ATP Technical Advisory Committee Concept Rollout, Stakeholder Comments, Moving Forward

Transcription

1 ATP Technical Advisory Committee Concept Rollout, Stakeholder Comments, Moving Forward On February 25 th, 2015 at the statewide ATP stakeholders workshop, Caltrans presented an initial concept for an ATP Advisory Committee (ATP AC) and asked for comments to be submitted by the end of March This document includes an overview of the general comment themes received and Caltrans and the CTC s suggestions on how these comments will be addressed in the development of the Advisory Committee. The overview is then followed by a more detailed summary of the comments and plans for the Advisory Committee. Overview: 1. Establish an ATP AC vs. no build vs. other options: Caltrans and the CTC will be moving forward with the establishing the Advisory Committee 2. The role of the ATP Advisory Committee as a Technical Advisory Committee (ATP TAC): The role will be technical in nature and therefore titled the ATP Technical Advisory Committee 3. Makeup of the ATP TAC Caltrans and CTC intent to move forward with the establishment of an ATP TAC as outlined in the Draft Charter and Org Chart. The following general principles were incorporated in the revised membership list: 1) With the exception of the Committee Co Chairs, Caltrans and CTC staff will support and be available to the committee, but will not be voting members; 2) The overall members of the committee will be held as small as possible to achieve a good representation of the ATP technical stakeholders and still be efficient and effective at working through technical program issues; 3) Seek members who can overlaps stakeholder groups (I.e. SHSP, end users, ATLC); 4)The members will represent a diverse and complete geographic mix. 4. Frequency and type of Meetings Meeting will be held on a quarterly basis as a minimum with the option to call interim meetings on an as needed basis. 5. Recommendations to form subcommittees for deeper analysis on complex issues The formation of subcommittees will be utilized as needed. Page 1 June 17, 2015

2 6. Recommendations on ATP issues to be addressed by the ATP TAC: The following are some of the possible near term issues that have been recommended for the Technical Advisory Committee s consideration: A. Application B. Application Submittal Process C. Disadvantaged Communities D. Non Infrastructure Projects E. Plan Projects F. Methodologies for measuring existing users and estimating future users G. B/C tool H. Overall Cost Effectiveness Evaluation I. Project Delivery Issues J. Project Scope Eligibility Issues (I and NI) K. Eligible Applicants and Partnering Agencies L. Cross Program Information Exchanging M. Overall funding splits for the ATP N. Others as deemed appropriate by ATP TAC 7. Caltrans expectations/recommendation for topics to be discussed at the first ATP TAC: A. Approve the ATP TAC Charter B. Eligibility of Project Scope (I and NI) Infrastructure: (i.e. decorative landscaping limits, vehicular/landscaping elements of roundabouts, structure overlays, Non Infrastructure: (I.e. definitions & expectations for Start Up and Pilot, setting limits of cost of equipment/promotional items, reasonable management/staffing costs for a single school/district, potential conflicts of interest between those who support the grant writing and then directly receive payment for supporting the approved project. ) C. Programming/directing the remaining ATRC funding 8. Expected Next Steps (Caltrans/CTC): Present the stakeholder feedback, Caltrans and CTC recommendations, and Final Draft of Charter and Org Chart in a Statewide Stakeholder working group meeting on June 17 th, Finalize this proposal for the ATP TAC. Make a public call for Self Nominations to fill key TAC representatives Request organizations to provide their representatives (i.e. League of Cities, CSAC), etc.) Select and notify all ATP TAC representatives Hold the first formal ATP TAC Page 2 June 17, 2015

3 ATP Technical Advisory Committee Concept Rollout, Stakeholder Comments, Moving Forward This section of the document includes a more detailed summary of the stakeholder comments broken down into several general themes and Caltrans and the CTC s suggestions on how these comments will be addressed in the development of the Advisory Committee. Summary of the Stakeholder comments & expectations for the ATP TAC: 1. Recommendations for moving forward with the development of an ATP Advisory Committee VS. no build or other options: A. Comments in favor of forming an ATP AC The majority of the comments received supported the establishment of an ATP Advisory Committee and/or were only commenting on the makeup and details of the committee. These comments are included throughout this document. B. Comments against the creation an ATP AC Some stakeholders recommended against forming an advisory committee. Their comments/suggestions included the following: o Maintain the current process of gathering stakeholder feedback through the use of statewide stakeholder workshops. o Creation of an ATP AC may duplicate the current CTC/RTPA group process, while limiting the number of stakeholders consulted. o It doesn t seem like this committee is necessary. Unlike the Bridge or the HSIP programs, ATP guidelines are developed through the CTC which provides an open and transparent process to publicly discuss proposed guidelines. This process is sufficient to meet the legislative requirement that the CTC engage with stakeholders to develop guidelines for the ATP program. o Use the Active Transportation and Livable Communities (ATLC) meetings to provide a regular meeting forum to address ATP stakeholder engagement and program improvement needs Caltrans and the CTC will be moving forward with the establishing the Advisory Committee based on the following: o The legislation creating the ATP (SB99) states: (a) The California Transportation Commission shall develop guidelines and project selection criteria for the Active Transportation Program in consultation with the Active Transportation Program Workgroup, which shall be formed for purposes of providing guidance on matters including, but not limited to, development of and subsequent revisions to program guidelines, schedules and procedures, project selection criteria, performance measures, and program evaluation. The workgroup shall include, but not be limited to, representatives of government agencies and active transportation stakeholder organizations with expertise in pedestrian and bicycle issues, including Safe Routes to School programs. Although the statewide ATP stakeholders workshops have met (and will continue to meet) this requirement, the new ATP AC will focus on more complex issues in these areas and will also focus on delivery issues, program enhancements, and other issues. Page 3 June 17, 2015

4 o With or without an ATP AC, Caltrans and the CTC anticipate a continued use/need for statewide stakeholder workshops in conjunction with new calls for projects that include significant changes to the guidelines and/or application. o The statewide ATP Stakeholders mailing list currently has over 700 stakeholders and is growing fast. This size of a group prevents it from functioning as a workgroup intended to reach general consensus and provide detailed technical guidance on program issues. o The Caltrans ATLC lead coordinator was presented with the idea of having the ATLC take on the role of an ATP AC. This idea was not supported as the ATLC agendas are always full of a broad range of items to discuss and there would not be time to fit in the full complement of discussions needed by the ATP AC. 2. Defining the role of the ATP Advisory Committee as a Technical Advisory Committee: As stated above, Caltrans and the CTC anticipate a continued use/need for statewide stakeholder Working Group that currently includes over 700 stakeholders and is growing. This Working Group is highly effective at providing a broad range of stakeholder feedback for the CTC s and Caltrans consideration as they develop and finalized the program guidelines, applications, instructions and other guidance. At the same time, this Working Group is not effective at working through specific complex issues and reaching solutions that can be supported for the good of the overall program. As presented later in this document, the ATP currently has a wide range of specific and complex program and project delivery issues that Caltrans and the CTC are interested in working with a small, strategic mix of technicalstakeholders to help reach consensus on details of the program. The final program decisions will remain in the hands of CTC and Caltrans as defined in SB99; the TAC is not expected to direct CTC or Caltrans on how to run the program. Caltrans and the CTC will clarify the goals and objectives of the new Technical Advisory Committee vs. the Working Group. The following changes will be made to the draft Charter and Org. Chart: The name will be changed to ATP Technical Advisory Committee => ATP TAC The Mission, Purpose and Goals shown in the Charter will be clarified The list of members/organization chart will be adjusted based on the feedback received and needs. The number of representatives will still be limited to meet the operational needs of an effective TAC. The TAC will not be directly connected to the review and selection of applications. Individual members may choose to volunteer as reviewers separate from their role on the TAC. 3. Recommendations on the makeup of the future committee: There were general comments and specific comments relating to additional agencies/stakeholders that should have a representative on the ATP Advisory Committee. These comments were widely varying based on the commenter s perspective and their expectation for the committee s role as a simple Advisory group or a Technical group intended to work through issues with the goal of reaching consensus. The following is a summary of the comments relating to the makeup of the committee: Page 4 June 17, 2015

