1 132.1 118.1 105.1 159.1 150.1 125.1 30 23 25 29 19 20 24 24 20 18 23 19 21 25 8.3 6.9 6.2 7.9 6.6 7.2 8.6 CV2 107.4 139.0 124.3 113.0 165.7 157.3 133.7 CV3 $4,818 $4,818 $0 0.00% 0 7.4 6 12 25.4 65.0 106.0 88.0 74.0 135.0 124.0 95.0 90.4 131.4 113.4 99.4 160.4 149.4 120.4 53 37 42 48 30 32 40 11 12 8 12 12 12 13 3.8 4.1 2.8 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.5 CV3 94.2 135.5 116.2 103.5 164.5 153.5 124.9 CV4 $16,104 $10,843 $5,261 32.67% 6 10.7 0 12 28.7 61.0 113.0 123.0 82.0 136.0 124.0 101.0 89.7 141.7 151.7 110.7 164.7 152.7 129.7 121 77 71 98 66 71 84 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.4 CV4 90.4 142.7 153.1 112.1 165.7 154.1 131.1 EC1 $6,800 $5,984 $816 12.00% 3 8.1 8 12 31.1 61.0 105.0 119.0 74.0 132.0 138.0 100.0 92.1 136.1 150.1 105.1 163.1 169.1 131.1 65 44 40 57 37 35 46 9 9 10 9 9 10 9 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.1 EC1 95.2 139.2 153.5 108.2 166.2 172.5 134.2 EN1 $1,380 $1,245 $135 9.78% 3 4.1 8 8 23.1 52.0 104.0 77.0 55.0 117.0 104.0 59.0 75.1 127.1 100.1 78.1 140.1 127.1 82.1 17 10 12 16 9 10 15 29 29 29 28 29 29 29 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.7 10.0 10.0 10.0 EN1 85.1 137.1 110.1 87.8 150.1 137.1 92.1 EN2 $5,157 $2,457 $2,700 52.36% 8 2.9 0 8 18.9 54.0 84.0 95.0 47.0 113.0 105.0 70.0 72.9 102.9 113.9 65.9 131.9 123.9 88.9 34 24 22 37 19 20 28 21 19 23 16 20 22 20 7.2 6.6 7.9 5.5 6.9 7.6 6.9 EN2 80.1 109.5 121.8 71.4 138.8 131.5 95.8 EN3 $4,292 $3,092 $1,200 27.96% 5 1.5 6 4 16.5 50.0 84.0 95.0 41.0 113.0 101.0 70.0 66.5 100.5 111.5 57.5 129.5 117.5 86.5 46 31 28 54 24 26 36 14 14 16 11 16 15 15 4.8 4.8 5.5 3.8 5.5 5.2 5.2 EN3 71.3 105.3 117.0 61.3 135.0 122.7 91.7 ES1 $2,256 $2,206 $50 2.22% 2 4.4 0 4 10.4 76.0 106.0 73.0 58.0 128.0 121.0 81.0 86.4 116.4 83.4 68.4 138.4 131.4 91.4 26 19 26 32 16 17 24 25 24 17 18 23 26 24 8.6 8.3 5.9 6.2 7.9 9.0 8.3 ES1 95.0 124.7 89.3 74.6 146.3 140.4 99.7 LG1 $3,491 $3,491 $0 0.00% 0 4.6 0 12 16.6 71.0 106.0 123.0 57.0 124.0 123.0 71.0 87.6 122.6 139.6 73.6 140.6 139.6 87.6 40 28 25 47 25 25 40 16 15 19 13 15 16 14 5.5 5.2 6.6 4.5 5.2 5.5 4.8 LG1 93.1 127.8 146.2 78.1 145.8 145.1 92.4 LG2 $8,085 $8,004 $81 1.00% 2 6.0 8 12 28.0 67.0 114.0 114.0 84.0 136.0 128.0 87.0 95.0 142.0 142.0 112.0 164.0 156.0 115.0 84 56 56 71 49 51 70 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 LG2 97.1 144.1 144.4 114.4 166.4 158.4 117.4 LG3 $4,891 $4,890 $1 0.02% 2 7.2 8 10 27.2 67.0 114.0 115.0 77.0 137.0 128.0 83.0 94.2 141.2 142.2 104.2 164.2 155.2 110.2 52 35 34 47 30 32 44 12 13 12 14 13 13 10 4.1 4.5 4.1 4.8 4.5 4.5 3.4 LG3 98.3 145.7 146.3 109.0 168.7 159.7 113.6 NC1 $2,582 $2,580 $2 0.08% 2 7.7 0 12 21.7 62.0 112.0 124.0 73.0 128.0 117.0 83.0 83.7 133.7 145.7 94.7 149.7 138.7 104.7 31 19 18 27 17 19 25 23 23 24 24 22 25 23 7.9 7.9 8.3 8.3 7.6 8.6 7.9 NC1 91.6 141.6 154.0 103.0 157.3 147.3 112.6 NC2 $3,290 $3,288 $2 0.06% 2 10.4 0 12 24.4 65.0 110.0 121.0 89.0 126.0 116.0 101.0 89.4 134.4 145.4 113.4 150.4 140.4 125.4 37 24 23 29 22 23 26 18 18 21 22 18 18 21 6.2 6.2 7.2 7.6 6.2 6.2 7.2 NC2 95.6 140.6 152.6 121.0 156.6 146.6 132.6 NC4 $3,494 $2,944 $550 15.74% 3 11.0 0 12 26.0 50.0 110.0 107.0 68.0 138.0 109.0 79.0 76.0 136.0 133.0 94.0 164.0 135.0 105.0 39 22 22 31 18 22 28 17 21 22 20 21 19 19 5.9 7.2 7.6 6.9 7.2 6.6 6.6 NC4 81.9 143.2 140.6 100.9 171.2 141.6 111.6 NC5 $9,588 $2,072 $7,516 78.39% 8 9.8 6 12 35.8 65.0 118.0 109.0 95.0 129.0 124.0 100.0 100.8 153.8 144.8 130.8 164.8 159.8 135.8 21 13 14 16 13 13 15 28 28 28 29 28 28 28 9.7 9.7 9.7 10.0 9.7 9.7 9.7 NC5 110.5 163.5 154.5 140.8 174.5 169.5 145.5 NC6 $6,373 $2,248 $4,125 64.73% 8 8.1 8 12 36.1 67.0 118.0 102.0 74.0 121.0 129.0 90.0 103.1 154.1 138.1 110.1 157.1 165.1 126.1 22 15 16 20 14 14 18 26 27 27 27 26 27 27 9.0 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.0 9.3 9.3 NC6 112.1 163.4 147.4 119.4 166.1 174.4 135.4 OC1 $14,278 $12,118 $2,160 15.13% 3 6.6 6 12 27.6 76.0 124.0 123.0 82.0 121.0 120.0 96.0 103.6 151.6 150.6 109.6 148.6 147.6 123.6 117 80 80 111 82 82 98 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 OC1 104.6 152.3 151.3 110.3 149.3 148.3 124.6 SAN3 $68,596 $4,614 $63,982 93.27% 8 11.8 8 12 39.8 71.0 125.0 124.0 88.0 131.0 122.0 94.0 110.8 164.8 163.8 127.8 170.8 161.8 133.8 42 28 28 36 27 29 34 15 16 15 17 14 14 16 5.2 5.5 5.2 5.9 4.8 4.8 5.5 SAN3 116.0 170.3 169.0 133.7 175.6 166.6 139.3 SAN4 $8,800 $7,995 $805 9.15% 3 12.1 8 12 35.1 49.0 114.0 105.0 67.0 122.0 105.0 78.0 84.1 149.1 140.1 102.1 157.1 140.1 113.1 95 54 57 78 51 57 71 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 1.7 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 SAN4 85.8 151.5 142.2 104.2 159.2 142.2 115.2 SAN5 $88,131 $3,818 $84,313 95.67% 8 13.2 8 12 41.2 65.0 112.0 86.0 78.0 133.0 115.0 89.0 106.2 153.2 127.2 119.2 174.2 156.2 130.2 36 25 30 32 22 24 29 19 17 14 19 17 17 18 6.6 5.9 4.8 6.6 5.9 5.9 6.2 SAN5 112.8 159.1 132.0 