Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_20c30e2aad

Alpine County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan For the: County of Alpine Prepared by: Alta Planning and Design May 4, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Acknowledgements County Staff Zach Wood — Alpine County Community Development Department Scott Maas — Alpine County Local Transportation Commission, Consultant Stakeholder Members Dr. Richard Harvey — County Public Health Officer Shane Marquardt — Public Health Program Coordinator Dr. Lisa Fontana — Alpine County School District Superintendent John Cotter — Alta Alpina Cycling Club Teresa Burkhauser — Alpine County Chamber of Commerce/ Death Ride Director Joyce Coker — Community Member Aaron Johnson — Mountain Adventure Seminars, Bear Valley DeAnne Roberts — Hung-A-Lel-Ti Community Chairperson Nate Whaley — Vice President Kirkwood Community Association & CFO Kirkwood Mountain Resort Michael Robinson — CalTrans District 10 Consultant Team Ian Moore — Principal, Alta Planning + Design Sheri Brown Dion — Project Manager, Tallac Applied Ecology & Design Bruce Wolff — Project Planner, Alta Planning + Design ---PAGE BREAK--- This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- I Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 SETTING AND HISTORY 1.2 WHY DOES ALPINE COUNTY NEED A BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN? 1.3 PLAN 1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN STRUCTURE 1.5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2 EXISTING 2-1 2.1 SETTING 2.2 EXISTING 2.3 MOUNTAIN BIKING 2.4 EXISTING BICYCLE PARKING 2.5 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN 2.6 EXISTING PROGRAMS AND EVENTS 3 PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW 3-1 3.1 COUNTYWIDE PLANS 3.2 COMMUNITY AND SPECIFIC PLANS 3.3 STATE AND FEDERAL LANDS 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS 4-1 4.1 COLLISION ANALYSIS 4.2 JOURNEY TO 4.3 FUTURE BICYCLE USE 4.4 AIR POLLUTANTS AVOIDED FROM FUTURE WALKING AND BICYCLE TRIPS 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1 5.1 COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK 5.2 COUNTYWIDE WAYFINDING SIGN 5.3 COUNTYWIDE SHARE THE ROAD SIGNAGE PROJECT 5.4 COUNTYWIDE SAFE ROUTES TO 5.5 MARKLEEVILLE 5.6 WOODFORDS RECOMMENDATIONS 5-13 5.7 KIRKWOOD RECOMMENDATIONS 5-19 5.8 BEAR VALLEY 5-25 5.9 HUNG-A-LEL-TI 5-31 5.10 FACILITY 5-35 5.11 5-37 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS II 6 6-1 6.1 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FUNDING 6.2 FEDERAL SOURCES 6.3 STATE SOURCES 6.4 REGIONAL/LOCAL 6-12 6.5 ELIGIBLE FACILITIES BY SOURCE 6-13 7 IMPLEMENTATION 7-1 7.1 PROJECT PRIORITY 7.2 RANKING 7.3 COST 7.4 PROJECT RANKING AND COST TABLE 7.5 FINANCE 7-10 7.6 PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING PROJECTS 7-13 7.7 COST BY 7-13 7.8 MAINTENANCE COST 7-13 APPENDIX A: BICYCLE TRANSPORATION ACCOUNT COMPLIANCE......A-1 APPENDIX B: DESIGN B-1 APPENDIX C: PUBLIC MEETING NOTES APPENDIX D: LAND USE MAP APPENDIX E: BEAR VALLEY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT E-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS III List of Tables Table 2-1: School Enrollment Table 2-2: Existing Bikeways Table 2-3: Existing Pedestrian Warning Table 3-1: Travel Restricted Table 4-1: Table 4-2: Alpine County Journey to Work Table 4-3: Future Bicycle Use Estimate Table 4-4: Air Pollutants Table 5-1: Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Table 5-2: Recommended Share the Road Sign (STR) Table 5-3: Maintenance Table 6-1: Funding Acronyms and Web-Based Resources Table 6-2: Federal Sources Table 6-3: State Table 6-4: Regional/Local Table 6-5: Eligible Facilities by Table 7-1: Ranking Criteria Definitions Table 7-2: Cost Table 7-3: Project Ranking and Cost Table 7-4: Finance Plan Table 7-5: PPM Table 7-6: Cost by Priority Table 7-7: Maintenance Cost List of Figures Figure 2-1: Existing Conditions Figure 2-2: Local Existing Conditions Figure 2-3: Caltrans Bikeway Classifications Figure 4-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Map Figure 5-1: Alpine County Recommended Improvements Overview Figure 5-2: Recommended Shoulder Width in Constrained Figure 5-3: Markleeville Recommended Figure 5-4: Woodfords Recommended Figure 5-5: Kirkwood Recommended Figure 5-6: Bear Valley Recommended Figure 5-7: Diamond Valley Road Curve Figure 5-8: Hung-A-Lel-Ti Recommended Improvements Figure 6-1: Funding Source Flow ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS IV This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SETTING AND HISTORY Alpine County, California lies along the crest of the central Sierra Nevada, south of Lake Tahoe and north of Yosemite. Its name truly describes the area, since snow-covered peaks, high alpine meadows and beautiful forests are the main geographic features. The majority of Alpine County, 96 percent, is publicly owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The elevation ranges from about 4,800 feet in Carson to over 11,400 feet along the crest of the central Sierra Nevada1. Alpine County has a population of 1,180 residents according to the U.S. Census 2006 estimate, making it the least populated county in California. With a land area of 738 square miles, Alpine County also has the lowest population density of any county in the State. The County’s roadway network consists primarily of State Routes (SR) including 4, 207, 88, and 89, the local streets serving the unincorporated communities of Markleeville and Woodfords, and the roadways serving the resort communities of Kirkwood and Bear Valley. These population and roadway characteristics create a rural mountain environment. Markleeville is the County seat and home to many of the county's offices. Since Alpine County has no incorporated cities, most public services are provided by county departments and agencies. The first to call Alpine County home were the native Washo people. The Washo spent their summers around the shores of Lake Tahoe and their winters in the valleys of western Nevada and eastern California. The southern band of the tribe, the Hung-A-Lel-Ti, spent their winters in the Diamond Valley area of Alpine County. Today the community of Hung-A-Lel-Ti is home to approximately 62 Washo families. Alpine County was created in 1854 in the wake of the Nevada silver boom with hopes of discovering a second Comstock Lode in what would become eastern Alpine County. The population soared to about 11,000. Politicians quickly created Alpine County from parts of Amador, El Dorado, Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties. By 1868 however, the local silver mines had proven unfruitful, and the population fell to about 1,200 where it has remained.2 After the silver rush, Alpine County's economy consisted almost entirely of farming, ranching, and logging. The Bear Valley and Kirkwood ski resorts were developed in the late 1 Alpine County Chamber of Commerce 2 Alpine County Historical Society Silver Mountain City log jail in Markleeville Trail at Grover Hot Springs State Park ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION 1-2 1960s, bringing tourism jobs to the area. 1.2 WHY DOES ALPINE COUNTY NEED A BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN? Alpine County has held a relatively steady population over the past 70 years. However, a steady increase in winter and summer tourism, visitors passing through on their way to nearby destinations Yosemite and Lake Tahoe), and local events have brought traffic related issues to the area. Managing traffic, enforcing speed limits, and improving vehicle awareness of bicyclists are key strategies for the communities of Alpine County to ensure they maintain their rural nature and community character. This Plan is also an opportunity to promote environmentally-friendly tourism throughout scenic Alpine County, while providing safe bicycling and walking opportunities for residents. Providing safe routes for bicycling and walking will encourage these activities throughout each of Alpine County’s communities and will help increase the enjoyment and quality of life for the residents of Alpine County. Since bicycling and walking are the most popular forms of recreational activity in the United States we can assume that County residents who walk to for pleasure and bicycle will benefit from this Plan. When bicycling or walking is available as a daily mode of transportation or recreation, substantial environmental and health benefits result. Finally, safety concerns are one of the primary reasons to improve bicycling and walking conditions in Alpine County. Concerns about safety have historically been the single greatest reason people do not walk or bicycle. Addressing those concerns for bicyclists through physical and program improvements is another major objective of this Plan. This Plan is the first step towards addressing traffic safety and congestion, motorist awareness and developing Alpine County as a bicycle and pedestrian “Mecca” for both residents and visitors. This plan guides the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and networks in the County. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that facility improvements are constructed in an orderly fashion and to make the County more competitive when applying for funding. With the help of the Steering Committee, this plan identifies opportunities and constraints to bicycling and walking and the improvements needed to improve access. Due to the County’s rugged landscape and rural population, Alpine County’s communities are primarily connected by state roads and highways; therefore this plan’s improvements focus on roadway shoulders, providing safe roadway crossings and increasing motorists’ awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians. 1.3 PLAN PROCESS Development of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was lead by the Alpine County Community Development Department (ACCDD). A Steering Committee was formed to guide this effort. Representatives from the Health Department, School District, Chamber of Commerce, Caltrans Cyclists of all ages use Highway 4 to go between Bear Valley and Lake Alpine. ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION 1-3 District 10, private developments, the Alpina Cycling Club, and community at large made up the committee. The Steering Committee met on three occasions throughout the development of the Plan. In addition, ACCDD hosted a public workshop to solicit input from the greater community. 1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN STRUCTURE This report is divided into seven sections as described below. Section 1 introduces and sets the context for the Plan including its overall purpose and structure. It also presents the goals and objectives which guide the implementation of the Master Plan. Section 2 describes the Existing Conditions of bikeway and walkway facilities in Alpine County. Section 3 reviews existing efforts in Planning and Policies. Section 4 reviews the relationship between bicycle activity, commute patterns, demographics, land use and collisions through a Needs Analysis. Section 5 outlines the Recommended Improvements, including shoulder improvements and sidewalks for each community and Countywide education, outreach and encouragement programs. Section 6 describes Funding Sources for proposed projects including a table illustrating eligible facilities by source of funding. Section 7 provides a Project Implementation strategy including prioritization, cost estimates for proposed projects and a finance plan.. In addition there are three appendices. Appendix A: Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Appendix B: Design Guidelines Appendix C: Steering Committee and Public Workshop Meeting Notes Appendix D: Land Use Map Appendix E: Bear Valley Proposed Development Map 1.5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES This Plan’s Goals and Objectives guide the development of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Alpine County. The Goals and Objectives were developed to be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan, which seeks safe and efficient movement of people and commerce. Goal 1: Increase Opportunities for Bicycling and Walking in Alpine County ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION 1-4 Objective 1.1: Expand bicycle travel opportunities to increase bicycling for transportation and recreation where safe and reasonable. Objective 1.2: Expand pedestrian travel opportunities to increase walking for transportation and recreation where safe and reasonable. Goal 2: Provide safe