1. A CTIVE T RANSPORTATION P ROGRAM (ATP) Lessons Learned from Cycle 1

2. L ESSONS L EARNED FROM C YCLE 1

3. S CREENING C RITERIA 2. C ONSISTENCY WITH R EGIONAL P LAN 3 All projects submitted must be consistent with the relevant adopted regional transportation plan that has been developed and updated pursuant to Government Code Section 65080. Great example: This application included 8 pages plus the cover page (which showed the date the plan was adopted). Applications not providing proof will not be evaluated. ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop Highlighting will not show up on Black & White copies. If your 4 copies are in B&W use a star or circle important info, instead of highlighting

4. Better wording Instead of saying: The extreme disrepair of the facility creates a hazard... 4 Does this mean? The facility has exceeded it’s design life; and this condition creates a hazard... The reviewer is wondering- if the agency just hasn’t been maintaining/repairing it’s facilities, we tend to question how well a new facility will be treated... ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

5. The CTC Guidelines say: Your PPR funding information should only reflect the current segment’s funding information, Therefore your responses to the Narrative Questions should generally address the segment that is getting funded. You can describe the bigger picture; but your data needs to cover only the segment being funded, 5 If your are applying for a segment of a larger project- ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

6. Application Question #1 (0-30 points) Cycle 1 scorer comments- Mode Shift Cycle 2 Question #1 (0-30 points) Applicant repeatedly refers to user benefits but fails to describe what sites and destinations would generate such usage. No data or information on ways that the project will encourage or increase walking & biking. 6 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

7. Application Question #2 (0-25 points) Cycle 1 scorer comments- Safety Cycle 2 Question #2 (0-25 points) Applicant failed to describe existing safety conditions. Safety data did not distinguish injuries or fatalities. Data provided is not related to the project area. It is a good idea to have agencies to post signs along Class I bikeways and other off-road facilities, that indicate who to contact with accident information (for better tracking info). Applicant’s response to the whole question was N/A- I’m not sure why they bothered to submit this application. 7 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

8. Application Question #3 (0-15 points) Cycle 1 scorer comments- Public participation Cycle 2 Question #3 (0-15 points) Applicant failed to provide adequate methodology used for public outreach, especially disadvantaged community residents, and does not explain the role of each stakeholder listed in the overall process: o Simply stating that an extensive outreach process was used is not sufficient, attach: Meeting minutes and/or agendas (in appropriate languages) Sign in sheets Public meeting documents were referenced, but not attached. 8 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

9. Application Question #3 Cycle 1 scorer comments continued Applicant didn’t describe how the event notification was done: o Newspapers? o Website/Social Media? o Meetings? (City Council, citizen advisory) o Radio? o School/Parent meetings? 9 Applicant didn’t describe where the meetings were held: o Were they accessible (ADA)? Near public transit? Applicant didn’t mention if translation services were provided. o Or if so what language(s)? ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

10. Application Question #3 Cycle 1 scorer comments continued Applicant didn’t describe how stakeholder input was (or will be, for a Plan) addressed. Applicant didn’t mention if child care or snacks were provided Applicant met with a large number of agencies and departments; but o There was no mention of meetings with the residents or o end users. 10 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

11. Application Question #4 (0-10 points) Cycle 1 scorer comments- Cost Effectiveness Cycle 2 Question #6 (0-5 points) 11 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop More time was needed in this area for the description of alternatives, cost/benefit analysis of each, process for project decision making and the benefit/cost ratio are highly important considerations. No Build is not an acceptable alternative. Applicant needs to describe that they looked at, other routes, or widths, or materials; and why this alternative was selected; or they have already addressed all of the other needs in the project area, and this is the last one!

12. Application Question #5 (0-10 points) Cycle 1 scorer comments- Public Health Cycle 2 Question #4 (0-10 points) Applicant does not provide adequate discussion of the public health issues is the area of the project. No area-specific data provided. Application didn’t provide information regarding coordination with local health professionals. County-wide health data, not community focused. No mention of Health data sources. 12 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

13. Application Question #6 (0-10 points) DAC Cycle 1 scorer comments Cycle 2 Question # 5 (0-10 points) Applicant failed to describe infrastructure, safety or health challenges that help establish it as a DAC, nor how the project will help overcome such challenges. Unable to asses whether the project benefits a DAC. The applicant provides data for 4 neighborhoods, but info (maps) not attached to clarify the orientation to the neighborhoods to the proposed project, and the low and very-low income residents make up less than half of the population of these neighborhoods. 13 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

14. General Cycle 1 scorer comments Very high cost project with limited benefits in an area that already has high number of students utilizing active modes of transportation. Reviewer discarded all references to the school that isn’t planned to open until 2016. Application includes ineligible items, no estimate attached to determine if these items are included in the project cost. The writer had the reader work hard to find the needed data and information; it was there but it wasn’t in any discernible order to the information. 14 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

15. General Cycle 1 scorer comments Invest the time to more completely answer the questions and you will increase your probability for funding. This appears to be a roadway rehab project with some non-motorized details thrown in. 15 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

16. Cycle 2 scoring changes There will be 2 scorers for each application There will be 1 consensus score for each question posted, and 1 total score for each application We will be giving better training for the scorers prior to the start of scoring 16 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop

17. CALTRANS IMPROVES MOBILITY ACROSS CALIFORNIA California Department of Transportation Division of Local Assistance Office of Active Transportation & Special Programs 1120 N Street, MS 1 Sacramento, CA 95814 April Nitsos, P.E. Office of Active Transportation and Special Projects- Chief April.nitsos@dot.ca.gov Office (916) 653-8450 FAX (916) 653-1905 www.dot.ca.gov CALTRANS IMPROVES MOBILITY ACROSS CALIFORNIA California Department of Transportation Division of Local Assistance Office of Active Transportation & Special Programs 1120 N Street, MS 1 Sacramento, CA 95814 Kevin Atkinson, P.E. SRTS Manager & Bike/Ped. Tech. Specialist Kevin.atkinson@dot.ca.gov Office (916) 653-6920 FAX (916) 653-1905 www.dot.ca.gov 17 ATP Cycle 2 Caltrans Workshop