125.8 180.1 162.1 136.4 SAN6 $9,530 $5,172 $4,358 45.73% 7 11.9 8 12 38.9 56.0 99.0 117.0 77.0 111.0 109.0 83.0 94.9 137.9 155.9 115.9 149.9 147.9 121.9 55 38 33 45 35 35 42 10 11 13 15 10 11 11 3.4 3.8 4.5 5.2 3.4 3.8 3.8 SAN6 98.3 141.7 160.4 121.1 153.3 151.7 125.7 SAN7 $9,345 $6,344 $3,001 32.11% 6 7.9 6 12 31.9 64.0 110.0 120.0 77.0 135.0 110.0 67.0 95.9 141.9 151.9 108.9 166.9 141.9 98.9 66 45 42 58 38 45 64 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 SAN7 98.7 144.7 155.0 111.7 169.7 144.7 101.7 SB1 $2,019 $1,799 $220 10.90% 3 0.7 0 0 3.7 53.0 98.0 106.0 56.0 117.0 91.0 56.0 56.7 101.7 109.7 59.7 120.7 94.7 59.7 32 18 16 30 15 19 30 22 25 26 21 25 24 17 7.6 8.6 9.0 7.2 8.6 8.3 5.9 SB1 64.3 110.3 118.7 66.9 129.3 103.0 65.6 SB2 $13,929 $12,765 $1,164 8.36% 3 5.4 6 12 26.4 58.0 111.0 92.0 58.0 116.0 111.0 91.0 84.4 137.4 118.4 84.4 142.4 137.4 117.4 151 93 108 151 90 93 109 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 SB2 84.7 137.7 118.7 84.7 142.7 137.7 118.1 SD6 $2,599 $2,044 $555 21.35% 4 7.5 8 2 21.5 74.0 107.0 96.0 72.0 133.0 78.0 71.0 95.5 128.5 117.5 93.5 154.5 99.5 92.5 21 16 17 22 13 21 22 27 26 25 26 27 20 26 9.3 9.0 8.6 9.0 9.3 6.9 9.0 SD6 104.8 137.5 126.1 102.5 163.8 106.4 101.5 VS1 $5,944 $4,755 $1,189 20.00% 4 5.3 0 10 19.3 77.0 107.0 111.0 69.0 131.0 98.0 94.0 96.3 126.3 130.3 88.3 150.3 117.3 113.3 49 38 36 54 32 41 42 13 10 11 10 11 9 12 4.5 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.1 4.1 VS1 100.8 129.7 134.1 91.7 154.1 120.4 117.4
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Amt Min Amt Max Points NI Type Points
0.00% 0.00% 0 NI - Plan 12
0.01% 4.99% 1 NI - EEA 10
5.00% 9.90% 2
10.00% 14.99% 3
15.00% 19.99% 4
20.00% 24.99% 5
25.00% 29.99% 6
30.00% 34.99% 7
35.00% 39.99% 8
40.00% 44.99% 9
45.00% 10
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Amt Min Amt Max Points
0.00% 0.00% 0
0.01% 7.99% 2
8.00% 15.99% 3
16.00% 23.99% 4
24.00% 31.99% 5
32.00% 39.99% 6
40.00% 47.99% 7
48.00% 8
Final Scores
Final ScoresCost Effectiveness Ratios
Cost Effectiveness RankQuant & Qual Subtotal
Quant & Qual Subtotal Cost Effectiveness Rank
Demand
Analysis
(Pulled in) Qualitative Subtotal Cost Effectiveness Ratios Cost Effectiveness Score - Criterion #12 Criteria 12
Qualitative Subtotal Cost Effectiveness Score - Criterion #10 DO NOT
DELETE
THESE
ROWS
VLOOKUP - #9
Percent Matching Funds
Demand Analysis
(Pulled in)
DO NOT
DELETE
THESE
ROWS
VLOOKUP - #11 VLOOKUP - #12
Percent Matching Funds Cost Effectiveness
52 83
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone (619) 699-1900
Fax (619) 699-1905
sandag.org
Resolution No. 2023-13
Approving the Proposed List of Regional Active Transportation Program Projects and Funding Recommendations to the California Transportation Commission
WHEREAS, the Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided funds for the Active Transportation Program; and
WHEREAS, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has statutory authority for the administration of this grant program and established necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, the CTC has required in its Active Transportation Program (ATP) Program Guidelines that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) coordinate the competitive selection process to select projects to receive a portion of the ATP funding; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), as the MPO for the San Diego region, conducted a competitive selection process for the distribution of A TP funds in the San Diego region; and
WHEREAS, the SANDAG competitive selection process has resulted in a list of projects that are deemed to meet the requirements of the ATP Program Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the CTC requires the Governing Body of the MPO to approve the proposed ranked list of Regional ATP projects and funding recommendations to the CTC ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the SANDAG Board of Directors:
1. Certifies that the San Diego Regional ATP competitive selection process was conducted in accordance with the 2023 CTC ATP Program Guidelines, including the use of a multidisciplinary advisory group as application evaluators; and
2. Attests the projects recommended for ATP funding per the 2023 San Diego Regional ATP competition include projects benefitting pedestrians and bicyclists, including students walking and cycling to school; and
3. Approves the proposed ranked list, which is Attachment 4 to the related Board of Director’s Action Item, of ATP projects and funding recommendations to the CTC; and
4. Recommends the Contingency List of projects, which is contained in Attachment 4, be used to reallocate ATP funds in the event a project initially recommended for funding is unable to allocate the awarded funds or obtain an extension within the timeframes identified by the CTC.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 2023.