and efficient bikeways and pedestrian routes in Alpine County Objective 2.1: Construct bikeways identified in the Alpine County Bicycle /Pedestrian Master Plan and provide for the maintenance of both existing and new facilities. Objective 2.2: Construct pedestrian facilities identified in the Alpine County Bicycle /Pedestrian Master Plan and provide for the maintenance of both existing and new facilities. Objective 2.3: Design and construct bikeways according to current bicycle facility design best practices, meeting or exceeding Caltrans Highway Design Manual, California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and AASHTO. Objective 2.4: Design and construct pedestrian environments according to current facility design best practices including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines for sidewalks and accessibility guidelines for trails and outdoor recreational facilities. Goal 3: Develop and conduct education and encouragement programs to promote safe use of Alpine County bikeways and pedestrian facilities for utilitarian, commute, recreation and personal health needs Objective 3.1: Reduce or enforce vehicle speed on roadways to increase bicycle trips to work and school. Objective 3.2: Encourage people to walk through education and awareness efforts. Objective 3.3: Support Safe Routes to Schools efforts that increase the number of students walking to school. Objective 3.4: Educate and inform residents and visitors of Alpine County about how to use bikeway facilities safely to reduce accidents and increase the number of bikeway system users. Goal 4: Ensure the Timely Implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Objective 4.1: Continue to work to fund construction of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements in this plan Objective 4.2: Develop and construct the improvements in this plan in a timely fashion as adequate funding is secured ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION 1-5 Objective 4.3: Update this Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan every five years to ensure Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account eligibility Objective 4.4: Adopt new zoning ordinances that will promote the implementation of this plan Objective 4.5: Include bikeway and pedestrian facilities in all appropriate future and development projects to facilitate on-site circulation for pedestrian and bicycle travel and connections to the proposed system. Objective 4.6: As a long-term goal, the County should establish and maintain Pedestrian Design Guidelines that respond to Alpine County’s rural character. Objective 4.7: Coordinate closely with Caltrans District 10 and other partner public agencies to ensure implementation of projects identified in this plan through roadway improvement projects. Goal 5: Ensure the Effectiveness and Longevity of the Plan Policies, Projects and Programs Objective 5.1: Require that the policies, programs and projects of the Bicycle / Pedestrian Master Plan be integrated into all ongoing and future planning and design documents and guidelines. Goal 6: Develop a bikeway a pedestrian system that enhances the overall environmental quality and sustainability of Alpine County Objective 6.1: Design and engineer bikeways and pedestrian facilities to respond to and enhance the Alpine County environment. Objective 6.2: Where potentially significant environmental impacts are identified as a part of project specific implementation, mitigate to a level of less-than-significant. Goal 7: Coordinate with State and Federal land management agencies U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs, California Department of Fish and Game and California State Parks) and utility districts South Tahoe Public Utility District) on lands planning efforts that may affect bicyclists and pedestrians Objective 7.1: Identify current or ongoing planning efforts by Federal and State agencies and cross-reference potential projects in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION 1-6 This page intentionally left blank. . ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter summarizes the existing conditions that influence bicycle and pedestrian travel in Alpine County including primary areas of employment, schools, and transit service. This chapter also summarizes existing bicycle and pedestrian on-street facilities, paths, trails, supporting programs and events. 2.1 SETTING Less than seven percent of the total land area within the county’s administrative boundary is controlled by Alpine County. In addition, most of the paved roadways frequented by bicyclists and pedestrians are managed by state and federal agencies. In rural counties like Alpine, cooperative relationships and programs among local, state and federal agencies is essential for implementation of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The County prides itself on its low population density, touting “two people per square mile” on many tourism websites and brochures.3 In reality, most residents reside in the unincorporated communities of Markleeville and Woodfords and the resort communities of Bear Valley and Kirkwood, where the greatest seasonal employment is also concentrated. Figure 2-1 maps these communities and Figure 2-2 provides more detailed maps of them. The main roadways in Alpine County are State Routes 88, 89 and 4. Segments of these roadways provide shoulders for bicycle and pedestrian use. Fire roads and soft-surface trails are located throughout the county and are commonly used by recreational bicyclists and hikers. 