DAVID GIONGCO Caltrans Local Assistance Engineer

2014 ATP Distribution by RTPA

In prior posts (2014 ATP Staff Recommendations and 2014 ATP Distribution), I analyzed the 2014 ATP distribution by Caltrans District, urban/rural classification, MPO, and county. In this post, I’ll break it out one more way - by Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA)1.

Here’s how the applications came in:

RTPA # % Total %
ACTC 3 0.4 2,151 0.2
BCAG 12 1.6 7,819 0.8
CCOG 2 0.3 88 0.0
DNLTC 5 0.6 3,393 0.3
EDCTC 7 0.9 3,496 0.3
FCOG 18 2.3 7,379 0.7
GCTC 1 0.1 85 0.0
HCAG 11 1.4 14,080 1.4
ICTC 10 1.3 7,222 0.7
ILTC 3 0.4 790 0.1
KCAG 1 0.1 678 0.1
KCOG 38 4.9 23,580 2.3
LAMTA 119 15.4 267,992 26.3
LCCAPC 3 0.4 1,131 0.1
MCAG 7 0.9 7,948 0.8
MCLTC 6 0.8 3,898 0.4
MCOG 6 0.8 5,037 0.5
MCTC 3 0.4 1,343 0.1
MTC 122 15.8 178,054 17.5
NCTC 6 0.8 7,319 0.7
OCTA 62 8.0 50,111 4.9
PCTC 2 0.3 1,874 0.2
PCTPA 4 0.5 4,727 0.5
RCTC 34 4.4 52,494 5.1
SACOG 35 4.5 40,066 3.9
SANDAG 55 7.1 76,914 7.5
SANBAG 32 4.1 56,247 5.5
SBCAG 21 2.7 39,035 3.8
SBtCOG 1 0.1 1,200 0.1
SCAG 3 0.4 6,030 0.6
SCCRTC 11 1.4 5,889 0.6
SCTC 5 0.6 2,013 0.2
SJCOG 29 3.8 25,668 2.5
SLOCOG 14 1.8 19,230 1.9
SRTA 7 0.9 4,706 0.5
StanCOG 8 1.0 5,139 0.5
State 1 0.1 1,875 0.2
TAMC 7 0.9 25,160 2.5
TCAG 39 5.1 33,554 3.3
TCTC 1 0.1 2,087 0.2
TRPA 4 0.5 12,227 1.2
TuCTC 2 0.3 1,150 0.1
VCTC 12 1.6 8,843 0.9
  • #: Number of applications submitted
  • %: Number of applications submitted / Total number of applications received for first solicitation (772)
  • Total $: Amount (in $1,000s) of request(s)
  • %: Amount of request(s) / Total request amount from applications received for first solicitation ($1,019,722)

Here’s how the components were programmed:

Statewide

RTPA # % Total %
ACTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
BCAG 1 0.8 1,388 0.8
CCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
DNLTC 1 0.8 60 0.0
EDCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
FCOG 2 1.6 1,022 0.6
GCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
HCAG 2 1.6 1,400 0.8
ICTC 1 0.8 985 0.5
ILTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
KCAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
KCOG 6 4.8 4,522 2.5
LAMTA 37 29.4 70,838 38.5
LCCAPC 0 0.0 - 0.0
MCAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
MCLTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
MCOG 2 1.6 1,718 0.9
MCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
MTC 11 8.7 26,062 14.2
NCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
OCTA 9 7.1 5,687 3.1
PCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
PCTPA 1 0.8 1,236 0.7
RCTC 12 9.5 21,931 11.9
SACOG 6 4.8 5,266 2.9
SANDAG 14 11.1 13,662 7.4
SANBAG 7 5.6 9,925 5.4
SBCAG 2 1.6 3,145 1.7
SBtCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SCAG 2 1.6 5,833 3.2
SCCRTC 1 0.8 447 0.2
SCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
SJCOG 4 3.2 3,022 1.6
SLOCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SRTA 2 1.6 2,796 1.5
StanCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
State 1 0.8 1,875 1.0
TAMC 1 0.8 913 0.5
TCAG 1 0.8 110 0.1
TCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
TRPA 0 0.0 - 0.0
TuCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
VCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
  • #: Number of projects awarded
  • %: Number of projects awarded / Total number of projects awarded in statewide component (126)
  • Total $: Amount (in $1,000s) awarded
  • %: Amount awarded / Total amount awarded in statewide component ($183,843,000)

Small Urban/Rural

RTPA # % Total %
ACTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
BCAG 2 9.1 1,828 4.9
CCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
DNLTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
EDCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
FCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
GCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
HCAG 3 13.6 6,465 17.5
ICTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
ILTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
KCAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
KCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
LAMTA 0 0.0 - 0.0
LCCAPC 1 4.5 564 1.5
MCAG 2 9.1 2,739 7.4
MCLTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
MCOG 1 4.5 259 0.7
MCTC 1 4.5 550 1.5
MTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
NCTC 1 4.5 1,520 4.1
OCTA 0 0.0 - 0.0
PCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
PCTPA 0 0.0 - 0.0
RCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
SACOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SANDAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SANBAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SBCAG 6 27.3 9,976 27.0
SBtCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SCAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SCCRTC 2 9.1 1,212 3.3
SCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
SJCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SLOCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SRTA 0 0.0 - 0.0
StanCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
State 0 0.0 - 0.0
TAMC 2 9.1 11,142 30.1
TCAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
TCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
TRPA 1 4.5 750 2.0
TuCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
VCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
  • #: Number of projects awarded
  • %: Number of projects awarded / Total number of projects awarded in small urban/rural component (22)
  • Total $: Amount (in $1,000s) awarded
  • %: Amount awarded / Total amount awarded in small urban/rural component ($37,005,000)
  1. Refer to this MPO/RTPA map if you’re unfamiliar with the RTPA abbreviations I used. I referred to Trinity County Transportation Commission as “TCTC” and Tuolumne County Transportation Commission as “TuCTC”. No projects from Tehama County Transportation Commission (another possible use of “TCTC”) were submitted.