A Review of the State's Active Transportation Program

A Review of the State’s Active Transportation Program GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST MARCH 1, 2019 Summary The state’s Active Transportation Program—administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—provides funding to infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects that facilitate travelers being physically active through biking and walking. Some of the primary goals of the program include increasing the number of walking and biking trips, increasing safety and mobility, and enhancing public health. In approving the 2018-19 budget package, the Legislature directed our office to review certain aspects of the program, such as the types of projects funded from the program and the extent to which funded projects are located in and directly benefit disadvantaged communities. This report responds to that requirement. Based on our review of the program and data currently available on project outcomes, we find that most program funding supports infrastructure projects, such as constructing sidewalks, bike lanes, and crossing signals. The projects funded are similar across various components of the program and most projects benefit disadvantaged communities. We also find that it is impossible to determine key program outcomes, such as whether the program is resulting in increased walking and biking and improved safety. This is because accurate information is not reported on these outcomes. In view of our findings, we recommend that the Legislature require the CTC and Caltrans to collect more accurate project outcome data. We also recommend that the Legislature consider focusing the statewide component of the program on larger and more transformative projects and consider providing additional flexibility to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for their regional component of the program. INTRODUCTION Active transportation includes walking, biking, and congestion; and increased transit ridership by facilitating other active or “human-powered” ways that people get connections to and from transit stations. from one place to another. In recent years, the state has In 2013, the state established the Active taken steps to improve the infrastructure for this type Transportation Program (ATP) by consolidating several of transportation due its many potential benefits. Such existing state and federal programs related to walking benefits include improved health for travelers; reduced and biking, in order to provide greater flexibility in meeting vehicle trips and the resulting reduction in greenhouse the state’s active transportation needs. In 2017, the state gas (GHG) emissions and air pollution; reduced traffic increased the level of funding for the ATP by $100 million, analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT bringing total annual funding for the program to of projects funded from the program; (2) identify $220 million. After roughly five years since the the extent to which funded projects are located in creation of the ATP, the Legislature has requested a and directly benefit disadvantaged communities, status update of the program in order to determine as well as benefit the state highway system; if the program is meeting its intended goals and (3) discuss any implementation challenges faced whether any changes to the program are warranted. by project sponsors; (4) review the administration Specifically, as part of the 2018-19 budget package, of the program; and (5) make recommendations for the Legislature adopted supplemental report improving the program’s effectiveness. This report language directing our office to (1) review the types responds to the supplemental report language. BACKGROUND The state has placed a greater focus in recent • Increase Number of Walking and Biking years on alternatives to driving, such as increasing Trips. This goal could be achieved through the number of trips taken via active transportation a mode shift where travelers utilize active and utilizing active transportation modes to transportation modes for some trips that facilitate connections to public transit. In order to would have otherwise required driving. support this increased focus on active modes of Additionally, increased walking and biking transportation, the state established the ATP. trips could also result if travelers choose to Various Programs Consolidated to Establish take additional trips due to the availability of ATP in 2013. As part of 2013-14 budget, the additional options for walking or biking. Governor proposed and the Legislature approved, • Increase Safety and Mobility. Given the a consolidation of three programs—Transportation inherent danger with pedestrians and Alternatives Program, Bicycle Transportation bicyclists sharing roadways with vehicles, a Account, and Safe Routes to Schools—into the large share of traffic-related fatalities involve ATP. These programs generally funded small grants travelers who walk and bike. The ATP is for projects such as improving sidewalks and intended to fund projects that improve safety crosswalks near schools and constructing bicycle and make walking and bicycling a safe lanes. The rationale for consolidating the programs alternative to driving. was to provide greater focus on the importance of • Reduce GHG Emissions. A secondary active transportation projects, increase the state’s benefit of having more people travel via active role in setting active transportation priorities, and transportation modes is a reduction in GHG potentially allow for the funding of larger and more emissions. transformative projects to increase walking and • Enhance Public Health. Another secondary biking. benefit of having more people travel via active Current state law designates CTC as the transportation modes is an improvement in administering agency for the ATP, in coordination public health. with Caltrans. The ATP provides funding to • Benefit Disadvantaged Communities. Under project sponsors (such as local jurisdictions existing state law, the program must provide and school districts) for both infrastructure and a minimum of 25 percent of funds to