Attest:
Chair Secretary
Member Agencies: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
Advisory Members: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, Port of San Diego, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico.
San Joaquin Council of Governments
SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
555 E. Weber Avenue • Stockton, California 95202 • P 209.235.0600 • F 209.235.0438 • www.sjcog.org
Robert Rickman
CHAIR
David Bellinger
VICE CHAIR
Diane Nguyen
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Member Agencies
CITIES OF
ESCALON,
LATHROP,
LODI,
MANTECA,
RIPON,
STOCKTON,
TRACY,
AND
THE COUNTY OF
SAN JOAQUIN
Mitch Weiss
Executive Director
California Transportation Commission
1120 N Street
Room 2221 (MS-52)
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Laurie Waters
Subject: SJCOG MPO Component 2023 Active Transportation Program Cycle 6
Dear Mr. Weiss:
On February 23, 2023 the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) Board of Directors adopted the SJCOG MPO Component of the 2023 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6. As per the Amended ATP fund estimate adopted by the California Transportation Commission on August 17, 2022, $13,711,000 is available for SJCOG to program to 2023 ATP Cycle 6 projects. As required by the ATP Guidelines, on January 23, 2023 SJCOG conv ened the multi-disciplinary advisory scoring committee.
The committee recommended awarding ATP funds to the following projects:
• San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission : East Ch annel Street Streetscape and Connectivity Project
o $3,500,000 ATP funds
• San Joaquin County: Countywide Sidewalks Connectivity Plan o $273,000 ATP Funds
• City of Stockton: Main and Market Complete Streets (Phase 1) o $8,226,000 ATP funds
• City of Tracy: East Schulte Safety and Multimodal Community Corridor – MacArthur Phase
o $1,712,000 ATP Funds
The City of Tracy originally requested $4,684,210 of ATP funds for their East Schulte Safety and Multimodal Community Corridor project. However, only $1,532,200 of programing capacity remain ed after the first three projects had been recommended . Tracy provided a reduced scope v ersion of their project for the MacArthu r Road section that f it within the remaining funds available.
The SJCOG Board unanimously adopted these recommendations. A ll four projects are located within Disadvantaged Communities and will provide a broad spectrum of projects that will benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and students walking and cycling to school. In addition, the SJCOG Board approved a contingency list of projects to receive any additional funds in the event of cost savings or a failure to deliver a project from the funded list, subject to approval by the SJCOG Board and the Commission.
The following required documentation is enclosed:
Attachment 1: SJCOG Project Selection Method
Attachment 2: SJCOG Contingency List, S coring Mult idisciplinary Advisory Members , and Regional Competition Scores
Attachment 3: Program Spreadsheet of SJCOG 2023 ATP MPO Component Recommendations Attachment 4: Updated Programming Project Requests (PPR) Attachment 5: Updates A4 forms for down scoped projects Attachment 6: SJCOG Board Adoption Resolution R-23-101
Attachment 7: Applications not submitted through the state process that are being recommended for funding
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to cont act my staff members,
Joel Campos at (209) 235-1090 [email protected] or Jay Halva at (209) 235-0582 [email protected].
Sincerely,
RYAN NIBLOCK
Deputy Director – Programming and Project Delivery
San Joaquin Council of Governments
SJCOG 2023 Active Transportation Program Project Selection Method Scoring Criteria
Proposed projects will be scored and ranked on the basis of applicant responses to the below criteria.
See the chart below to reference the scoring criteria and points allotted to the different types of applications. The chart below shows the maximum number of points allowed for each scoring criteria for each type of application. If a scoring criterion is left blank, it is not applicable to that application type.
Project programming recommendations may not be based strictly on the rating criteria given the requirements of the various funding sources. A minimum of 25% of ATP funding will be programmed to projects that benefit Disadvantaged Communities per CTC requirements.
Project Selection between Project Applications with the Same Score If two or more projects applications receive the same score that is at the funding cut-off score, the following criteria will be used to determine which project(s) will be funded in the following priority order:
a. Infrastructure projects
b. Project readiness including, but not limited to, completed environmental documents c. Highest score on the highest point value question (questions with the highest point value may vary by application type).
Topic Plan NI O nly
Small Medium La rge
Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities 30 10 10 10 10
Need 40 60 50 40 40
Safety - 10 25 25 25
Public Participation & Planning 25 15 10 10 10
Scope and Plan Layout Consistency and Cost
Effectiveness - 10 5 5 5
Context Sensitive & Innovation - 5 - 5 5
Evaluation and Sustainability - 10 - - -
Implementation & Plan Development 25 - - - -
Leveraging of Other Funding 10 10 10 15 15
Project Readiness - - 20 20 20
Project Location 20 20 20 20 20
Transit Access 20 20 20 20 20
Mixed Land Uses and Development 15 15 15 15 15
Housing Diversity and Affordability 15 15 15 15 15
Total 200 200 200 200 200
Infrastructure or Infrastructure with Non-
Infrastructure
Project Evaluation Committee
SJCOG staff will form a multidisciplinary Project Evaluation Committee to assist in evaluating project applications. In forming the Project Evaluation Committee, staff will seek participants with expertise in bicycling and pedestrian transportation and land use, including Safe Routes to Schools type projects, and in projects benefiting disadvantaged communities, and will seek geographically balanced representation from local jurisdictions and non- governmental organizations.
