OBAG 4 Application Workbench

Which programs are you targeting?

Step 1 · Select all that apply

One coordinated application can be nominated into multiple programs, but only one federal fund source. Your selection here activates program-specific checks throughout the workbench.

OBAG 4 ATS up to $5M · min $500K

CARE $3.1M · min $250K

TFCA Additional $3.33M · min $500K

Measure J TLC-3 $33.1M · min $250K

Measure J PBTF-3 $12.0M · min $250K

Pre-Flight Eligibility Check

Step 2 · CCFP screening — all rows must pass

The CCFP screens every application against seven pass/fail factors before it reaches a scoring panel (Table 1, Eligibility Screening). One Fail sinks the application regardless of merit. The TFCA cost-effectiveness row applies only if TFCA Additional is selected above.

Required Application Package

Step 3 · Every item, one combined PDF

Submission is paperless — a single combined PDF, no more than 20 pages beyond the application forms, due by 5:00 PM Monday, August 17, 2026 to CCTA. Questions go to CCFP@ccta.ca.gov. Guidelines: ccta.ca.gov/planning/coordinated-call-for-projects.

Required

Strongly recommended

Site visits are replaced this cycle by an optional 5-minute field video plus supporting data (StreetLight, Replica, BayViz, regional/countywide HIN, or SafeTREC TIMS). Review panels may still request a live virtual tour via Zoom/Teams.

Five programs, one call

Fund source matrix

The CCFP coordinates OBAG 4 County Program (Active Transportation & Safety category), CARE, TFCA Additional, and Measure J TLC-3 and PBTF-3 into a single application. Higher-scoring applications can be awarded from multiple programs — but only one federal fund source per project.

Program	Available	Min request	Local match	Scored by	Defining constraint
OBAG 4 · ATS STP/CMAQ federal	Up to $5M (ATS category; countywide OBAG 4 target $43.42M / $52.10M nominated)	$500,000	11.47% required; points climb with higher match	TCC panel + MTC (25–35 pts)	Federal-aid delivery: Caltrans master agreement, CEQA/NEPA, obligation by Jan 31, 2031 (CCTA) / Sep 30, 2031 (MTC)
CARE OBAG 4 / REAP 2.0	$3.1M	$250,000	11.47% if funds are federalized	CCTA staff	Project must be named in a CBTP; funds advance design & construction-readiness
TFCA Additional Bay Area Air District	$3,333,094 (FY2026-27)	$500,000	None	CCTA staff (Air District calculator)	Class I/IV bikeways, cycle tracks, bike parking & detection only; cost-effectiveness ≤ $1M/weighted ton ($1.5M in Priority Areas)
Measure J TLC-3 Programs 12 & 25	$33.114M — West $14.403M (incl. $5.7M P25) · Central $11.091M · Southwest $7.619M · East $0	$250,000	Not required; encouraged at 11.47%	RTPCs: TRANSPAC, SWAT, WCCTAC	Projects must include implementation and lead to funded construction; plans/studies capped at 5% of subregional funds; staff time ≤ 5%; GMP compliance required
Measure J PBTF-3 Programs 13 & 26	$12.033M — countywide competitive $8.159M · West Co. $287K · EBRPD $3.587M	$250,000	Not required; encouraged at 11.47%	CBPAC (P26: WCCTAC)	Ped/bike facilities only, identified in the CBPP; must complete a publicly usable facility; countywide share funds no planning studies, operations, or maintenance

Capacity derivation: $43.418M (OBAG 4 countywide target) + $3.1M (CARE) + $3,333,094 (TFCA FY2026-27) + $33.114M (TLC-3) + $12.033M (PBTF-3) = $94,998,094. OBAG nominations run to 120% of target ($52.102M), so the nominated program can reach ~$103.7M, but MTC selects down to the target. The competitive ATS category is nominally “up to $5M” of the OBAG total; savings from the CCTA-led Countywide Programs flow back to it.

East County jurisdictions and transit operators are ineligible for TLC in Cycle 3 — the East share was capitalized for eBART under the 2009 Measure J Strategic Plan. EBRPD's PBTF share funds one project in one subregion per year on a rotating basis with RTPC concurrence.