projects non-infrastructure projects proposed (such as bike that benefit disadvantaged communities. safety courses and education campaigns). • Benefit Many Types of Active Various Program Goals. The authorizing Transportation Users. This goal ensures legislation for ATP—Chapter 359 of 2013 (SB 99, the program focuses on various potential Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)— active transportation modes, such as walking, established six goals for the program to achieve. biking, and the use of scooters. These goals include: 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Program Funding Sources and Allocations. $250,000. To compete for funding, project sponsors Initially, the ATP received about $120 million must complete an application and submit it to the annually in federal funds and State Highway CTC. The first step in evaluating the applications Account funds that had previously been dedicated is for Caltrans to screen the applications to ensure to the individual programs that were consolidated eligibility. The CTC then uses about 100 volunteers to create the ATP. The passage of Chapter 5 of to evaluate each eligible project and give the project 2017 (SB 1, Beall)—a comprehensive transportation a score based on the approved scoring guidelines. funding package—provides an additional CTC staff also evaluate and score projects as a way $100 million to the ATP for total program funding of ensuring consistency in the scoring of projects of about $220 million annually. We note that the across the various volunteer teams. However, the program received $10 million in one-time funding in scores given by the volunteer teams are the official 2016-17 from cap-and-trade auction revenues. scores. Once all projects are evaluated and given Under current law, the ATP has three distinct a score, they are ranked from highest scoring program components to ensure a certain level of to lowest scoring, and projects for each of the geographic distribution of funds and allow different program components are selected as follows: entities to have a role in selecting projects and • Statewide Component. CTC staff select determining active transportation priorities. The projects for the statewide component specific funding allocations are: starting with the highest scoring project and • 50 percent to the statewide component of the continuing down the list until all of the funding program with projects selected by the CTC in for the statewide component of the program any region of the state. is allocated to projects. The CTC does not require that project sponsors providing • 40 percent for projects selected by MPOs. matching funds. (The funding for projects selected by MPOs is allocated among the state’s 18 MPOs based • Small Urban and Rural Component. CTC on population.) also selects the projects for the small urban and rural component of the program. After • 10 percent for projects in small urban and selecting the highest scoring projects for the rural regions. statewide component, CTC staff will continue Program Administration and Project Selection. down the list of projects to identify the next As the administering entity for the program, CTC highest scoring set of projects that are in a adopts program guidelines, develops project small urban or rural region. scoring criteria, receives and approves requests • MPO Component. After determining the to allocate funding for specific phases of projects statewide and small urban and rural projects, in the program, and works with project sponsors the remaining projects that are located in an to ensure projects are implemented as planned. MPO are available to compete for funding in The CTC has a role in administering the entire ATP the MPO component of the program. Each program, including the MPO and small urban and MPO can either use the CTC’s scoring criteria rural components of the program. (We note that the or their own guidelines and scoring criteria, Governor’s 2019-20 budget provides two additional which can include the requirement that project positions to CTC for the administration of ATP and sponsors provide matching funds. Based on another program administered by CTC.) approved scoring criteria, each MPO will then The current CTC program guidelines require all select the next highest scoring projects for project sponsors seeking ATP funding to apply funding from its share of funding for the MPO for funding through the CTC by first competing component of the program. for funding in the statewide component of the Several Project Selection Cycles Have program. The CTC puts out a call for projects Occurred. Since the program’s inception, three in funding cycles that occur every year or two. cycles of selecting projects and awarding funds The minimum project size eligible for funding is www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT have been completed. In addition, a fourth cycle of reports are intended to track whether projects project selection is currently underway. In January are being completed as planned and on time and 2019, the CTC approved projects to receive funding within budget. The project completion reports from this fourth cycle for the statewide and small should also include before and after bicycle and urban and rural components of the ATP. MPOs are pedestrian counts, if applicable, to measure the currently evaluating the remaining applications for potential change in walking and biking as a result projects within their regions to select the projects of the project. Bicycle and pedestrian counts are to receive funding from the MPO component of performed by counting the number of bicyclists and the fourth cycle. These funding cycles each cover pedestrians using a particular active transportation a multiyear period such that funding is awarded to facility (such as a sidewalk or bike lane). These projects for multiple years in each cycle. counts can be performed in a variety of ways, such Required Reporting on Project Completion as manual counting or surveying a community (such and Benefits. Project sponsors are required as a school) about how frequently individuals walk to submit semiannual reports to Caltrans and or bike. Based