5 General Comments: o Pay attention to geography: Balance reps between north and south. Central valley also needs fair representation o Balance between government and non government members o All members should be from broadly based organizations and must not have (or represent) an individual focus o The committee should be made up of technical staff that will be preparing applications, applying for the program and administering the program such as local agency applicants, RTPA s, MPO s, Caltrans and Safe Routes to Schools participants. o Members should include project evaluators and staff who make final project choices o Include the Implementers: Caltrans District Staff and Project Grantees responsible for solving project delivery problems and demonstrating results. o Caltrans role should be limited! Vs. Absolutely include Caltrans on the Committee! o Caltrans and CTC should mainly have the role of informing/vetting the committee decisions relating to federal, state and other guidance. They should only have limited and issue based voting responsibilities. When they do get to vote, they should only get 2 votes. o Need to be very careful with financially invested roles (contractors including LGC and its subcontractors, CDPH IA staff,...) o Need to discuss (have clarity on) how these seats will represent their constituents. Ex: How can one city rep represent the 400+ diverse statewide cities? Comments supporting a smaller sized committee: o Large membership may present challenges for nimble and swift action. Too many members risks the ATP TAC being ineffective and unmanageable. o Limit the committee to 20 members to keep the committee a manageable size o What is being discussed is growing so large that it will be difficult to maintain routine and regular consultation. o The group is already too large. Minimize the number of singular focused advocates. o Need to hold the line on growing the committee from what was presented Comments supporting more members/comprehensive representation: o Having an adequately broad representation on the ATP Advisory Committee is important. Too few members is a bigger problem than too many. o See comments below on additional/recommended members Specific membership comments: o 2 Pedestrian Orgs. California Walks and local representative Also: Cal Ped and Walk Sacramento o 2 Bicycle Orgs. California Bicycle Coalition <=? and local representative Also: Include the Cal Association of Bicycling Operations (CABO) be included CBAC was show in the initial concept draft o Rec Trails Rails to Trails Conservancy, Trails/Pathways rep. o MPOs and RTPAs: 2 MPOs: one of 9 Large and one that doesn t receive formula share of ATP. Also: one from So.Cal and one from Nor.Cal. MPOs will self designate RTPA self designate (The moderator?) Small and/or large Need rural reps both inside and outside the boundaries of large MPOs Page 5 June 17, 2015

6 o 2 Disadvantaged Community & Equity PolicyLink & Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability Also: Cal Pan Ethnic Health Network, Urban Habitat, CRLA, Also: Rural rep with experience in equity/ej Also: Displacement/Land Use o 2 Health CDPH (TARC or Health in All Policies) and local (Cal Pan Ethnic Health Network) Also: ATRC representatives: add one rep from each major contract under ATRC Contractors to be non voting Also: City/county public health (local health officer) Yolo County? o 2 SRTS Orgs. National Partnership and a local school district o Need representation from the SHSP o ATLC members and Coalition for Active Transportation Leadership o Air District staff for air quality information, quantification, etc. Example: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) o Additional End User reps: Aging (AARP), disabled, schools, youth, transit, disadvantaged,... o Transit organizations/school bussing (statewide and rural) (and FTA rep?) o Western Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP), National Indian Justice Center, Cal Rural Indian Health Board (CRIHB) o Forest Service: Federal and State Land Manager o Self Help Counties Coalition o Caltrans Division of Design should be added to the committee as a member; similar to the Division of Traffic. Need both traffic control (CA MUTCD) and geometrics (alignment, grade, separation,...) Caltrans and CTC s intent to move forward with the establishment of a ATP TAC as outlined in the Draft Charter and Org Chart. The following general principles were incorporated in the revised membership list o With the exception of the Committee Co Chairs, Caltrans and CTC staff will support and be available to the committee, but will not be voting members o The overall members of the committee will be held as small as possible to achieve a good representation of the ATP technical stakeholders and still be efficient and effective at working through technical program issues Seek members who can overlap stakeholder groups (I.e. SHSP, end users, ATLC) o The members will represent a diverse and complete geographic mix. 4. Frequency and type of Meetings Several comments were received recommending the Advisory Committee initially meet more often than twice a year. o The recommendations ranged from monthly to quarterly with the understanding that the Committee could elect to move to a bi annual meeting schedule when appropriate. o Add at least one shared meeting between ATP TAC and ATLC for info exchange o Make all committee meetings open to the public and accessible by teleconference Page 6 June 17, 2015

7 o Create subcommittees to allow additional meetings and/or more focused conversations on specific subjects. When ready, the subcommittees would present their findings and recommendations to the full APT TAC. Caltrans and CTC intend to establish the TAC on an expedited basis and will allow the TAC to weigh in to the frequency and format of the meetings. 5. Recommendations to form subcommittees for deeper analysis on complex issues Comments were received noting there are several issues that require deeper discussion and additional input from organizations or individuals, and suggesting that forming focused subcommittees can meet as needed outside the regular ATP TAC meetings to address these more complex issues. Here are a few of the potential subcommittees: o Analysis and refinement of benefits to Disadvantaged Communities o Non Infrastructure issues o Plans: How are they and should they be used in the ATP? What scope of work should be eligible vs. required? Is continued ATP funding recommended? o B/C Tool Caltrans and CTC support the formation of subcommittees per the suggestion and support of the ATP TAC. If requested by the TAC, the subcommittee will begin their efforts based on specific direction from the TAC and will report back with their results and recommendations. 6. Recommendation on general issues to be address (Near term => prior to Cycle 3) Based on the comments received, the following is a list of possible near term issues that have been recommended for the Advisory Committee s consideration. It will be up to the new ATP TAC (with significant input from CTC and Caltrans) to determine which of these issues (and in what order) will be taken up by the TAC. A. Application: o Review process/scoring for comparing I, NI & Plans through one application. o Confirm questions and sub questions points are resulting in the most effective projects being funding in both rural and urban areas. o Development, research, and analysis of Narrative Questions to continue to advance the state of practice for active transportation. o Development of tools and standard approaches for application questions that require quantification (that are accessible for all applicants) such as projecting the number of future users, or quantifying safety benefits. o Develop processes to ensure the project characteristics and project outputs can be applied to a B/C evaluation tool in consistent manor on a statewide basis. o Appropriate maximum number of words for individual and overall questions. o Application Screening Criteria: Can this be expanded to help a reviewer identify if the project is truly focused on Transportation of non motorized user Vs. projects that are focused on vehicular mobility, community beautification, or community redevelopment? Page 7 June 17, 2015

8 Can we establish a maximum amount of ineligible scope that can be included in an application before the application is removed from the scoring/ranking process? o Alter application points to have use of the Corps/CCC in a new applications be worth up to 5 points vs. not using them resulting in negative 5 points. The current 5 points scoring system sends the wrong perspective about the use of the Corps. B. Application Submittal, Review and Scoring Process o Work on ways to make the application process as simple as possible o Convert the selection process to a 2 step process: First step is to have agency s fill out a short, simplistic application for initial screening. Select the best initial submittals (about times the available funding) to move on to the detailed formal application review and selection process. o Convert the application submittal and application review to be 100% electronic (consider the need to still require 1 hard copy for confirmation and project files) o In addition to the individual volunteer reviews of a few applications, develop a team of reviewers of varying expertise that review one aspects of all applications. C. Disadvantaged Communities: o Evaluate DAC Definition vs. CA population vs. Application Selection: Reasonable splits? o Defining/constraining Option 4 of establishing a DAC. Consider establishing set criteria and a way to ensure that it is being applied uniformly o Analysis and refinement of benefits to Disadvantaged Communities: Ensure ATP is meeting needs, refining the definition and evaluation of DACs, use of planning funding; successful/unsuccessful applications from DACs, long term use of projects, and the cost/benefit tool relating to DACs. D. Non Infrastructure Projects o Concerns that some the NI elements/projects are not sustainable on a statewide basis (they are not funding to start up a self funded program, they represent a 2 nd or 3 rd round of funding going to the same agency/consultants, and/or are susceptible to ATP funding going to pay for staff that may not be 100% working on ATP efforts). This analysis should consider Caltrans history of working with locals on infrastructure and non infrastructure projects, including past FHWA audit findings. o NI Deliverables: Need clear scope, cost and schedule that can be verified in the final report and/or audit. Refinements to guidelines and new NI workplan?? o Discuss project eligibility questions: Appropriate limits on giveaways, equipment, staff costs,...? New or innovative programs/treatments? Need to use existing SRTS programs/guidance prepared by TARC vs. allowing each agency to establish their own programs/guidance? Funding of engineering feasibility studies for future infrastructure projects? E. Plan Projects o There are concerns from CTC that plans may not be as cost efficient/valuable to the overall ATP as Infrastructure and NI projects. o Reconsider appropriateness of allowing 4 types plans vs. only ATP plans. If 4 types are going to continue, consider having clear requirements for all 4 types. Page 8 June 17, 2015

9 o Can the Scope and deliverables of plans be better defined to ensure their overall costeffectiveness and value for the overall Program? o Similar to the old BTA program, consider making all I and NI applications be specifically identified in an approved ATP Plan or approved MPO/RTPA regional ATP strategy. F. Methodologies for measuring existing users and estimating future users o Develop clear and required methodologies for measuring existing walking and biking volumes and estimated future volumes (Project vs. No project) Measuring Apples to apples is key for statewide comparison across all project locations and types. Especially when comparing projects B/C ratios The application needs to set standard methodologies for all inputs of the B/C tool that will allow for a standard and fair assessment for the wide variety of ATP projects. Without this, the outputs of any B/C tool will not be reliable. G. Methodologies for measuring and documenting crash and safety data o Develop clear and required methodologies for measuring and presenting past crash data and estimated crash reductions from improvements (Project vs. No project) Measuring Apples to apples is key for statewide comparison across all project locations and types. Consider setting different levels of points based on numbers, rates, surveys, testimonials, etc. H. B/C tool o Review and assess the feedback from the Cycle 2 Beta Version. o Develop stronger connection between application data (users, crash data,...) and the B/C tool. Application may likely need to increase the focus and guidance in this area. o Propose adjustments to the Tool, Guidelines and Application to address the issues identified. I. Cost Effectiveness o Evaluate/Confirm that smaller projects using proven low cost countermeasures or strategically closing gaps in infrastructure are able score well based on their overall cost effectiveness. Cycle 1 and 2 Statistics? And feedback? o Consider increasing the focus of the ATP towards proven lower cost non motorized safety and mobility infrastructure and non infrastructure improvements. Either through training, scoring, set asides or a combination of all. See pages of the Vision Zero document at: zero sanfrancisco.pdf o Consider using something similar to Caltrans /FHWA s proven value analysis process to help evaluate cost effectiveness. (Score various aspects of a project s cost effectiveness and weight each of the aspects; then calculate the total value.) J. Project Delivery Issues o Consider way to reduce the Caltrans and CTC approval processes o Eligible Agencies (streamline delivery and increase project success) K. Project Scope Eligibility Issues (I and NI) o Infrastructure Examples: Decorative Landscaping/Pavers, Overlays, Maintenance Work, Vehicular Improvement elements,... Page 9 June 17, 2015

10 o Non Infrastructure Examples: Swag, Continuous (or Primarily Continuous) funding,... and many other items currently on the eligibility lists L. Eligible Applicants and Partnering Agencies o Eligibility to apply for funds as a lead applicant or partner applicant, clarity on partnering and subcontracting o When are PIFs required and when should they be expected to be approved? M. Cross Program Information Exchanging o Participate in and provide recommendations to other statewide transportation processes and transportation related advisory committees to ensure ATP is a cross cutting component to all of California s transportation needs. N. Overall funding splits for the ATP o MPOs desire to have more control of the funding/project selection o Consider regional set asides for rural/small communities within the large MPOs 7. Caltrans expectations/recommendation for topics to be discussed at the first ATP TAC: The following is a potential list of topics for the first meeting: A. Approve the ATP TAC Charter B. Eligibility of Project Scope (I and NI) o Infrastructure: (i.e. decorative landscaping limits, vehicular/landscaping elements of roundabouts, structure overlays, ) o Non Infrastructure: (I.e. definitions & expectations for Start Up and Pilot, setting limits of cost of equipment/promotional items, reasonable management/staffing costs for a single school/district, potential conflicts of interest between those who support the grant writing and then directly receive payment for supporting the approved project. ) C. Programming/directing the remaining ATRC funding 8. Expected Next Steps: The following are the expected next steps and approximate timeline for Caltrans and the CTC in the process to fully implement the ATP TAC: A. Present the stakeholder feedback, Caltrans and CTC recommendations, and Final Draft of Charter and Org Chart in a Statewide Stakeholder working group meeting on June 17th, B. Finalize this proposal for the ATP TAC. (By end of June) C. Make a public call for Self Nominations to fill key TAC representatives (Due by end of July) D. Request organizations to provide their representatives (i.e. League of Cities, CSAC), etc.) (Due by end of July) E. Select and notify all ATP TAC representatives (By end of August) F. Hold the first formal ATP TAC (In September or October) Page 10 June 17, 2015