Project Programming
SJCOG staff will program funding to projects based upon the project scores and input from the Project Evaluation Committee. SJCOG staff will attempt to fund projects from only one of the funding types if possible, and will seek to program projects to concentrate federal and state funding on as few projects as possible. Final programming recommendations are subject to review and consideration by the SJCOG committees before adoption by the SJCOG Board. Approval of ATP funding is subject to approval by the CTC.
Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
($ in thousands)
MPO Application ID County Project Title Total Project Cost (1000)
ATP Request
(1000)
23-24 Funds
(1000)
24-25 Funds
(1000)
25-26 Funds
(1000)
26-27 Funds
(1000) PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON
NI Fund totals Project Type DAC SRTS BA Agency Comments SJ COG 10-San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission-1 SJ East Channel Street Streetscape and Connectivity Project $ 10,492 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Large Infrastructure x
$ 3,500 $ 3,500
$ -
SJ COG 10-San Joaquin County-2 SJ Countywide Sidewalks Connectivity Plan $ 566 $ 273 $ 273 Plan x x $ 273 $ 273
$ -
SJ COG 10-Stockton, City of-4 SJ Main and Market Complete Streets (Phase 1) $ 10,142 $ 8,226 $ 1,333 $ 6,893 Large Infrastructure x x x
$ 1,333 $ 4,750 $ 6,083 $ 2,143 $ 2,143
SJ COG 10-Tracy, City of-1 SJ East Schulte Safety and Multimodal Community Corridor - MacArthur Phase $ 1,712 $ 1,712 $ 53 $ 200 $ 1,459 Medium Infrastructure x x
$ 53 $ 200 $ 1,459 $ 1,712 $ -
Total $ 22,912 $ 13,711 $ 5,106 $ 6,946 $ 200 $ 1,459 FTF STATE Total
$2,143 $11,568 $13,711
2,143$ 11,568$ 13,711$
$0 $0 $0
Blue column heading indicates the column data is a drop down menu to select project type State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
Over or Under Estimate amount
SJ COG Fund estimate totals
Program funding totals
6/5/2023 S:\ATP\2023 ATP\MPO Component\Staff Recommendations\SJCOG\FINAL\Attachment 3_2023 ATP MPO Programming Spreadsheet.xlsx 1 of 1 Stanislaus Council of Governments
1111 I Street, Ste 308
Modesto, CA 95354
209.525.4600 Main
209.558.7833 Fax
www.stancog.org
Member Agencies
City of Ceres
City of Hughson
City of Modesto
City of Newman
City of Oakdale
City of Patterson
City of Riverbank
City of Turlock
City of Waterford
Stanislaus County
Policy Board Chair
Javier Lopez
Policy Board
Vice-Chair
Pam Franco
Executive Director
Rosa De León Park
February 21, 2023
Mr. Mitch Weiss, Executive Director
California Transportation Commission 1120
N Street MS 52
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Draft Cycle 6 ATP MPO Programming Recommendation
Dear Mr. Weiss:
Please find attached the draft Cycle 6 Active Transportation Program (ATP) programming recommendation for the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG). The recommendation will be reviewed by StanCOG’s technical and policy advisory committees in Februa ry and March 2023. Final project recommendations will be submitted to the California Transportation Commission before April 21, 2023.
Please feel free to contact me or Elisabeth Hahn, Deputy Director of Planning and Programming, at (209) 525- 4600 should you have any questions or need additional information pertaining to our programming recommendation.
Sincerely,
Rosa De Leon Park
Executive Director
Checklist Attachments:
2. List of Members in Multidisciplinary Advisory Group
3. Description of Unbiased Project Selection Method
4. Board Resolution Approving Projects
5. Completed Programming Spreadsheet
6. List of All Projects Evaluated and Regiona l Competition Scores
7. Contingency List
8. Updated PPRs
9. Copies of Applications Not Submitted Through State Process Recommended for Funding
List of Members in Multi-Disciplinary Advisory Group
ATP Cycle 6 Review Committee
Carla Jauregui City of Hughson
Rob Marler City of Waterford/Oakdale
Isael Ojeda Stanislaus County
Kathryn Reyes City of Newman
Katie Quintero City of Turlock
Miha Tomuta CalWalks
Emma Goldsmith Stanislaus Council of Governments
Hazel Choi Stanislaus Council of Governments
Melany Arriola Stanislaus Council of Governments
Agency Project Title
Total ATP
Fund
Request
Total Project
Cost
Regional
Score
Recommended
Funding
Ceres Building on Active Transportation Connectivity and Access within the City $2,858 $2,858 102.75 $2,858
Stanislaus
County
Denair School Safe Crossing and Active
Transportation Connectivity Project (*1) $1,873 $3,498 98.50 $1,978 Modesto Encina-Lincoln Bike Path (*2) $8,585 $9,985 97.75 Waterford Waterford Tim Bell Road Pedestrian
Improvements $1,993 $1,993 94.50 $1,993
Oakdale Southwest Downtown - Safe Routes to School
Project $968 $998 94.25 $968
Ceres Improving Pedestrian Safety on Central Ave and
Hackett Road Corridor $2,495 $2,612 94.00 $2,495
Waterford Waterford Safe Routes to School Project –
Washington Road $697 $697 93.25
Waterford Waterford Welch Street Pedestrian Improvements $864 $864 91.25 Turlock Berkeley Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements $3,155 $3,448 91.00
Patterson Patterson Salado Creek Bike Trail - Phase 2 $1,900 $1,929 79.75 Riverbank Patterson Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Connectivity Project $2,189 $2,189 72.25
Riverbank Eastern Stanislaus Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Project $4,362 $4,362 63.88
$31,939 $35,433 $10,292
*1
*2
The County's Denair project is recommended for $105,000 more than requested to reduce their 46% local match and to ensure that all funding available to StanCOG is programmed.
As the third-ranked project, the Encina-Lincoln project would have received partial funding. The City of Modesto indicated to StanCOG it could only accept full funding, so this project has not been funded this cycle.
TOTAL FUNDING REQUEST
($000s)
2023 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6
MPO Component - Project Recommendations
FY 2022/23 - 2026/27
Stanislaus County Association of Governments
MPO Component Project Selection
Guidelines for Cycle 6 of the Active
T
ransportation Program
Approved per StanCOG Resolution 22-14
Approved per CTC Resolution G-22-63
Applications Due: November 18, 2022
This
document serves as StanCOG’s Cycle 6 ATP MPO Component Project Selection Guidelines.
The guidelines substantially follow those of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) but include a number of differences based on the region’s existing policies and priorities.
StanCOG will issue a regional call for projects for the MPO Component. Projects not selected for programming in the statewide competition, but deemed eligible for the regional program, will be considered. In addition, the agencies who did not submit an application to the statewide competitive ATP will need to complete a statewide ATP application form to be considered for the
regional call for projects.
General Criteria
Project Scoring
StanCOG will not use the scores received by each project under the Statewide Component for its MPO Component. Each project will be reviewed by a multi-disciplinary project evaluation Committee and will be given a new score.
Infrastructure projects will be scored following the statewide ATP scoring rubrics for the small
infrastructure application.
Non-Infrastructure projects will be scored using the statewide ATP scoring rubric for Non-Infrastructure Projects.
Plans will be scored using the statewide ATP scoring rubric for Plan Project Applications.
All projects will have the opportunity for bonus points using the regional criteria specified below.
Contingency List
StanCOG will prepare a list of contingency projects, ranked in priority order based on the project’s evaluation score. Funding would be made available to projects on the contingency list should there be any project failures or savings from projects selected for funding under the Cycle 6 MPO
Component. This will ensure full use all MPO Component ATP funds, and that no ATP funds are lost from the region. The contingency list is valid until the adoption of the next ATP Statewide Component project funding recommendations.
Regional Evaluation Criteria
Benefit to Disadvantaged Communities (5 points)
The 2023 ATP Guidelines state that MPOs may use different criteria for determining which projects benefit Disadvantaged Communities if the criteria are approved by the Commission.
StanCOG will use the same criteria from the 2023 ATP Guidelines with the following exception:
Five (5) additional points will be awarded for projects benefiting severely disadvantaged communities as follows:
For projects using:
Median Household Income (MHI) Criteria <60% of MHI
CalEnviroScreen Criteria <5% most disadvantaged
Free or Reduced Lunches Criteria >95% of students receive free or reduced lunches
Healthy Places Index Score Healthy places index score <5 Percentile
Need (5 points)
In order to encourage agencies to submit infrastructure projects for funding through the Active Transportation Program, an additional 5
bonus points will be awarded to projects that consist of Safe Routes to School infrastructure or Bicycle and/or Pedestrian infrastructure. If the project contains Non-Infrastructure elements, the cost for the non- infrastructure component cannot exceed 25% of the total project cost in order to be
awarded the 5 bonus points.
Leveraging (5 points)
In order to encourage the use of local and regional measure funds for the preliminary phases of ATP projects, 5 additional points will be awarded for projects using local or regional measure funds for the environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction phases.
Points Amount Leveraged
2 More than 11.47% to 15% of total project cost
3 More than 15% to 20% of total project cost
5 More than 20% of total project cost
Regional Active Transportation Plans (3 points)
Additional points will be awarded for projects that are part of a Complete Streets Plan, Active Transportation Plan, or similar plan.
Regional Goals (2 points)
P
rojects that are included in StanCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and advance the RTP goals will be awarded additional 2 points.
109
1 STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION 23-XX
APPROVING THE 2023 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION COMPONENT PROJECT SELECTION FOR THE CYCLE 6 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Stanislaus County, pursuant to State and federal designation; and
WHEREAS, the California State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes 2013), establishing the Active Transportation Program (ATP); and
WHEREAS, StanCOG as the RTPA and MPO for Stanislaus County, is eligible to receive an annual urban region distribution of ATP funding from the California Transportation Commission (CTC); and
WHEREAS the Stanislaus urban region distribution of ATP funding, also known as the “MPO Component”,
for the four-year, Cycle 6 period of FY 23/24 – 26/27 totals $10,292,000; and
WHEREAS, StanCOG adopted, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2381(a)(1), ATP Project Selection Guidelines consistent with guidelines adopted by the CTC pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2382(a) on August 17, 2022 ; and
WHEREAS,
the ATP Project Selection Guidelines allow projects submitted by member agencies requesting MPO Component ATP funding to be evaluated by StanCOG in a transparent manner, consistent with guidelines adopted by the CTC pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2382(a); and
WHEREAS, StanCOG’s ATP Project Selection Guidelines were submitted to the CTC and
approved by the CTC at its August 2022 meeting; and
WHEREAS, a multi-disciplinary project evaluation committee formed by StanCOG evaluated and recommended projects according to the ATP Project Selection Guidelines for inclusion in the StanCOG Active Transportation Program of Projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Stanislaus Council of Governments hereby approves and adopts the StanCOG MPO Component Project Recommendations for the Cycle 6 Active Transportation Program, attached hereto as Attachment 1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the StanCOG Executive Director shall forward a copy of thi
s resolution and information pertaining to recommended projects to the CTC, Caltrans, and to such other agencies as may be appropriate, in order for the CTC to approve the recommendation. 110
2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to make administrative changes, as needed, to ensure that the projects are implemented in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus Council of Governments on the 15 th day of March 202 3. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted.
MEETING DATE: March 15, 2023
JAVIER LOPEZ,
CHAIR
ATTEST:
ROSA DE LEÓN PARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
110
2 ATTACHMENT 1
MPO COMPONENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CYCLE 6 ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
1. Ceres, Building on Active Transportation Connectivity and Access within the City ATP Cycle 6 Funding: $2,858,000
2. Stanislaus County, Denair School Safe Crossing and Active Transportation Connectivity Project
ATP Cycle 6 Funding: $1,978,000*
3. Waterford, Waterford Tim Bell Road Pedestrian Improvements ATP Cycle 6 Funding: $1,993,00
4. Oakdale, Southwest Downtown - Safe Routes to School Project ATP Cycle 6 Funding: $968,000
5. Ceres, Improving Pedestrian Safety on Central Ave and Hackett Road Corridor ATP Cycle 6 Funding: $2,495,000
* The County’s Denair project is recommended for $105,000 in additional funding than requested to reduce the County’s 46% local match and to ensure that all funding available to StanCOG, as the MPO, is programmed.