Application caps & ineligible scopes

How many applications can you file?

Most agencies: up to 2 applications.
BART and Contra Costa County: up to 4 (one per subregion).
CCTA: up to 5 countywide-program applications on behalf of participating agencies (Smart Signals Ph. 2, SRTS-NI, TDM, Student Transportation, EV Blueprint) — these don't count against local caps.
Eligible applicants: Caltrans-recognized LPAs with a Caltrans master agreement on file with the Authority by July 31, 2027 — cities, the County, EBRPD, transit operators, JPAs, tribal governments, school districts, colleges, utility/park districts, and land-protection nonprofits.
Partnerships that leverage additional funding are given higher award priority; only co-sponsors that can't receive federal aid directly need a documented lead-agency partnership.

What gets rejected on scope alone

Quick-Build materials projects under $500,000 total.
Single-phase-only scopes: design-only, environmental-only, planning-only, or a stand-alone study.
Class II, III, or "paint-only" projects with no physical barrier protecting vulnerable users.
New stand-alone SRTS-NI programs whose curriculum isn't already operating somewhere in California.
Roadway or lane widening; anything that adds VMT.
Operations or maintenance without repair, replacement, or new construction.
Maintenance bundling cap: preventive maintenance, repaving, restriping, markings, signs, and streetscape together can't exceed 50% of total cost.

Fund-Source Router

Answer 9 questions → nomination panel

Describe the project; the panel mirrors the CCFP scoring sheet's "Nominate Application for…" block and shows which programs this project can credibly compete in, and why.

1 · RTPC subregion 2 · Total project cost ($) 3 · Grant request ($) 4 · Primary scope 5 · Bikeway facility class (if any) 6 · Phases funded

7 · STP/CMAQ-eligible & sponsor holds an active Caltrans master agreement

8 · Project is in the CBPP Board-adopted project list (March 2025)

9 · Project is named in a Community-Based Transportation Plan

Nominate Application for…

Router applies the CCFP's published eligibility rules mechanically. Edge cases (e.g., MTC case-by-case PDA/TOC-supportive determinations, EBRPD rotation) still need human judgment.

Submission Timeline Generator

Back-planned from Aug 17, 2026 · 5 PM

Enter your start date and governance cadence; the generator back-plans every CCFP deliverable from the deadline and flags what's feasible. Council-dependent items (Resolution of Local Support) are the usual critical path.

Start date

Deadline

Council meets

Internal review speed

Conditional tasks:

CMAQ request (AQ Input Form)

TFCA (C-E calculator)

Field video

What happens after you submit

CCFP downstream milestones

Aug–Oct 2026

TCC screens & scores OBAG; RTPCs score TLC; CBPAC scores PBTF; CCTA scores CARE/TFCA

Sep 21, 2026

CBPAC reviews Complete Streets Checklists

Oct 21, 2026

Authority Board approves OBAG 4 nominations to MTC (due to MTC Oct 31)

Dec 16, 2026

Board approves TLC & PBTF priorities

Jan 2027

MTC approves region-wide nominations

Feb–Mar 2027

Resolutions of local support & compliance to CCTA

Oct 2027

OBAG 4 funds available for expenditure

Jan 31, 2031

CCTA obligation deadline (MTC federal deadline: Sep 30, 2031)

Mock Scoring Tool

CCFP Table 2 · 12 criteria · applies to all five programs

Every scoring panel — TCC, TRANSPAC/SWAT/WCCTAC, CBPAC, and CCTA staff — works from the same 12-criterion sheet. Answer the prompts as the panel would read your application; the tool maps your answers into each criterion's published scoring bands. The MTC layer below applies only to OBAG 4 nominations.

Application type

Include MTC layer (OBAG 4 only)

Provenance note (encoded ruling): CCFP Table 1 lists Criterion 3 at 7 points (summing to 75), while the detailed rubric for Criterion 3 defines an 8-point match ladder (summing to 76). This tool implements the 8-point ladder as written in the rubric; MTC's Resolution 4740 describes CTA nomination scores "out of 75." Verify against any CCTA errata before final self-assessment.