2.1.1 Top Employers The largest employers in Alpine County are public agencies and resorts. The Alpine County School District and Sorensen’s Resort employ 30-49 people each.4 The Bear Valley and Kirkwood Resorts have seasonal employment that peaks in the winter months. Both resorts provide summertime employment opportunities supporting mountain biking, kayaking, disc golf and entertainment events. Kirkwood Human Resources reported 140 year-round employees, with a peak employment of 800 people between November and April. Eighty percent of Kirkwood’s employees travel from South Lake Tahoe, while the other 20 percent travel from the Carson Valley communities of Minden and Gardnerville in Nevada. To manage the transport of these employees, Kirkwood offers a carpooling program and motorcoach. A few of the executive staff bicycle to work. 3 US Census population estimate for 2008 4 California Department of Employer Development ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-2 2.1.2 Schools Providing safe walking and bicycling conditions is a priority of this plan. The county has three elementary schools, one secondary school and two high schools. Most of these schools have student enrollments of five or less with the exception of Bear Valley and Diamond Valley Elementary schools. Many of the high school students elect to attend Douglas High School in neighboring Gardnerville Nevada, where the student body is more diverse and extracurricular programs available. Table 2-1 lists the County schools and their respective enrollment. Figure 2-1 shows locations of these schools. 2.1.3 Transit In December 2009, Alpine County Local Transportation Commission approved allocating local transportation funds for a Dial-a-Ride service. Service is provided from 8 am to 5 pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays to destinations as far as Reno and Placerville. Bicycle racks are not provided on Dial-A-Ride vehicles however, their installation may be considered if future demand warrants it. 2.2 EXISTING BIKEWAYS This Plan refers to bikeways using Caltrans standard designations. The three types of bikeways identified by Caltrans in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual are defined below. Figure 2-3 illustrates the three types of bikeways. Class I Bikeway: Typically called a “bike path,” a Class I Bikeway provides bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. Class II Bikeway: Typically called a “bike lane,” a Class II Bikeway provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. Class III Bikeway: Typically called a “bike route,” a Class III Bikeway provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by signing. Table 2-2 lists the existing bikeways in Alpine County. The bikeways consist of one of each type and total 7.2 miles in length. Table 2-1: School Enrollment (2008-09) School Enrollment Alpine County Secondary Community Day 2 Bear Valley High 3 Woodfords High 5 Bear Valley Elementary 20 Diamond Valley Elementary 98 Alpine County Elementary Community Day 1 Total Enrollment 129 Source: California Department of Education Pedestrians and cyclists enjoy the multi-use path lining Lake Alpine’s north shore. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-3 Figure 2-1: Existing Conditions Map ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-4 Figure 2-2: Local Existing Conditions Map ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-5 Figure 2-3: Caltrans Bikeway Classifications ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-6 Table 2-2: Existing Bikeways Roadway / Location Type From To Length Northbound SR 89 II Westfork Lane SR 88 0.1 SR 89 III Montgomery Road Westfork Lane 6.4 Lake Alpine I East side of Lake North side of Lake 0.7 Total Bikeways Mileage 7.2 2.3 MOUNTAIN BIKING Bear Valley and Kirkwood Resorts offer summertime mountain biking and bicycle rentals. Trails at these resorts are open to the public and are also used for competitive racing. As a result, the roadways around these resorts experience frequent bicycle traffic. One popular route connecting Bear Valley and Lake Alpine is along SR 4. This stretch of roadway is not only a popular connection for mountain bikers, but used by road cyclists. A wide single track trail is also available along this route. Gravel and paved paths are available for beginning cyclists or for those who just want a scenic, easy going ride. Steeper, more technical dirt trails are available for advanced riders. Kirkwood offers lift-access mountain biking, where cyclists can purchase a chair lift pass and ride down the hills. In the summer of 2009, Kirkwood hosted three competitive mountain bike events, known as the Summer Bike Series. Mountain biking is also popular throughout Alpine County on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, California State Parks and other agencies. Unpaved roads and trails exist throughout the County. Locals and visitors alike access these unpaved routes from a variety of origin points including Woodfords, Diamond Valley, Markleeville, Grover Hot Springs State Park, as well as the smaller resorts and campgrounds along State Routes 4, 88 and 89. These formal and informal access points and trails constitute significant bicycle activity in the County. Many of the routes however are “out-and-back” trails. There is a desire among many to connect trails and trailheads to provide opportunities for loop rides and mountain bike “transit” connections various destinations. For example, connecting the Turtle Rock campground and disc golf park to Grover Hot Springs State Park and Markleeville would allow campers to visit other destinations via bicycle. This type of alternative transit is part of the larger vision of Alpine County as a premiere bicycling/walking destination. Bear Valley offers a wide range of mountain biking terrain. Photo Source: bearvalley.com Bear Valley Resort offers a range of mountain biking trails. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-7 2.4 EXISTING BICYCLE PARKING Most of the bicycle parking in the county is concentrated at the resorts and in Markleeville. During the Death Ride, described on page 2-8, temporary bicycle racks are set up to accommodate the high volume of cyclists traveling through the area. Existing bicycle parking locations are listed below and marked on Figure 2-1.  Bear Valley Resort gas station  Bear Valley Resort Lodge  Bear Valley High School  Diamond Valley Elementary School  Alpine County Library in Markleeville  Alpine County Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center, Markleeville  Café and Ice Cream shop, Markleeville  Kirkwood General Store 2.5 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities are concentrated in downtown Markleeville and Bear Valley resort. Kirkwood has a system of paths connecting some of the lodge buildings during the summertime. Existing pedestrian facilities are limited to sidewalks of various widths and pedestrian warning signs. 