Metropolitan Planning Organization Component
($ in thousands)
MPO Application ID County Project Title Total Project Cost (1000)
ATP Request
(1000)
23-24 Funds
(1000)
24-25 Funds
(1000)
25-26 Funds
(1000) 26-27 Funds (1000) PA&ED PS&E ROW CON CON NI Fund totals Project Type DAC SRTS BA Agency Comments STAN
COG 10 - Ceres, City of - 2 STAN Building on Active Transportation Connectivity and Access within the City $ 2,858 $ 2,858 $ 256 $ 2,602 Small Infrastructure x
$ 256 $ 2,602 $ 2,858 STAN
COG 10 - Stanislaus County - 1 STAN Denair School Safe Crossing and Active Transportation Connectivity Project $ 3,498 $ 1,978 $ 1,978 Small Infrastructure x
$ 299 $ 299 $ 1,679 $ 1,679
STAN
COG 10-Waterford, City of - 2 STAN Waterford Tim Bell Road Pedestrian Improvements $ 1,993 $ 1,993 $ 15 $ 170 $ 1,808 Small Infrastructure x
$ 15 $ 55 $ 115 $ 1,808 $ 1,993 $ -
STAN
COG 10-Oakdale, City of -1 Southwest Downtown - Safe Routes to School Project $ 998 $ 968 $ 968 Small Infrastructure x x
$ 968 $ 968 $ -
STAN
COG 10 - Ceres, City of - 1 Improving Pedestrian Safety on Central Ave and Hackett Road Corridor $ 2,612 $ 2,495 $ 80 $ 850 $ 1,565 Small Infrastructure x x
$ 80 $ 213 $ 637 $ 1,565 $ 2,495 $ -
Total $ 11,959 $ 10,292 $ 1,063 $ 1,276 $ 4,410 $ 3,543 FTF STATE Total
$1,679 $8,613 $10,292
1,679$ 8,613$ 10,292$
$0 $0 $0
Blue column heading indicates the column data is a drop down menu to select project type State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
State funds
Federal (FTF) funds
Over or Under Estimate amount
Stan COG Fund estimate totals
Program funding totals
6/5/2023 C:\Users\s151700\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\0TGAN2S7\Revised StanCOG 2023 ATP MPO Prog Spreadsheet revised 041023.xlsx 1 of 1 Agency Project Title Total ATP
Fund Request
Total Project
Cost
Regional
Score
Modesto Encina-Lincoln Bike Path $8,585 $9,985 97.75
Waterford Waterford Safe Routes to School Project –
Washington Road $697 $697 93.25
Waterford Waterford Welch Street Pedestrian
Improvements $864 $864 91.25
Turlock Berkeley Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements $3,155 $3,448 91.00
Patterson Patterson Salado Creek Bike Trail - Phase 2 $1,900 $1,929 79.75 Riverbank Patterson Road Bicycle/Pedestrian
Connectivity Project $2,189 $2,189 72.25
Riverbank Eastern Stanislaus Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Project $4,362 $4,362 63.88
$21,752 $23,474
MPO Component - Contingency List
FY 2022/23 - 2026/27
2023 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6
TOTAL FUNDING REQUEST
Southern California Association of Governments
Page | 1 of 2
April 21, 2023
Laurie Waters
California Transportation Commission
1120 N Street, MS-52
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: SCAG ATP Cycle 5 Regional Program
Dear Ms. Waters:
On April 7, 2022, SCAG’s Regional Council approved the Regional ATP Guidelines which established a selection process for two categories of projects: (1) Implementation Projects and (2) Planning & Capacity Building Projects.
Implementation Projects: No less than 95% of the funding ($343.1 million) was recommended to proposals in this category. The selection process for Implementation Projects was the same as in previous cycles and was predominately managed by the six county transportation commissions in the SCAG region. Eligible applicants applied for these funds by submitting an application through the statewide ATP call for projects. Base scores were established through the statewide ATP review process. The Regional Guidelines allowed county transportation commissions to prioritize projects by adding up to twenty (20) points, on a 120 -point scale, to supplement the state‐provided base scores. As in previous cycles, the Board of each county transportation commission approved the methodology for assigning the additional points, as well as approved the final project scores. Total funding available in each county was based on population‐based funding targets.
Planning & Capacity Building Projects : No more than five percent (5%) of the funding ($18.1 million) was recommended to proposals in this category. Unlike previous cycles where SCAG hosted a supplemental call for projects through its Sustainable Communities Program (SCP), the project selection process relied entirely on the statewide ATP application and scoring process. As with the Implementation Project category, each county transport ation commission prioritized projects by adding up to twenty (20) points, to supplement the state‐ provided base scores. Once all Planning & Capacity Building Projects were funded, remaining funds ($9.4 million) from this category were applied to the Implementation Project category.
On April 6, 2023 SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the project list for the 202 3 SCAG Regional Active Transportation Program (see attached Resolution). The adopted Regional Program of 75 projects was assembled by combining recommendations from the Imp lementation and the Planning & Capability Building categories. The recommended program allocates 96.8% of available funds to disadvantaged communities (DACs) exceeding the statewide minimum requirement of 25%.
Page | 2 of 2
ATP Funding by County ($1,000s)
Implementation Planning & Capacity
Building
Total Regional ATP
Imperial $3,270 $0 $3,270
Los Angeles $185,891 $6,230 $192,121
Orange $60,293 $850 $61,143
Riverside $45,952 $441 $46,394
San Bernardino $41,234 $800 $42,034
Ventura $15,869 $320 $16,189
Total $352,509 $8,641 $361,151
Each of the six counties have partially funded projects. In some cases , the partial funding will just fund phases of the proposed project, such as environmental or design. In other cases, the local agency will be providing funds to complete the project as proposed and in others the scope has been revised to complete a component of the proposed project. Revised Project Programing Request are attached for all partially funded projects.
