Active Transportation Program (California)

Active Transportation Program (California)
Name	Active Transportation Program (California)
Established	2013
Jurisdiction	California
Parent agency	California Transportation Commission; California Department of Transportation
Budget	varied (multi-year cycle)

Contents

Active Transportation Program (California) The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a California state initiative created to fund and promote bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, improve health outcomes, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and advance equity across Los Angeles County, San Francisco, Sacramento, and other jurisdictions. It consolidates several prior funding streams to support projects administered by the California Transportation Commission, California Department of Transportation, regional agencies such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Southern California Association of Governments, and local entities including counties and cities.

Overview

The ATP provides competitive grants for bicycle lanes, pedestrian improvements, Safe Routes to School projects, and complete streets retrofits across California, coordinating with agencies like the California Air Resources Board, Department of Public Health (California), Office of Planning and Research (California), the Federal Highway Administration, and regional transportation planning agencies such as the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the San Diego Association of Governments. It aims to address priorities set by the California Transportation Plan, the Sustainable Communities Strategy, and state laws including Senate Bill 1 (2017), linking to statewide goals in climate change mitigation, public health, and transportation equity.

The ATP was established by the California Transportation Commission under legislation enacted in 2013, consolidating funding from programs like the Bicycle Transportation Account, the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program, and federal discretionary programs administered through the Federal Transit Administration. Subsequent legislative and budget actions—such as allocations through Senate Bill 1 (Beall, 2017), decisions by governors including Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom, and guidance from the California State Transportation Agency—shaped multi-year cycles, scoring criteria, and equity provisions. The program has intersected with landmark laws and plans including the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Strategic Growth Council’s initiatives.

ATP funding cycles combine state funds from sources like the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 and federal funds apportioned via the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, administered by the California Transportation Commission and implemented by the California Department of Transportation and regional agencies including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. Competitive grant categories include state competitive, small urban and rural, and local programs with set-asides for disadvantaged unincorporated communities identified under CalEnviroScreen by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Projects must align with regional transportation plans prepared by metropolitan planning organizations such as the Southern California Association of Governments and the San Diego Association of Governments.

Eligible projects include construction of bicycle networks, pedestrian safety improvements, Safe Routes to School infrastructure, and non-infrastructure programs administered by school districts like the Los Angeles Unified School District and community organizations such as Safe Routes Partnership. Prioritization criteria reflect goals from the California Transportation Plan, scoring metrics informed by the California Air Resources Board, Office of Traffic Safety, and regional transportation plans from agencies including the Sacramento Area Council of Governments; factors include safety benefits, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, access for disadvantaged communities identified by CalEnviroScreen, and consistency with Complete Streets principles promoted by advocacy groups like Walk Bike Cupertino and California Walks.

Implementation is overseen by the California Transportation Commission and delivered through the California Department of Transportation’s District offices, regional agencies such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and local public works departments in cities like San Jose and Long Beach. Project delivery requires coordination with entities including the Federal Highway Administration, utility companies, school districts, and transit agencies such as Caltrans District 7 and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Administrative processes include technical assistance from organizations like the California Bicycle Coalition, grant compliance monitoring by the Department of Finance (California), and environmental review coordination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Evaluations by the California Transportation Commission, the California Department of Transportation, and independent researchers from institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University have documented increases in bicycle and pedestrian facility mileage in counties like Alameda County and Los Angeles County, reductions in collision rates reported by the California Highway Patrol, and access improvements for communities identified by CalEnviroScreen. Reports link ATP investments to health outcomes studied by the California Department of Public Health and emissions reductions aligned with targets from the California Air Resources Board. Outcome tracking integrates performance measures consistent with the California Transportation Plan and federal reporting to the Federal Highway Administration.

Critics including some local governments, advocacy organizations like the California Chamber of Commerce, and researchers have raised concerns about allocation fairness between urban and rural areas, project delivery delays tied to permitting and California Environmental Quality Act processes, and the program’s ability to meet equity goals under scrutiny by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (California). Controversies have involved disputes over scoring metrics used by the California Transportation Commission, tensions with agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife over environmental mitigation, and debates over interactions with federal programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration.