DAVID GIONGCO Caltrans Local Assistance Engineer

2014 ATP Distribution

Geographic distribution is not a factor in selecting projects in the competitive ATP, but it will be looked at in evaluation of the program. I analyzed the distribution of 2014 ATP projects (in the statewide and small urban/rural components) among the twelve Caltrans Districts in a prior post. Here are other ways to look at how the program was distributed.

Urban / Rural

The classification of an area in the program is defined by its population:

  • Urban: Populations greater than 200,000.
  • Rural1: Populations of 200,000 or less.

Here’s how the applications came in:

Type # % Total $ %
Urban 626 81.2 847,319 83.1
Rural 145 18.8 170,528 16.7
  • #: Number of applications submitted
  • %: Number of applications submitted / Total number of applications received for first solicitation (771)2
  • 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

Type # % Total $ %
Urban 113 89.7 170,101 92.5
Rural 12 9.5 11,867 6.5
  • #: Number of projects awarded
  • %: Number of projects awarded / Total number of projects awarded in statewide component (125)2
  • Total $: Amount (in $1,000s) awarded
  • %: Amount awarded / Total amount awarded in statewide component ($183,843,000)

Small Urban/Rural

Type # % Total $ %
Urban N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rural 22 100.0 37,005 100.0
  • #: 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)

MPO

Here’s how the applications came in by MPO3:

MPO # % Total $ %
AMBAG 19 2.5 32,249 3.2
BCAG 12 1.6 7,819 0.8
FCOG 18 2.3 7,379 0.7
KCAG 1 0.1 678 0.1
KCOG 38 4.9 23,580 2.3
MCAG 7 0.9 7,948 0.8
MCTC 3 0.4 1,343 0.1
MTC 122 15.8 178,054 17.5
Rural 56 7.3 45,096 4.4
SACOG 46 6.0 48,289 4.7
SANDAG 55 7.1 76,914 7.5
SBCAG 21 2.7 39,035 3.8
SCAG 272 35.2 448,939 44.0
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
TCAG 39 5.1 33,554 3.3
TRPA 4 0.5 12,227 1.2
  • #: 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

MPO # % Total $ %
AMBAG 2 1.6 1,360 0.7
BCAG 1 0.8 1,388 0.8
FCOG 2 1.6 1,022 0.6
KCAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
KCOG 6 4.8 4,522 2.5
MCAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
MCTC 0 0.0 - 0.0
MTC 11 8.7 26,062 14.2
Rural 5 4.0 3,178 1.7
SACOG 7 5.6 6,502 3.5
SANDAG 14 11.1 13,662 7.4
SBCAG 2 1.6 3,145 1.7
SCAG 68 54.0 115,199 62.7
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
TCAG 1 0.8 110 0.1
TRPA 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

MPO # % Total $ %
AMBAG 4 18.2 12,354 33.4
BCAG 2 9.1 1,828 4.9
FCOG N/A N/A N/A N/A
KCAG 0 0.0 - 0.0
KCOG N/A N/A N/A N/A
MCAG 2 9.1 2,739 7.4
MCTC 1 4.5 550 1.5
MTC N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rural 6 27.3 8,808 23.8
SACOG N/A N/A N/A N/A
SANDAG N/A N/A N/A N/A
SBCAG 6 27.3 9,976 27.0
SCAG N/A NA N/A N/A
SJCOG N/A N/A N/A N/A
SLOCOG 0 0.0 - 0.0
SRTA 0 0.0 - 0.0
StanCOG N/A N/A N/A N/A
State 0 0.0 - 0.0
TCAG N/A N/A N/A N/A
TRPA 1 4.5 750 2.0
  • #: 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)

County

I also analyzed how the program was distributed among the counties. Here’s how it looked for the program’s first solicitation:

County # % Total $ %
ALA 32 4.1 35,507 3.5
AMA 3 0.4 2,151 0.2
BUT 12 1.6 7,819 0.8
CAL 2 0.3 88 0.0
CC 15 1.9 19,732 1.9
DN 5 0.6 3,393 0.3
ED 10 1.3 4,857 0.5
FRE 18 2.3 7,379 0.7
GLE 1 0.1 85 0.0
HUM 11 1.4 14,080 1.4
IMP 10 1.3 7,222 0.7
INY 3 0.4 790 0.1
KER 38 4.9 23,580 2.3
KIN 1 0.1 678 0.1
LA 119 15.4 267,992 26.3
LAK 3 0.4 1,131 0.1
MAD 3 0.4 1,343 0.1
MAR 1 0.1 441 0.0
MEN 6 0.8 5,037 0.5
MER 7 0.9 7,948 0.8
MNO 5 0.6 3,457 0.3
MON 7 0.9 25,160 2.5
MRN 16 2.1 16,501 1.6
NAP 3 0.4 4,207 0.4
NEV 6 0.8 7,319 0.7
ORA 62 8.0 50,111 4.9
PLA 4 0.5 4,727 0.5
PLU 2 0.3 1,874 0.2
RIV 34 4.4 52,494 5.1
SAC 20 2.6 23,496 2.3
SB 21 2.7 39,035 3.8
SBD 32 4.1 56,247 5.5
SBT 1 0.1 1,200 0.1
SCL 18 2.3 28,197 2.8
SCR 11 1.4 5,889 0.6
SD 55 7.1 76,914 7.5
SF 8 1.0 12,720 1.2
SHA 7 0.9 4,706 0.5
SIS 5 0.6 2,013 0.2
SJ 29 3.8 25,668 2.5
SLO 14 1.8 19,230 1.9
SM 13 1.7 25,613 2.5
SOL 7 0.9 11,255 1.1
SON 9 1.2 12,459 1.2
STA 8 1.0 5,139 0.5
SUT 4 0.5 2,088 0.2
TRI 1 0.1 2,087 0.2
TUL 39 5.1 33,554 3.3
TUO 2 0.3 1,150 0.1
VAR 6 0.8 30,634 3.0
VEN 12 1.6 8,843 0.9
YOL 8 1.0 11,778 1.2
YUB 3 0.4 2,704 0.3
  • #: 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