Sincerely,
Cory Wilkerson
Principal Planner - Active Transportation
Southern California Association of Governments
List of Stakeholder Group and Project Selection Methodology
SCAG convened a group of stakeholders for the devel opment of the Regional Guidelines and the 2023 Regional Acti ve Transportation Program (MPO Componen t Project List). The stakeholder group was comprised of SCAG staff and representatives from each of the six County Transportation Commissions in the SCAG region. The following is a list of the stakeholder group:
Cory Wilkerson: [email protected]
Courtney Aguirre: [email protected]
Virginia Mendoza: [email protected]
Shelly Quan: [email protected]
Louis Zhao: [email protected]
Denise Sifford: [email protected]
Jenny Chan: [email protected]
Edward Emery: [email protected]
Vanessa Schoenewald: [email protected]
Ginger Koblasz: [email protected]
Jamie Carone: [email protected]
Heather Miller: [email protected]
The Regional Guidelines allowed county transportation commissions to prioritize projects by adding up to twenty (20) points, on a 120 -point scale, to supplement the state‐provided base scores. As in previous cycles, the Board of each county transportation commission approved the methodology for assigning the additional points, as well as approved the final project scores. Unlike previous cycles, SCAG did not host a supplemental Call for Projects. The following is a summary of each County’s methodology:
Imperial County:
A. 20 points for projects that have been identified in an adopted local and/or regional plan; and B. Zero points for projects that have not been identified in an adopted local and/or regional plan
Los Angeles County:
Project sponsor must have an adopted Complete Streets Policy or other qualifying document in order to be considered for any points.
Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure/Quick Builds
A. Equity Focus Communities: 3
B. Consistency with Local/Regional Plans – Regional Plans: 1 • Leverages Measure M
• Implements the Active Transportation Strategic Plan
and/or
Consistency with Local/Regional Plans – project has robust community support: 1 C. Bonus for First/Last Mile: 5
Total (Up to) 10 points
Plans
A. Equity Focus Communities: 3
B. Community Engagement: 3
a. Plan will employ strategies to reach Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color; linguistically isolated individuals; and people with disabilities, and/or b. Plan will be developed in partnership with or engage with Community Based Organizations, and/or Plan is supported by local stakeholders C. Safety Data: 4
Total (Up to) 10 points
Orange County:
A. A planned bikeway in the Orange County Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan or OC Active: 10 B. Project is included in the Orange County district bikeway strategies: 10 C. Project is included in the OCTA non-motorized Metrolink Accessibility Strategy: 10 D. Project is a sidewalk along a roadway on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways: 5 E. Project is included in a state or local agency bicycle or pedestrian master plan, active transportation plan, or complete streets plan: 5
F. Project is included in a local safety plan, including but not limited to, Safe Routes to Schools, Local Roadway Safety Plan, Vision Zero Plan, or implements countermeasures to identified crash typologies in the project area consistent with the Orange County Systemic Safety Plan: 5 G. Project is included in a specific plan or corridor plan: 2 H. Project is included in local agency general plan or circulation element: 2 Maximum of 20 points
Riverside County:
A. Requesting construction-only funding: 6
B. Construction funding in the first three years of programming: 4 C. PA/ED completed – either CEQA, NEPA, or both: 7
D. PA/ED started – either CEQA, NEPA, or both (partial funding): 3 E. Projects identified in WRCOG Sub-regional Active Transportation Plan or CVAG Non-Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan, bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan: 3
F. Plan and non-infrastructure projects that receive a minimum statewide score of 80 points will receive a maximum award amount of $442,000 per project
San Bernardino County:
A. All projects will receive an additional 20 points
Ventura County:
For Construction Projects:
A. Four (4) points will be awarded if the project is identified in an approved, adopted Bicycle, Pedestrian or Active Transportation Plan OR
B. Eight (8) points will be awarded if the project is identified in a plan and the conceptual design has been completed, OR
C. Ten (10) points will be awarded if the project is identified in a plan and the Conceptual design has been completed, and the ATP Cycle 6 application shows the preconstruction phases fully funded by the Local Agency.
AND
D. Up to five (5) points will be awarded for a project demonstrating enhanced access to transit stops.
For Planning Projects:
A. Fifteen (15) points will be awarded if the project is to prepare a Citywide, Areawide or Corridor Specific Active Transportation Plan
AND
B. Five (5) points for Any Project with a Safe Routes to Schools Component: Projects will be awarded 5 points if the Safe Routes to Schools box is checked in the Cycle 6 Application
Project Title County ATP Request
Final State
Score
Final MPO
Score
1 SR86 Multimodal Gap Closure: Aten to Wall Rd Imperial $9,900 65.0 85.0 2 Alamo River Trail Paving Project Imperial $1,057 44.0 64.0 3 City of Carson City-wide Community Safety Improvements Los Angeles $2,328 75.0 78.0 4 Hollywood Walk of Fame Safety and Connectivity Project: Phase 1 Los Angeles $24,605 64.0 73.0 5 East-West Bikeway Project Los Angeles $7,893 69.0 71.0 6 East San Gabriel Valley Sustainable Multimodal Improvement Project Los Angeles $45,229 58.0 66.0 7 Verdugo Wash: Active Transportation Master Plan Los Angeles $5,000 55.5 64.5 8 Randolph Street Bike and Facilities Improvement Project Los Angeles $1,375 58.0 63.0 9 Mulholland Highway School Safety Improvements Los Angeles $693 60.0 61.0 10 Cornell Road Bike Turnout Project Los Angeles $1,200 56.0 57.0 11 North Fair Oaks Avenue Enhancement Project Los Angeles $4,182 50.0 55.0 12 El Segundo Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Los Angeles $275 52.5 54.0 13 East 1st Street and Baseline Road Street Improvements Project Los Angeles $7,766 48.0 52.0 14 City of Vernon - Open Streets Los Angeles $176 40.0 47.0 15 San Fernando Safe and Active Streets Network Los Angeles $5,801 34.5 44.0 16 Greenway Traffic Circle Improvement Project on Rives Avenue Los Angeles $900 37.5 40.0 17 ATP Cycle 6 Green Bike Lanes and Video Detection Improvements Los Angeles $996 28.0 29.0 18 Tracks at Brea - Western Extension Orange $1,500 75.0 95.0 19 Adams Avenue Active Transportation Improvements, Costa Mesa Orange $4,223 72.0 89.0 20 La Habra Rails to Trail OC Loop Gap Closure Orange $13,400 76.0 96.0 21 Laguna Canyon Road Improvements Orange $9,100 44.5 64.5 22 Santiago Creek Bike Trail Gap Closure Orange $9,462 61.0 81.0 23 Monroe Elementary and Edison Elementary SRTS Orange $8,533 68.0 85.0 24 Safe Mobility Santa Ana Orange $7,963 48.0 68.0