2.5.1 Sidewalks Downtown Markleeville, along SR 89, provides a short stretch of sidewalk south of Montgomery Street, which is pictured to the right. The sidewalk is only along the west side of SR 89 and due to the historic nature of the town, it varies in character – a covered walkway in some places, a few stairs between buildings, benches and flower pots in front of some shops and café tables and chairs in front of others. The overall feel is charming and rural, but unfortunately does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2.5.2 Pedestrian Warning Signage Where there are concentrations of residents or tourists, many pedestrians cross the State Routes to access Alpine County’s resorts, campgrounds, trails, fishing holes and other attractions. In some areas, the County and Caltrans have installed pedestrian warning signs to alert motorists of pedestrians crossing the roadway or using the shoulder. Table 2-3 lists pedestrian warning sign locations. Sidewalks are limited to this one block stretch in downtown Markleeville. The Bear Valley Lodge has a bicycle rack at its entrance. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-8 Table 2-3: Existing Pedestrian Warning Signs Location Roadway/Intersection Markleeville Northbound SR 89, 0.1 mile north of Diamond Valley Road Bear Valley North and Southbound SR 4 2.6 EXISTING PROGRAMS AND EVENTS 2.6.1 Encouragement Alpine County attracts recreational cyclists from far and wide to participate in a variety of cycling rides and races. The most popular of which is the Death Ride, held annually in July. Cycling clubs from around the Sacramento, Tahoe and Reno areas regularly use the county’s roads. 2.6.1.1 Death Ride (Tour de California Alps) The Death Ride is not only Alpine County’s premier amateur cycling event, but also subjects cyclists to the most extreme conditions, providing five passes to climb, over 15,000 feet gain in elevation, and a course length of 129 miles. Temperatures can reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit and thunderstorms are common. The ride features miles of road closures, including SR 89 from the Markleeville courthouse to the SR 4 junction. This segment of SR 89 and the Monitor and Ebbett’s Pass’ are closed to vehicular traffic from 5 am to 9 am. While the conditions accurately reflect the ride’s name, registered cyclists are of varying backgrounds. Of the 4,263 registrants for the 2008 ride, ages ranged from 11 to 81, with 12 cyclists under 18 years of age. The Death Ride Website5 provides a wealth of information including training tips, rider stats, and photos. Because the Death Ride transforms Alpine County into a cycling mecca, the website also provides information about lodging and travel plans. 2.6.1.2 Cycling Clubs Cycling Clubs from around the Tahoe Region and as far as Sacramento ride in Alpine County. These clubs offer rides tailored for all skill levels. The Alta Alpina Cycling Club (AACC) has 400 members with locations in South Lake Tahoe, Carson City, Nevada, and Gardnerville. The club sponsors road and mountain bike rides for all skill levels, including a weekly race on Blue Lakes Road, starting on Old Luther Pass Road, connecting with Blue Lakes Road to Blue Lake. 5 Death Ride Website: http://www.deathride.com/index.html Cyclists come from throughout the western United States to participate in the Death Ride. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-9 The Reno Wheelmen is a cycling club of 150 members. The club sponsors rides throughout the greater Lake Tahoe area, including several races in the Hidden Valley area of Alpine County. The Sacramento Wheelmen is a cycling club of 700 members. The club sponsors several rides in Alpine County. 2.6.2 Education The Alpine County Health and Human Services Department sponsors a Bike-a-Thon once a year at Diamond Valley Elementary School. As part of the this event, Sheriff’s Department Deputies and California Highway Patrol assist in educating participants about safe bicycling. Cones are set out for children to practice their bicycling skills. The Health and Human Services Department also provides chaperoned bike rides to school from the Hung-a-Lel-Ti community several times a week during the fall and spring months. Participation varies from four to 50 students. The Health Department also assists with children’s health and fitness through a walking and biking program during school hours as part of physical fitness. 2.6.3 Enforcement The Alpine County Sheriff’s Department deploys a radar trailer where motorists frequently speed. The radar trailer displays the posted speed limit and passing vehicle speed. It is usually deployed in Markleeville, but can be moved to a different location if requested. The Sheriff’s Department also assists with the Death Ride. Personnel attend pre- and post-event meetings, as well as provide extra patrol during the event. 2.6.4 Maintenance Caltrans snow maintenance crews plow the State Routes. Ebbett’s Pass and Monitor Pass are closed in winter, typically from November to May. Carson Pass is maintained clear of snow and open, weather permitting. Snow removal in Markleeville has a direct influence on pedestrian facilities permitted by Caltrans. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-10 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3-1 3 PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW This chapter reviews planning and policy documents relevant to this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The purpose of this review is to ensure this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan maintains consistency with previously adopted plans. The reviewed plans are listed below.  Alpine County General Plan  Regional Transportation Plan  Alpine County Bike Plan  Markleeville Downtown Revitalization Plan  Kirkwood Specific Plan  Bear Valley Master Plan  California Scenic Highway Designation  Bicycle Access on State Federal and State Lands  Bureau of Land Management, Carson City Office 3.1 COUNTYWIDE PLANS 3.1.1 Alpine County General Plan (2009) The Alpine County General Plan is made up of seven elements that guide future development. The State of California requires General Plans to be updated every 10 years and permits up to four amendments to each element per calendar year. The Circulation Element, last updated in 1999, plans safe and adequate circulation of people, goods and utilities, including bicycle and pedestrian travel and is therefore the most relevant to this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. As part of the “Needs Assessment” of the Circulation Element, the General Plan identifies “Needs/Issues”, which are listed below.  