on the information in the progress CTC on the progress of the project. In addition, reports and project completion reports, Caltrans project sponsors are required to submit a project publishes a periodic status report on the ATP. The completion report within six months of the most recent Caltrans status report was published in project’s completion. The project completion December 2018. FINDINGS For the first three funding cycles, along with the to develop plans for improving active transportation statewide and small urban and rural components within specific communities. of the fourth funding cycle, a total of 776 active State, MPO and Rural Program Components transportation projects were programmed, as Funding Similar Types of Projects. In general, the shown in Figure 1. In total, these projects were state, MPO and small urban and rural components awarded $1.6 billion in ATP funding to fund a of the program appear to be funding the same portion of the estimated $3 billion in total project general types of projects. For example, most of the costs. (The remainder of project funding comes projects, regardless of project component, involve from other sources, such as local funds.) The infrastructure improvements to benefit bicyclists total amount of funding awarded is higher than and pedestrians. Common types of projects across the amount of funding that has been available to all components are projects that provide safer the program thus far because it includes funding pedestrian access to schools and close gaps in for planned projects in future years. Below, we existing bicycle and pedestrian corridors. The provide information on the types of projects funded, average cost of the projects and average ATP grant benefits achieved, and implementation challenges. awards are all similar across the three components of the program, which we discuss in more detail Types of Projects below. Most Projects Are Infrastructure Projects Are Small, but Appear to Be Getting Improvements. Of the 776 total projects, Larger. In the first funding cycle, the average ATP 584 projects (75 percent) are infrastructure grant award was $1.3 million and the average total projects, such as constructing bicycle lanes and project cost for those projects was about $4 million. sidewalk improvements. Additionally, 136 projects The size of the average grant award has increased (18 percent) are non-infrastructure projects, such in each of the subsequent funding cycles. Similarly, as educational initiatives to improve bike safety the average total project cost has generally gotten and funding the state’s active transportation larger with each funding cycle (with the exception resource center. Lastly, 56 projects (7 percent) are of the second cycle of projects). In cycle three, 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT that last complete funding cycle, the average ATP manual counts of students walking and biking and grant award was $2.5 million for projects with was done in the middle of winter. This approach to an average project cost of $4.5 million. For the conducting bicyclist and pedestrian counts gives partially complete fourth funding cycle, the average results that are not comparable. Unsurprisingly, in this ATP grant award for the statewide and small urban example, the number of students walking and biking and rural projects is even higher at $4.6 million with actually decreased after the project—likely as a result an average project cost of $5.7 million. While this of poorer weather, other changes in travel behavior trend could reflect a general rise in costs, it also since the beginning of the school year, and shifting likely reflects a modest shift in the types of active from self-reported data to data based on manual transportation projects applying for and receiving counts. Given the concerns about data quality raised ATP funding toward larger projects. by Caltrans, and the inconsistencies observed in the sample project, it is impossible at this time to make Project Benefits any meaningful determinations about whether the Unable to Make Meaningful Conclusions ATP is resulting in increased walking and biking. About Whether Program Increases Bicycling and Most Projects Benefit Disadvantaged Walking. In its December 2018 ATP status report, Communities. Of the 776 total projects funded Caltrans describes receiving 65 complete project thus far, 686 projects (88 percent) had some benefit completion reports (and 9 incomplete reports) for projects primarily awarded funding during the Figure 1 first ATP funding cycle. Of the 65 project reports, Active Transportation Projects and roughly half reported bicyclist and pedestrian Funding counts. For those that did provide counts, the (Dollars in Millions) reported changes in biking and walking were mixed, with some project sponsors reporting a decrease Number of Funding Cycle Projects Funding in walking and biking after the completion of the project, while other projects reporting an increase. Cycle 1 According to Caltrans, there are several factors State 126 $183.6 SUR 22 36.6 likely contributing to the poor quality of the reported MPO 115 133.7 benefits and outcomes. One concern is that project Subtotals (263) ($353.9) completion reports are required to be submitted Cycle 2 to Caltrans within six months of the project’s State 87 $179.9 completion, which does not allow enough time SUR 27 35.5 for travelers to change their behavior to increase MPO 93 143.4 walking and biking. Another concern with the Subtotals (207) ($358.8) reported benefits and outcomes is the use of Cycle 3 inconsistent counting methodologies. For example, State 101 $212.8 a sample project completion report provided to SUR 19 47.9 our office shows before and after bicyclist and MPO 125 348 pedestrian counts being conducted under different Subtotals (245) ($608.7) methodologies. In the initial bicyclist and pedestrian Cycle 4 count to establish a baseline before undertaking a State 51 $237.6 project, project sponsors surveyed parents at the SUR 10 43.8 school near the project site on how their student MPOa — — gets to and from school and how often the student Subtotals (61) ($281.4) walks or bikes. This