25 Heroes Elementary, Carver Elementary, Willard Elementary, and Wilson Intermediate SRTS Orange $9,999 84.0 96.0 26 Ross Street Complete Streets Orange $5,938 79.0 99.0 27 King Elementary, Lincoln Elementary, Monte Vista Elementary, and Griset Academy SRTS Orange $4,490 75.0 87.0 28 Adams Elementary, Carr Intermediate, Godinez Fund High, Harvey Elementary, and Valley High SRTS Orange $9,346 81.0 93.0 29 Fairhaven Elementary and Muir Fundamental Elementary SRTS Orange $8,566 69.0 81.0 30 Jefferson Elementary, Thrope Fundamental, McFadden Institute of Technology, and Greenville Fund Elementary SRTS Orange $9,936 63.0 70.0 31 Lathrop Intermediate, Lowell Elementary, Martin Elementary, Pio Pico Elementary, and Franklin Elementary SRTS Orange $9,934 84.5 96.5 32 Esqueda Elementary, Chavez High, Washington Elementary, and Saddleback High Orange $7,350 76.0 93.0 33 Bishop Street Bicycle Boulevard Project Orange $6,285 78.0 98.0 34 Rosita Elementary and Hazard Elementary Orange $6,284 72.0 84.0 35 Fitz Intermediate, Heritage Elementary, Russell Elementary, and Newhope Elementary Orange $8,921 80.0 97.0 36 Orangewood Avenue Bicycle and Traffic Calming Project Orange $8,369 64.0 84.0 37 Riverside County Safe Routes for All - Palm Springs Riverside $630 78.0 78.0 38 Riverside County Safe Routes for All - Cathedral City Riverside $820 78.0 78.0 39 Lakeview/Nuevo Mobility Plan Riverside $300 75.0 75.0 40 Riverside's Fifty Individualized SRTS Studies and Safety Circulation Plans Riverside $1,708 71.0 71.0 2023 SCAG Active Transportation Regional Program Contingency List Project Title County ATP Request
Final State
Score
Final MPO
Score
2023 SCAG Active Transportation Regional Program Contingency List 41 Update to Corona's Bicycle Master Plan Riverside $500 69.0 69.0 45 Desert Hot Springs CV Link Extension Project Riverside $31,676 66.0 86.0 46 Mission Trail & Bundy Canyon Community Connections Riverside $20,666 76.0 79.0 47 Mission Trail Sedco neighborhood Active Transportation Project Riverside $3,499 72.0 79.0 48 Meca-North Shore Community Connector Bike Lanes Riverside $11,785 77.0 77.0 49 Temecula Creek Southside Trail Gap Closure Riverside $5,810 61.0 77.0 50 Roadway Widening and Bicycle Lane Improvements Riverside $1,794 62.0 66.0 51 Connecting Coachella Riverside $15,114 55.5 65.5
52 Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Connectivity Project Riverside $983 52.0 56.0 53 Hemet Area Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Project Riverside $2,069 46.0 46.0 54 Jewel Community Complete Streets Improvements Riverside $5,896 32.0 39.0 55 Corona Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure Riverside $2,311 21.0 28.0 56 Citywide Video Detection System and Audible Pedestrian Signal Upgrades Riverside $1,366 20.0 24.0 57 Enhancement of Juan Bautista Trail Riverside $1,973 7.0 58 San Sevaine Class I Multi-Use Trail: Valley to Foothill San Bernardino $16,992 70.0 90.0 59 Marygold Avenue Sidewalk Improvements San Bernardino $1,920 64.0 84.0 60 Orange Blossom Trail Phase IV San Bernardino $1,162 62.0 82.0 61 Marshall Elementary Safe Route to School Improvements San Bernardino $3,889 56.0 76.0 62 Mission Boulevard Bike Lane and Pedestrian Improvements, Ontario San Bernardino $8,363 55.0 75.0 63 San Sevaine Class I Multi-Use Trail: Philadelphia to Slover San Bernardino $11,866 54.0 74.0 64 William McKinley Elementary ES Safe Route to School Project San Bernardino $712 36.0 56.0 65 Bear Valley Road Class 1 Bike Path, Apple Valley San Bernardino $1,829 33.0 53.0 66 Santa Paula Branch Line Multi-use Path Ventura $20,417 78.0 96.0 Total $445,025
RESOLUTION NO. 23-654-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) APPROVING
THE RECOMMENDED PROJECT LISTS FOR THE 2023 SCAG REGIONAL ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization, for the six-county region consisting of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties pursuant to 23 U.S.C.§ 134 et seq. and 49 U.S.C. §5303 et seq.;
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Program was created by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking;
WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code Section 2382(k) allows the California Transportation Commission to adopt separate guidelines for the metropolitan planning organizations charged with awarding funds to projects pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2381(a )(1) relative to project selection;
WHEREAS, SCAG adopted the Regional Program Guidelines with input from the six Southern California county transportation commissions on April 7, 2022 to govern award of projects funded through the SCAG Regional Program;
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Program Guidelines (Resolution G - 22-30) require metropolitan planning organizations to submit their Regional Program of projects and contingency list to the Commission by April 21, 2023;
WHEREAS, SCAG in collaboration with the six Southern California county transportation commissions has impl emented a project selection process that meets the requirements of the Active Transportation Program Guidelines (Resolution G -22-30) and Regional Program Guidelines, and has reached consensus on the 20 23 SCAG Regional Active Transportation Program and Contingency List.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments does hereby adopt the 20 23 SCAG Regional Active Transportation Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Regional Council directs staff to submit the Regional Program Project and Contingency List for the 20 23 SCAG Regional Active Transportation Program to the California Transportation Commission.