SR 89 bridge over Markleeville Creek does not provide room for bicyclists and pedestrians and is used by school children.  Hot Springs Road is narrow. Bicyclists must use travel lanes. Section C of the Circulation Element presents two goals and respective objectives and polices that accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Goal 40 sets forth to “develop bicycle circulation and support facilities where safe and reasonable.” Goal 41 sets for to “develop pedestrian circulation for the betterment of local commerce and as well as the safety and convenience of local citizens.” With the guidance of the goals above, the Circulation Element identifies bicycle improvement priorities, which are listed below.  Construct a multi-use path along Hot Springs Road. ---PAGE BREAK--- PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW 3-2  Construct a shoulder for bicyclists on SR 88 between Woodfords and Picketts Junction. Projected project year is 2007. This project is partially completed.  Construct a shoulder for bicyclists on SR 88 between Caples Creek and Kirkwood Meadows Road. Projected project year is 2010. As of the development of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the County is amending its General Plan’s Land Use Map to permit the proposed development of Bear Valley Village. Further discussion of the proposed development is provided on page 3-4. 3.1.2 Regional Transportation Plan (2005-2025) The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) guides the development of Alpine County’s transportation system until 2025. Adopted in 2005, the RTP identifies short (10 year period) and long term (20 year period) projects and presents goals, objectives and policies to guide and implement these projects. One of the RTP goals is to develop a bicycle circulation and support system that is consistent with Caltrans bikeway design standards. A policy of this goal is to encourage construction of Class I and II facilities, constructing Class III facilities only when necessary. This same goal identifies the need for improved pedestrian circulation, where needed, for the betterment of local commerce and pedestrian safety. Measures in support for this goal are listed below.  Increase bicycle and pedestrian options for commuter and recreational travel.  Add facilities, such as bicycle lockers, to support bicycling in Alpine County.  Close gaps in the bicycle network.  Maintain accident rates at statewide average or better. The RTP is designed to systematically develop a comprehensive multi-modal system, a system that includes bicycling and walking. The RTP identifies three bicycle and pedestrian projects, which are listed below.  Construct a multi-use path between Markleeville and Grover Hot Springs State Park.  Improving Hot Springs Road to accommodate bicyclists. An initial study of the path estimated a cost of $4.5 million.  Improving the SR 88 shoulder for bicyclists from Markleeville to the SR 89 junction. (Identified in the Alpine County General Plan)  Improving the SR 88 shoulder for bicyclists from Caples Creek to Kirkwood Meadows Road. (Identified in the Alpine County General Plan) ---PAGE BREAK--- PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW 3-3 3.1.3 Alpine County Bike Plan (1980) Alpine County’s last bicycle plan was adopted in 1980. The purpose of this Caltrans produced plan is similar to this plan, to encourage bicycling as an alternative form of transportation to the automobile and as a way to maintain physical fitness. The purpose of the plan was also to become competitive in receiving grant funding the Bicycle Lane Account and to identify barriers on existing bicycle routes and improvements to mitigate these barriers. The objective of 1980 Bike Plan was to “build bicycle paths linking traffic generators as a reasonable alternate to motorized travel systems.” 3.2 COUNTYWIDE POLICIES The Alpine County Unified School District adopted two policies in October 2009 to support Safe Routes to school and Green Schools Operations. Board Policy 3510 is entitled Green School Operations. The intent is to integrate green school practices into district operations to contribute to, among other things, a healthy school environment. Specifically, the schools will work on "reducing vehicle traffic by encouraging students to walk or bicycle to school". Board Policy 5142.2(a) is called Safe Routes to School Program and recognizes walking, bicycling and other forms of active transport to school promote students' physical activity and reduce vehicle traffic and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. It states that schools will take a coordinated approach to supporting walking, bicycling and other active transport by implementing strategies to establish and promote safe routes to school. 3.3 COMMUNITY AND SPECIFIC PLANS 3.3.1 Markleeville Downtown Revitalization Plan (1998) The Markleeville Downtown Revitalization Plan was produced to enhance the Markeleville’s Downtown by developing design guidelines and policy recommendations that support the area’s business owners and tourism industry, while maintaining the area’s historic character. In addition to identifying funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, the plan sets forth bicycle and pedestrian access requirements. These requirements include providing sidewalks and Class I bicycle paths to all new commercial and institutional developments. These requirements also include providing bicycle parking at ten percent of the required vehicle parking requirements for all new or expanded commercial developments. In addition to bicycle access requirements, the Downtown Revitalization Plan examines pedestrian access issues in more detail and provides specific recommendations, which are listed below.  The east side of Main Street has non-compliant Caltrans signage heights and signs that produce visual clutter.  Pedestrian Bridge over Markleeville Creek needs restoration and the surrounding area needs picnic facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW 3-4  Traffic calming is needed around the Alpine Hotel, including stops signs, speed cushions, planter-bulb-outs during the summer months and clear marking of crosswalks.  