Projected score

0 / 76

MTC OBAG 4 — Governing Documents Digest

The regional layer above the CCFP

CCTA's CCFP operates inside MTC's OBAG 4 framework. For OBAG 4 (and federalized CARE) awards, MTC's rules govern eligibility, compliance, and 25 of your points. This digest condenses the four governing sources ingested to date; the ledger at the bottom tracks what's in and what's pending.

1 · MTC Resolution 4740 (Revised April 22, 2026)

Program policy & project selection criteria

County Program architecture

OBAG 4 spans FY 2026-27 through FY 2029-30 in Surface Transportation Block Grant (STP) and CMAQ funds; each of the nine CTAs administers a County Program share.
Contra Costa's funding target is $43,418,000, plus $4,868,000 in base planning & implementation funds; CTAs nominate up to 120% of target ($52,102,000) and MTC selects down.
Nominations are due to MTC by October 31, 2026, approved by the CTA board, scored on the CTA's published criteria, with public outreach documented.
A minimum of 80% of County Program funds in larger counties (incl. Contra Costa) must be invested in or within one mile of PDAs or Transit-Oriented Communities; supportive projects outside the buffer can qualify by MTC case-by-case determination.
Minimum grant size: $500,000 for counties over 1M population; limited exceptions no lower than $150,000.
Federal obligation deadline: September 30, 2031, under MTC's Regional Project Delivery Policy (Res. 3606). CCTA locally requires January 31, 2031.
Toll credits (Res. 4008) may be available in lieu of local match for construction phases at MTC's discretion — worth raising with MTC staff if match is a barrier, though a low cash match forfeits Criterion 3 points at CCTA.

Sponsor compliance requirements

Project sponsors must remain compliant through the life of the grant with:

State housing law — HCD-certified Housing Element and Annual Progress Reports submitted (land-use jurisdictions only).
Safety planning — a Local Road Safety Plan (or equivalent, e.g., a Safe Streets action plan) updated within 5 years, addressing equity and a Safe System approach.
Pavement management — PMP certification current; Local Street & Roadway needs survey submitted.
Performance reporting — HPMS counts submitted.
Complete Streets — Res. 4493 checklist per project through MTC's portal, now with transit-operator review under the Transit Priority Policy for Roadways (Res. 4739, Jan 2026), reviewed by the county BPAC.

Ineligible under OBAG 4

New roadways or roadway extensions; right-of-way banking for expansion.
Transit operations and routine maintenance.
Projects that worsen air quality conformity status.

MTC evaluation criteria — the 25 points beyond CCTA's 75/76

MTC criterion	Max	What earns it
Regional Alignment	10	Support for PBA 2050+ strategies, Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy (Res. 4400), Complete Streets Policy (Res. 4493), the Bay Area Transit Transformation Action Plan, and the Transit Priority Policy for Roadways (Res. 4739). Name the strategies; don't gesture at them.
Federal Performance Goals	5	Documented improvements to safety, infrastructure condition, system reliability, freight movement & economic vitality, congestion reduction, and environmental sustainability.
Deliverability & Risk	10	Sponsor capacity and expertise, recent record delivering regional funds, and a credible schedule/risk plan. Your OBAG 3 / TLC Cycle-2 delivery record is scored — quantify it.
Air Quality Benefits (CMAQ only)	10	Relative cost-effectiveness in reducing criteria pollutants, computed from the OBAG 4 Air Quality Input Form. Required for CMAQ assignment.

2 · Administrative Guidance — County Program Requirements (Feb 2026)

How MTC decides you're compliant, and what happens if you're not

Compliance determinations

Housing Element: certified by HCD as of the application deadline; APRs current per HCD's tracker.
LRSP/safety plan: adopted within the last five years; equity and Safe System integration verified — a comprehensive safety action plan (SS4A-style CSAP) satisfies this.
PMP certification runs on a two-year cycle via the MTC pavement program; the LSR needs survey and HPMS submittals are annual.
Requirements apply by sponsor type: agencies without land-use authority (transit operators, JPAs, districts, CTAs) are exempt from housing-law items but not from delivery, Complete Streets, or reporting obligations.
Projects with more than ~10% of scope in another jurisdiction need that jurisdiction's letter of support, and the host jurisdiction's compliance status is checked too.