survey was conducted in the Totals 776 1,602.8 a late summer, likely around the start of the school The MPO component of the fourth cycle was not complete at the time this analysis was written. year. The follow-up bicyclist and pedestrian count SUR = small urban and rural and MPO = Metropolitan Planning conducted after the completion of the project used Organization. www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT to a disadvantaged community. The percentage of Other Goals and Potential Benefits Difficult projects benefitting a disadvantaged community to Evaluate. Most of the other program goals or have increased in each funding cycle. For example, potential project benefits are difficult to evaluate, in the first funding cycle, 84 percent of the especially without accurate data on the change in projects benefitted a disadvantaged community, walking and biking resulting from the project. For while 93 percent of projects in the third funding example, while GHG reductions can be estimated cycle benefitted disadvantaged communities. The using available tools (such as the California Air percentage of projects benefitting a disadvantaged Resources Board’s GHG emission reduction community is even higher for the partially calculator), these tools rely on accurate inputs complete fourth funding cycle with 98 percent of such as accurate counts of the increase in walking projects having some disadvantaged community and biking resulting from a project. Similarly, benefits. There are a couple of potential reasons project sponsors and CTC staff reported difficulty for the upward trend in the number of projects in demonstrating and evaluating the achieved that benefit a disadvantaged community. First, public health benefits of individual projects. This each funding cycle CTC updates the project is because such benefits stem from an increase scoring and selection criteria. The way benefits in walking and biking and additionally are likely to disadvantaged communities are scored has to materialize over a longer period of time and changed over time and appears to allow for be impacted by other variables that shape public more projects to qualify for some disadvantaged health outcomes such as dietary and other exercise community points than was initially the case. For trends. In addition, it is not possible to determine example, in the fourth funding cycle, projects can the safety benefits resulting from ATP projects at earn points based on median household income, this time, because Caltrans’ ATP status report does the number and free and reduced-priced school not provide information on safety-related outcomes. lunches for students in the community, the use Implementation Challenges and of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (commonly referred to as Program Administration “CalEnviro Screen” which identifies areas that are Application Scoring Process Requires Many disproportionately affected by sources of pollution), Volunteers, Somewhat Duplicative. As discussed or another definition proposed by a regional agency earlier, CTC relies on about 100 volunteers working and approved by the CTC. Second, it is possible in teams of two to evaluate and score proposed that project sponsors are changing the types or projects. Each two-person team will evaluate about scope of projects proposed when applying for 15 of the total applications. The teams will then an ATP grant to focus more on disadvantaged assign a score to each project using the scoring communities. criteria approved by the CTC. In addition, CTC staff No Major Benefits to the State Highway also evaluate and score each project in order to System. As discussed earlier, the supplemental ensure consistency in scoring across the various report language requires us to identify the potential teams. If CTC staff have a significant difference in benefits to the state highway system from ATP the score on a particular project than the volunteer projects. Most ATP projects are local projects, team, CTC staff will talk to the volunteer team typically associated with local streets and roads. about the scoring. However, CTC staff never However, there are some state highways that require a volunteer team to change the score for serve as local roads through communities. It is a project and the final score of the volunteer team likely that some ATP funded projects are on these is the project’s official score used to determine state highways that function more like local roads whether the project will receive funding through and would therefore have travelers who walk and the statewide and small urban and rural project bike. Data on the number of ATP projects on state selection processes described above. highways was not available at the time this report Relying on volunteers requires enough interested was prepared. individuals to agree to volunteer and requires CTC 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT staff to do a significant amount of work to also funding. By limiting the pool of eligible projects evaluate and score projects to ensure scoring in this way, it is possible that certain projects consistency. Because CTC staff is conducting their that are a high priority from a local or regional own review and scoring the process appears to be perspective are not eligible to be funded. This is duplicative. From the information available at the because some project sponsors may be unable or time of this analysis, it is unclear how the use of unwilling to complete the state’s ATP application. volunteer teams benefits the overall administration We have heard from some project sponsors that of the program, since CTC staff are also performing the application process is cumbersome to complete their own evaluation of each project. and many agencies hire a consultant to develop MPOs Limited to Pool of Projects That Apply the application on their behalf. Some agencies for State Funding. The current project application may lack the resources to hire a consultant or and selection process limits the projects available complete the application process with their own for selection by MPOs to only those projects staff. Similarly, for some projects, such