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)
-
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. ↩