Enforcement ladder

Delay: non-compliance at programming/nomination makes the sponsor ineligible to receive new OBAG 4 funds until cured.
Withhold: non-compliance at obligation blocks E-76 / fund obligation.
Rescind & redirect: sustained non-compliance or missed obligation deadlines lets MTC deprogram funds and redirect them within the county or region.
Repeated delivery failures ("three strikes" pattern across cycles) weigh against future nominations under the Regional Project Delivery Policy.

Practical read: compliance is checked at two gates — nomination (Oct 2026) and obligation. Cure any housing-APR, PMP, or LRSP gaps before the first gate; a technically strong application from a non-compliant sponsor never gets programmed.

3 · County Program Base Application (v1) — field map

Every MTC field, mapped to the CCTA criterion it feeds

Base Application section	What it asks	Feeds
General information	Sponsor, single point of contact (SPOC — must be posted on your website), partners, co-sponsors	Screening; CCTA C4
Project description & location	Limits, cross-streets, map attachment, % of scope in/within 1 mi of a PDA or TOC	MTC 80% geographic minimum; CCTA C1/C6
Fund-source eligibility	STP vs. CMAQ election; CMAQ projects must attach the Air Quality Input Form	MTC AQ 10 pts; CMAQ path
Need & benefits	Safety data, collision history, network gaps, users served	CCTA C1, C6, C7, C8
Local priority & community support	Adopted plans containing the project; outreach performed; letters of support	CCTA C9, C10
Equity	Equity Priority Community service, engagement with underserved groups	CCTA C7, C8; MTC Regional Alignment
Regional alignment prompts	Named PBA 2050+ strategies; Res. 4400 safety policy; Complete Streets; Transit Transformation Action Plan; Transit Priority	MTC 10 pts
Federal performance goals	Checkbox + narrative per goal area	MTC 5 pts
Deliverability & risk	Phase status, NEPA class of action, ROW status, schedule, sponsor delivery record	MTC 10 pts; CCTA C5
Funding plan	Phase-by-phase costs, secured vs. unsecured, match %, toll-credit request	CCTA C3; screening
Acknowledgements	Obligation deadline, Complete Streets checklist, project delivery policy, data sharing	Screening; compliance

4 · Reference shelf

Linked, not summarized — tools and templates

MTC OBAG 4 program page — canonical source for templates, updates, and staff contact (Mallory Atkinson, MTC Funding Policy & Programs).
Resolution 4740 (Rev. April 2026) — full program policy, county targets, project selection criteria.
Administrative Guidance — County Program Requirements.
County Program Base Application template.
OBAG 4 Air Quality Input Form (Excel) — required for CMAQ projects; produces the inputs MTC scores for the 10 AQ points. Run it early; it drives fund-source election.
MTC Complete Streets Portal — file the Res. 4493 checklist here before formal submittal; CBPAC reviews it Sep 21, 2026.
Resolution of Local Support template — MTC's required form; CCTA collects them Feb/Mar 2027 for awarded grants, but the CCFP screening asks for local support/compliance now.
PDA / TOC one-mile buffer map (ArcGIS) — verify your geographic-minimum claim against the official layer, not your own buffer.
Caltrans SRTS-NI guidance; PBA 2050+ strategy & project lists — feed these to the workbench later for ingestion if pursuing those angles.

Sources ingested

Ledger — updated as documents are fed

CCTA CCFP Program Requirements — June 23, 2026

Ingested July 8, 2026 · full text · rubric, screening, schedules, fund tables

MTC Resolution 4740, Revised April 22, 2026

Ingested July 8, 2026 · Attachment A policies + project lists

OBAG 4 Administrative Guidance — County Program Requirements (Feb 2026)

Ingested July 8, 2026 · compliance determinations + enforcement

OBAG 4 County Program Base Application, v1 (Mar 2026)

Ingested July 8, 2026 · field-by-field structure

Contra Costa Supplemental Application

Pending — not yet published in reviewed materials

Caltrans SRTS-NI guidance

Pending — feed to ingest

PBA 2050+ strategies & TFCA FY27 Expenditure Plan Guidance (App. J)

Pending — feed to ingest

Strategy Bank

Where CCFP points are actually won

Structural reads of the 2026 CCFP — the moves that separate a 60-point application from a 72-point one under this specific rubric.