as low cost that applied for funding through the statewide projects, it might not make sense to go through a component of the program, but did not receive costly application process to seek project funding. RECOMMENDATIONS As required by the Supplemental Report of the Consider Role of Statewide 2018-19 Budget Act, we make recommendations Component of the Program below to improve the effectiveness of the ATP, as well as address our above findings. While the CTC’s administration of the program does not raise any major concerns, the projects Require Collection of receiving funding from the statewide component Better Data on Program Benefits of the program do not appear to differ significantly from the types and size of projects receiving As discussed above, the project completion funding through the other program components reports currently required under the program and are generally small in scale. (Although the guidelines do not provide accurate data to assess size of projects being funded is increasing with certain key project outcomes, such as increases each funding cycle, which could indicate that in walking and biking. Without such data it is not project sponsors are moving toward larger, possible to determine the overall effectiveness more transformative projects.) This finding raises of the program at achieving its goals, such as questions about whether each component of increasing bicycling and walking. Accordingly, we the program is structured in a way to maximize recommend that the Legislature adopt legislation the intended benefits from active transportation requiring CTC and Caltrans to collect more projects and whether there are benefits to having accurate project outcome information such as three different program components if each accurate bicycling and pedestrian counts and component is funding the same types of projects safety-related data. In recognition of the workload and attempting to meet the same goals. involved in collecting such in-depth information, the Because the statewide component of the Legislature could consider requiring outcome data program was created to provide the opportunity only for larger projects where the additional effort for state-level decision-making on active of conducting accurate bicycling and pedestrian transportation priorities and projects, we think this counts and collecting safety data are likely to show program component provides a key opportunity meaningful outcomes. for the Legislature to consider changes to the goals, priorities, and types of projects funded. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT consider whether the role of the statewide the Legislature adjust the overall administrative component of the program should focus on larger, structure of the program to reflect these changes. more transformative projects, as was envisioned For example, continuing to require all small urban when the ATP was established. We think such and rural and MPO projects to first apply to the a focus makes sense because larger, more statewide component of the program would not transformative projects are difficult to fund at the make sense if the statewide component of the local level and therefore may only be possible program is changed to focus on different types of through a state-administered program. projects, such as larger transformative projects. To the extent that the Legislature wants to focus Consider Providing the ATP on larger more, transformative projects, a More Flexibility to MPOs better understanding of the challenges of doing so and the changes necessary to actually implement If the Legislature changes the statewide such a focus would be beneficial. In order to better component of the program, as we suggest understand why CTC is currently selecting projects considering, the process for selecting projects for the statewide component that are similar to the for the MPOs and small urban and rural regions projects funded through the other components, the would need to also change. However, even if Legislature could have CTC report on reasons why the Legislature does not change the statewide project sponsors are often proposing small projects component of the program, we recommend that the and whether additional requirements or assistance Legislature consider providing additional flexibility provided in the statewide component of the to the MPOs to select projects they determine are program could better encourage the selection of the highest priority for their region. One approach larger, more transformative projects. For example, could be to remove the existing requirement that it is possible that project sponsors are unable to MPOs choose projects only from the list of projects put forward larger projects for reasons such as that previously applied to (and did not receive limited availability of local or other funds to support funding from) the statewide component. This such projects or limited capacity to manage large could allow MPOs to potentially look at a broader projects. The CTC could also report on changes pool of projects while still ensuring all projects are that would be necessary to change the focus of part of the state ATP program, including having the statewide component of the program, such oversight from CTC and requiring CTC to allocate as increasing the minimum project size eligible for funds to specific phases of each project. Another funding. If the Legislature does not want to require approach could be to simply grant the funds to the statewide component of the program to focus the MPOs, allowing the MPOs to administer the on larger transformative projects, it may want funds and require reporting on how funds are to consider what specific objectives it wants to spent. Under such an approach, the MPO-selected achieve with this component of the program. projects would no longer be subject to project-level Based on changes to the focus of the statewide oversight by the CTC or to CTC fund allocation for component of the program, we would recommend each phase of the project. LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Jessica Peters and reviewed by Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE