The Active Transportation Program (ATP) has always been oversubscribed and underfunded; it’s almost a trope that is heard regularly at California Transportation Commission and Caltrans meetings. It’s been clear for a while that for projects that make biking and walking easier, safer, and more comfortable, demand is much higher than available funds.
But funding for the current ATP cycle is so tight that program staff held an unusual “funding reduction workshop” yesterday to discuss how to make decisions in the face of such a small budget.
“What we have to share today is pretty grim,” said ATP Deputy Director Laurie Waters, by way of introduction. “We want to make sure everybody understands what’s happening, and how we are proposing to address it. Remember that nothing is final until the commission adopts it. We’re here to take input and answer questions.”
Because applications for Cycle 7 have already been submitted, staff is not considering any major changes to the program guidelines. But there are two issues they were concerned about, and looking for feedback on.
Breaking Ties
First, while there is an existing process for deciding between projects that have the same score, staff anticipate that it might not be adequate for this cycle. Projects are scored out of 100 points on criteria like whether they benefit a disadvantaged community, how good their public outreach and participation is, and how well they fit with other plans and projects. The cut-off point for funding has always been high, which guarantees only the best projects get funding, as long as the scoring is correct. But this time around the cut-off point will likely be extremely high, and deciding how to break ties will be even harder. ATP staff need an equitable and agreed-upon method for choosing.
Right now, there are three tiebreaker criteria, based on project readiness and the highest scores on high-point-value questions (which vary according to application). Staff propose adding three more criteria after those: whether an applicant has submitted for the same project in two or more ATP cycles and not been funded; if the project was submitted by a tribal applicant (the ATP has not funded very many tribal projects yet); and then one more look at the highest scoring question.
Contingency List
A second concern for staff is there is still a (small) chance that some funding could be restored to the program – more on that below. Staff are proposing to create a “contingency” list of already scored projects that, if funding were to be arrive, they could tap without having to revisit the entire process or wait for the next cycle. One benefit of doing that would be that applicants would not have to resubmit their projects, staff would not have to start from scratch on analyzing and scoring them, and funding could be relatively quickly awarded to those on the list.
CTC staff usually create an informal contingency list, just in case projects that do get funded have to drop out for any reason. This proposal was for a formal list to be adopted by the California Transportation Commission at the same time that it adopts the Cycle 7 projects.
There were some questions from workshop participants about whether a contingency list would be the best method here. There could be confusion about what it means to be on a “contingency list” where your project does not get funding, but maybe perhaps it might if the stars line up. Some thought it might be easier to just move any restored funding to the next cycle. Applicants who don’t get funding wouldn’t necessarily be faced with much more extra work to reapply. (“We do it all the time,” said one participant. “We can always revise and resubmit; it’s never wasted work.”)
But others pointed out that adopting such a list would not only allow quick action by ATP staff if the budget did get restored; it would also give advocates and legislators a clear idea of what projects are not being built but could be if more funding were made available.
About that Funding
As for Cycle 7 funding: right now there is only $168.7 million available for the entire four years of programming. It was going to be zero, but $200 million was restored in last-minute budget negotiations. The final state budget says that it “allows for the remaining $400 million to be added, subject to appropriation, in future fiscal years.” That’s why APT staff think the program might – MIGHT – be allocated more money, and why they want to be prepared for it.
But what does “the remaining $400 million” mean? It’s complicated, because the state budget works in years and the ATP works in four-year overlapping cycles. But briefly: Cycle 6 received a large, one-time augmentation of $1 billion from the general fund when the state budget was flush and the governor was feeling generous.
Except that it didn’t. That is, when the state budget got tight, Newsom wanted to “claw back” $600 million of it. The problem is, that promised money had already been programmed into Cycle 6.
While, as one can clearly see, the ATP is a victim of wild fluctuations in the state budget, generally it can expect about $600 million per cycle ($200 million per year) from a variety of federal and state sources. That’s why the amount available for the entire Cycle 7 would have been zero, if Newsom had had the final say. But the $200 million that was grudgingly given back doesn’t even really amount to $200 million for Cycle 7, because some of it had to be used for projects in Cycle 6 that had already been programmed, and are being built.
Here’s another perspective. In Cycle 6, the ATP received 454 applications for projects, requesting $3.1 billion – more than three times what that extra $1 billion could cover. Sure, not all of those scored high – but many did. This time around, with only $168 million available, the ATP has received 277 applications requesting a total of $2.5 billion. That would have been about 4.5 times more than the available funding, if the ATP got the $600 million it expected.
But with this reduced budget, the requests are fifteen times as much as the money available.
In one sense, it’s not all bad. Cycle 6 got extra funding, and put it to use. But taking most of that promised money back upended the ATP budget, and staff will now have to turn away a lot of high-scoring projects.
Is the state highway fund having these problems? Do state highway projects even get scored on whether they benefit a community, let alone a disadvantaged community, or whether they conduct good public outreach, or even how they fit in with other plans – like, oh, say, climate action or clean air plans? Do freeway proponents ever attend a “pretty grim” “funding reduction workshop”? Do freeway project selection processes need arcane tiebreaking criteria? Does the state approve freeway expansion funds, but only subject to the potential contingency that future funding just might become available?
No, they don’t.
There’s a stark contrast between how seriously California takes car infrastructure and how precariously it supports green, safe, climate friendly transportation.