01 · Match is the cheapest 8 points on the sheet

Criterion 3 is purely computational: 20% match = 2 pts, 40% = 6, 60% = 8. No narrative skill required — just money. Measure J LSM (Programs 11/23) funds count as match dollars for OBAG/TLC/PBTF eligibility purposes, but Measure J is excluded from the leverage scoring calculation, so structure the funding plan with non-Measure-J sources doing the visible work.

02 · Criterion 1 is 26% of the sheet — HIN + LTS-1 is the gate

The top band (11–20 pts) effectively requires: regional or countywide HIN location, LTS-1 outcome, an adopted jurisdiction-wide Vision Zero policy, and an adopted timeline to eliminate KSI. Miss the HIN and you're capped near 10 no matter how good the design is. Cite the corridor's HIN designation explicitly and quantify countermeasure CRFs.

03 · Design ≥65% + SB-71 unlocks Criterion 5's top band

Deliverability scores 0 if design is under 35% at submittal. The 6–8 band goes to scopes that are significantly designed, Quick-Build, and/or SB-71-eligible (CEQA streamlining). If you can credibly restructure to a quick-build-first phasing, you convert a 3-point criterion into a 7–8 point one — and pick up engagement credit under Criterion 9's quick-build clause.

04 · One application, multiple nominations

The coordinated structure means a Class I trail on the HIN connecting to BART can plausibly nominate into OBAG ATS + TFCA + PBTF + TLC simultaneously. Only one federal source applies, but Measure J and Air District funds stack. Write once, qualify everywhere: check every eligible box in the router and let the panels allocate.

05 · Savings flow downhill to ATS

Funding not consumed by the five CCTA-led Countywide Programs upon screening is redirected to the competitive programs. The published ATS cap is "up to $5M," but the realistic pot may be larger — competitive local applications should be sized and scored to be next-in-line, not just inside the nominal cap.

06 · RTPC lists run at 120% — ranking position matters more than passing

TLC lists submitted by each RTPC total roughly 120% of the subregional share. Being ranked is not being funded; the Authority assembles the final coordinated program across sources. Aim for the top of your RTPC's list, and give the Authority a clean multi-source story so your project is easy to fund from whichever bucket has room.

07 · Policy adoptions are point multipliers with deadlines

Four local-policy commitments unlock maxima across criteria: micromobility regulations (Dec 31, 2026), O&M commitment resolution (Jul 31, 2027), Transit First policy (Jul 31, 2027 → Criterion 12 max), and a bicycle parking & charging ordinance (→ Criterion 7). These are council actions, not project features — schedule them now, cite the calendared date in the application.

08 · TLC's construction-linkage rule kills design-only asks

TLC funds no scope that is solely design/ROW/environmental. Every funded project must include some implementation (quick-build counts) and a funded path to construction. If construction money isn't secured, pair a quick-build implementation phase with a committed construction funding plan — that satisfies the rule and scores better on C5.

09 · PBTF countywide = CBPP list + finished facility

The countywide PBTF share only funds projects on the Board-adopted CBPP list (March 2025) and must end in a publicly usable facility. If your project isn't on the list, PBTF is closed this cycle — but the sheet's Criterion 9 rewards having submitted it for the next CBPP update. Do both.

10 · The MTC 25 is won with proper nouns

Regional Alignment scoring rewards naming: the specific PBA 2050+ strategies, Res. 4400, the Transit Transformation Action Plan actions, Res. 4739 transit priority. Deliverability & Risk scores your agency's actual OBAG 3 / Cycle-2 delivery record — quantify months of delay (or absence of it) rather than asserting "strong track record."

11 · Data provenance is now a screening item, not garnish

GIS layers (LTS-classified networks, HIN, CIP boundaries, development pipeline) are a pass/fail screen and a data-sharing condition of award. BayViz, SWITRS/TIMS, StreetLight or Replica citations are expected in the need statement, and any AI/ML use in the project must be disclosed to CCTA.