County # % Total $ %
ALA 4 3.2 9,070 4.9
AMA 0 0.0 - 0.0
BUT 1 0.8 1,388 0.8
CAL 0 0.0 - 0.0
CC 0 0.0 - 0.0
DN 1 0.8 60 0.0
ED 0 0.0 - 0.0
FRE 2 1.6 1,022 0.6
GLE 0 0.0 - 0.0
HUM 2 1.6 1,400 0.8
IMP 1 0.8 985 0.5
INY 0 0.0 - 0.0
KER 6 4.8 4,522 2.5
KIN 0 0.0 - 0.0
LA 37 29.4 70,838 38.5
LAK 0 0.0 - 0.0
MAD 0 0.0 - 0.0
MAR 0 0.0 - 0.0
MEN 2 1.6 1,718 0.9
MER 0 0.0 - 0.0
MNO 0 0.0 - 0.0
MON 1 0.8 913 0.5
MRN 0 0.0 - 0.0
NAP 1 0.8 3,600 2.0
NEV 0 0.0 - 0.0
ORA 9 7.1 5,687 3.1
PLA 1 0.8 1,236 0.7
PLU 0 0.0 - 0.0
RIV 12 9.5 21,931 11.9
SAC 3 2.4 3,676 2.0
SB 2 1.6 3,145 1.7
SBD 7 5.6 9,925 5.4
SBT 0 0.0 - 0.0
SCL 0 0.0 - 0.0
SCR 1 0.8 447 0.2
SD 14 11.1 13,662 7.4
SF 3 2.4 3,504 1.9
SHA 2 1.6 2,796 1.5
SIS 0 0.0 - 0.0
SJ 4 3.2 3,022 1.6
SLO 0 0.0 - 0.0
SM 2 1.6 9,500 5.2
SOL 1 0.8 388 0.2
SON 0 0.0 - 0.0
STA 0 0.0 - 0.0
SUT 0 0.0 - 0.0
TRI 0 0.0 - 0.0
TUL 1 0.8 110 0.1
TUO 0 0.0 - 0.0
VAR 3 2.4 7,708 4.2
VEN 0 0.0 - 0.0
YOL 2 1.6 1,101 0.6
YUB 1 0.8 489 0.3
  • #: 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

County # % Total $ %
ALA 0 0.0 - 0.0
AMA 0 0.0 - 0.0
BUT 2 9.1 1,828 4.9
CAL 0 0.0 - 0.0
CC 0 0.0 - 0.0
DN 0 0.0 - 0.0
ED 1 4.5 750 2.0
FRE 0 0.0 - 0.0
GLE 0 0.0 - 0.0
HUM 3 13.6 6,465 17.5
IMP 0 0.0 - 0.0
INY 0 0.0 - 0.0
KER 0 0.0 - 0.0
KIN 0 0.0 - 0.0
LA 0 0.0 - 0.0
LAK 1 4.5 564 1.5
MAD 1 4.5 550 1.5
MAR 0 0.0 - 0.0
MEN 1 4.5 259 0.7
MER 2 9.1 2,739 7.4
MNO 0 0.0 - 0.0
MON 2 9.1 11,142 30.1
MRN 0 0.0 - 0.0
NAP 0 0.0 - 0.0
NEV 1 4.5 1,520 4.1
ORA 0 0.0 - 0.0
PLA 0 0.0 - 0.0
PLU 0 0.0 - 0.0
RIV 0 0.0 - 0.0
SAC 0 0.0 - 0.0
SB 6 27.3 9,976 27.0
SBD 0 0.0 - 0.0
SBT 0 0.0 - 0.0
SCL 0 0.0 - 0.0
SCR 2 9.1 1,212 3.3
SD 0 0.0 - 0.0
SF 0 0.0 - 0.0
SHA 0 0.0 - 0.0
SIS 0 0.0 - 0.0
SJ 0 0.0 - 0.0
SLO 0 0.0 - 0.0
SM 0 0.0 - 0.0
SOL 0 0.0 - 0.0
SON 0 0.0 - 0.0
STA 0 0.0 - 0.0
SUT 0 0.0 - 0.0
TRI 0 0.0 - 0.0
TUL 0 0.0 - 0.0
TUO 0 0.0 - 0.0
VAR 0 0.0 - 0.0
VEN 0 0.0 - 0.0
YOL 0 0.0 - 0.0
YUB 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)

Update 9/8/14: Added clarification for table headers and corrected ubran project percentage (revised from 81.1 to 81.2).

  1. Small urbanized areas are included in this classification. 

  2. The State Technical Assistance Resource Center was not included in these tables.  2

  3. Project in non-MPO rural RTPA areas were designated as “Rural”. The State Technical Assistance Resource Center is inlcuded under “State”.