Streetscape elements should enhance the pedestrian experience and be free of clutter. Another policy in the plan allows bicycle, pedestrian or equestrian trails, paved or soft-surface, within the 25 foot setback established in the Stream Environment Overlay. 3.3.2 Kirkwood Specific Plan (2003) The Kirkwood Specific Plan establishes zoning designations and circulation patterns the serve the development of future skiing operations. One of the main objectives of the Specific Plan is to ensure future development is pedestrian oriented. To ensure the safety of pedestrians while constructing pedestrian facilities, the Specific Plan identifies measures to avoid pedestrian/snow conflict. Such conflicts include constructing sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways out of the way of roof drip lines and ensuring snow piling from snow removal does not block pedestrian right of way. The Specific Plan also recognizes bicycles as a form of transportation. The Specific Plan policies include encouraging bicycling to reduce in-valley traffic and constructing bicycle paths on utility easements when feasible. 3.3.3 Bear Valley Master Plan (1978) The Bear Valley Master Plan provides an analysis of land use and traffic for future development followed by appropriate mitigation measures. When the plan was written traffic growth was projected at an annual rate of five percent, resulting in peak hour volumes of 2,400 to 3,333 vehicles. While the Master Plan does not provide recommendations for bicycle or pedestrian facilities, it does offer developer constructed bikeways as a measure for mitigating automobile emissions. As of the development of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the County is working on an Amendment to its General Plan Land Use Map that will permit the development of Bear Valley Village. This development will dramatically change the existing land use in the Village, which seeks to create a premier ski village and resort. Appendix E provides a map of the proposed development, which includes approximately 500 additional dwelling units, a parking structure, a Village Center with a pedestrian plaza that connects to a high speed chair lift to the ski resort via a pedestrian bridge over Bear Valley Road. 3.4 STATE AND FEDERAL LANDS State and Federal Lands cover 93 percent of the County. In addition, many of the roads that would be used for bicycle and pedestrian transportation are State or Federally owned. Much of the land surrounding Woodfords is owned and managed by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) for waste water treatment. This includes re-use SR 89 is one of scenic highways frequently used by cyclists. ---PAGE BREAK--- PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW 3-5 water on ranching lands and management of three reservoirs. Coordination between the County, STPUD, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies is critical to maintaining consistent bicycle and pedestrian measures and creating connectivity between the communities and popular destinations. 3.4.1 Alpine County Resource Management Plan (2007) The purpose of the Resource Management Plan is to provide guidance on land tenure and travel networks on Bureau of Land Management land. The Travel and Trails Management section of the plan defines the amount of land where motorized vehicle use is restricted but it does not define the specific locations where this restriction is enforced. Table 3-1 lists the designated land areas with travel restrictions. Table 3-1: Travel Restricted Land Location Restriction Acres Fay-Luther Canyon Motorized Vehicles 871 Indian Creek Recreation Withdrawal Area (South Tahoe Public Utility District Right of Way) Motorized Vehicles and Public Access 268 Bagley Valley Designated Roads and Trails 5,143 Slinkard Wilderness Study Area Motorized Vehicles 2,375 Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Study Area Motorized Vehicles 550 3.4.2 California Scenic Highway Designation State Routes 4, 88 and 89 are officially designated as State Scenic Highways in Alpine County. As such, the designation limits the installation of signs and widening of roadways. Billboards and other signs that detract from the scenic beauty of the highway are prohibited. Highway shoulders may be widened to the maximum extent allowable without disturbing the natural contours of the land and surrounding vegetation. 3.4.3 Bureau of Land Management Strategic Mountain Biking Action Plan (2002) The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Strategic Mountain Biking Action Plan guides field office managers in implementing on-the-ground actions and resource protection for mountain bike use. This Action Plan provides general guidance and is not a decision document. Action items are provided to help guide the development of mountain biking measures and regulations that protect resources and minimize trail user conflicts. 3.4.4 National Forests Portions of the El Dorado, Humboldt, Toiyabe and Stanislaus National Forests lay within Alpine County and offer mountain biking and hiking opportunities. Mountain biking and hiking are regulated in national forests, with use permits and reservations required in some areas. Mountain biking is prohibited in Wilderness areas and off-trail mountain biking is prohibited on all U.S. Forest Service managed lands. ---PAGE BREAK--- PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW 3-6 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-1 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS This section analyzes existing collision data and estimates the current and future number of bicycle and pedestrian trips. This information helps identify where bicyclists and pedestrians are at risk and where future facilities are needed to accommodate their travel. In addition, this information makes Alpine County eligible for grant funding through California’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA). 