12 · The 20-page ceiling is a design constraint

Twenty pages beyond the forms, single PDF. The rubric has ~90 checkbox prompts across 12 criteria; you cannot narrate them all. Structure attachments so each criterion's top-band evidence is findable in one place — evaluators score against the sheet, so mirror the sheet's order.

🔒

Concord Intelligence

This tab contains jurisdiction-specific strategy. Enter the access phrase to unlock for this session.

Concord in the 2026 CCFP

Central subregion · TRANSPAC

$11.091M

Central County TLC-3 target. Concord competes at TRANSPAC against Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Martinez, and Clayton — a shortlist where a top-ranked, construction-ready application can take a large share.

2 applications

Concord's cap. Every countywide program (Smart Signals Ph. 2, SRTS-NI, TDM, Student Transportation, EV Blueprint) is CCTA-filed and doesn't consume the cap — participate in those separately and spend both local slots on capital projects.

CSAP = screen pass

The adopted Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (Council, May 12, 2026) satisfies the LRSP screening row and MTC's safety-planning requirement: within 5 years, equity-integrated, Safe System-based, with a public commitment at concordsafestreets.org.

Screening & scoring position

Assets already in hand

HIN coverage: Clayton Road, Monument Boulevard, Willow Pass Road, Concord Avenue, and Galindo Street are documented HIN corridors — any project on them starts inside Criterion 1's top band conditions.
Adopted project lists: the CSAP's 16 recommended safety projects and Safe Streets Toolkit give Criterion 9's "in a locally adopted plan, with ranked project list" answer a clean citation.
Data infrastructure: SWITRS/TIMS collision analysis (2021–2025), HIN scoring methodology, and GIS layers already exist — the pass/fail GIS screen and the field-data expectations are pre-met.
Delivery record: recent competitive awards and active federal-aid delivery support the MTC Deliverability & Risk 10 points — quantify obligation timeliness rather than asserting it.

Gaps to close before scoring panels meet

Micromobility regulations — screening row 4: adopted (or moratorium in place) by Dec 31, 2026; confirm code status and calendar the item.
O&M commitment resolution — screening row 5: publicly stated commitment to annual O&M, repair, and lifecycle replacement, or a firm plan to adopt by Jul 31, 2027.
Transit First policy — Criterion 12 maximum requires a written commitment by Jul 31, 2027 using MTC's template language. A two-point criterion, but cheap.
Bicycle parking & charging ordinance — Criterion 7 prompt; pair with the micromobility item as one council package.
Vision Zero policy resolution with KSI-elimination timeline — the CSAP establishes the plan; Criterion 1's top band and Criterion 9 look for an adopted jurisdiction-wide policy resolution adapting the countywide template with safety-before-speed language. Verify the adoption instrument satisfies this as written, or calendar a conforming resolution.

Candidate application shapes

Fit against the router — verify before committing the 2 slots

Shape A — HIN corridor safety package (OBAG ATS + TLC)

A bundled Safe System corridor project on a countywide-HIN segment (Monument, Clayton, or Willow Pass): protected intersections, LPI, lighting, curb extensions, LTS-1 bike facility. Router: OBAG-Yes (federal-eligible, >$500K, physical protection), TLC-Yes (Central, walkability-supportive, construction-linked), PBTF-Yes only if CBPP-listed, TFCA-Yes if the bikeway element is Class I/IV. Quick-build first phase converts C5 and C9 into top bands.

Shape B — Trail-to-transit gap closure (PBTF + TFCA + TLC)

A Class I connection completing a CBPP-listed gap toward BART/transit. Router: PBTF-Yes (CBPP list, usable facility), TFCA-Yes (Class I, run the C-E calculator early — trail projects with strong latent demand usually clear $1M/ton), TLC-Yes, OBAG-Yes if federalized delivery is acceptable. Criterion 6 (9 pts, gap closure) and Criterion 1 trail-crossing patterns score naturally; pair with EBRPD where a trail crossing is involved for Criterion 4 credit.

Slot discipline: with a 2-application cap and multi-program nomination, two well-shaped applications can compete in up to eight nomination lanes simultaneously. Choose the two that maximize distinct lanes rather than two that compete in the same ones. Nothing in this tab is confidential agency information — it is public-record strategy framing; do not add competitively sensitive material here, since client-side gating is deterrence, not security.