4.1 COLLISION ANALYSIS Bicycle and pedestrian collisions with automobiles are infrequent in Alpine County, averaging one collision per year. Collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reveals that two pedestrian and four cyclist collisions occurred between the years of 2002 and 2006. All but one of the collisions occurred in the afternoon, when bicycle and pedestrian traffic is presumably at its highest level. Table 4-1 provides detailed information on these collisions and Figure 4-1 depicts where these collisions occurred. Table 4-1: Collisions Collision Date Collision Time Intersection Ped Cyclist Total 2002-07-01 1:00 am SR 4 and Raymond Meadows Creek 1 1 2002-08-10 12:05 pm SR 88 and Picketts Junction 1 1 2003-06-07 12:00 pm SR 4 and Hermit Valley Campground 1 1 2005-05-22 1:54 pm Diamond Valley Road and Chambers Lane 1 1 2006-08-02 3:30 pm Bear Valley Road and Bear Valley Resort Lot C 1 1 2006-12-16 3:45 pm SR 207 and SR 4 1 1 Total 2 4 6 4.2 JOURNEY TO WORK The United State Census Bureau conducts a decennial survey, which collects information on how people travel to work. While this information can give an idea of how many people walk and bicycle in a given location, it does not represent recreational pedestrians and bicyclists. As indicated by the numerous bicycling clubs and events in Alpine County, there are more bicyclists than the survey reports. Table 4-2 presents Alpine County journey to work data and compares it to data from California and the United States. While the 0% bike to work mode share does not compare well to the state and nation, the 25% walk to work mode share does. This is not surprising due to Alpine County’s small communities and resorts, which have workforces concentrated within walking distance. ---PAGE BREAK--- NEEDS ANALYSIS 4-2 Table 4-2: Alpine County Journey to Work Data Mode United States California Alpine County Bicycle 0.5% 0.8% 0% Drove Alone 76% 72% 52% Carpool 12% 15% 16% Public Transit 5% 5% 0% Walked 3% 3% 25% Other 0.7% 0.8% 3% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 4.3 FUTURE BICYCLE USE ESTIMATE The future number of people who bicycle to work after a full build out of this plan’s bicycle network can be estimated using conservative assumptions related to travel time to work. Table 4-3 presents “capture rate” assumptions and their application to Alpine County’s residents’ travel time to work. It is assumed that as people live further away from their work, the less likely they will bicycle to work. The result is an additional 63 people bicycling to work. The additional bicycle commuters can be assumed to translate into reduced driving. Of course not all of these bicycle commuters are assumed to have driven to work. As shown in Table 4-3, approximately 73 percent of motor vehicle trips to work at five days a week will be replaced with bicycle trips, resulting in a reduction of 116,039 vehicle miles per year. Table 4-3: Future Bicycle Use Estimate Variable Figure Sources and Notes Number of Workers with Commutes Nine Minutes or Less 238 US Census 2000 Number of Workers with Commutes 10- 19 minutes 135 US Census 2000 Number of Workers with Commutes 20- 29 minutes 44 US Census 2000 Number of Workers who already Bicycle or Walk to Work 0 US Census 2000 Number of Potential Bike-to-Work commuters 417 Calculated by subtracting number of workers who already bicycle or walk from the number of workers who have commutes 29 minutes or less Future Number of New Bike-to-Work Commuters 63 Based capture rate goals of 20%, 10%, and 5% of potential bicycle riders commuting less than 9 minutes, 10-19 minutes, and 20-29 minutes to work, respectively. Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters and Utilitarian Riders 65 Current daily bicycle commuters, bike to school and utilitarian riders, plus future bicycle commuters Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 130 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips) Replaced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 95 Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 438 Assumes average one-way trip travel length of 4.6 miles for adults. Assumes 12 mph average bicycle speed; 23 minute average travel time. Travel time data from NHTS 2001 Trends, Table 26. Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 116,039 256 weekdays per year ---PAGE BREAK--- NEEDS ANALYSIS 4-3 Figure 4-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Map (2002-2006) ---PAGE BREAK--- NEEDS ANALYSIS 4-4 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- NEEDS ANALYSIS 4-5 4.4 AIR POLLUTANTS AVOIDED FROM FUTURE WALKING AND BICYCLE TRIPS Using the estimated 116,039 vehicle mile reduction calculated in Table 4-3, the resulting air pollutant reduction can be calculated. Table 4-4 uses US Environmental Agency conversion rates to find that 193 metric tons per years will be avoided if just 63 people in the county replace their motor vehicle trips to work with bicycle trips. Table 4-4: Air Pollutants Avoided Variable Figure Conversion Reduced HC (kg/weekday) 1 (0.0028 kg/mile) Reduced CO (kg/weekday) 9 (0.0209 kg/mile) Reduced NOX (kg/weekday) 1 (0.00139 kg/mile) Reduced CO2 (kg/weekday) 182 (0.4155 kg/mile) Total Air Pollutants Avoided (metric tons/year) 193 1000 kg per metric ton; 256 weekdays/year Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-013 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks." 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- NEEDS ANALYSIS 4-6 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-1 5 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS This chapter presents recommended capital projects, policies and programs to improve and promote walking and bicycling in Alpine County. The Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Network includes recommended countywide capital projects for each of the following five community areas:  Countywide Projects – projects identified for implementation countywide are Share the Road (STR) signage and bicyclist wayfinding signage. Figure 5-1 presents recommended STR locations in addition to the project areas below.  Markleeville Projects – pedestrian and bicycle projects within central Markleeville and adjoining residential and recreational areas. Figure 5-3 presents the detailed map and projects for Markleeville area.  Woodfords Projects - pedestrian and bicycle projects in the Woodfords area, adjoining residential communities, and school zones. Figure 5-3 presents the detailed map and projects for Woodfords area.  Kirkwood Projects – pedestrian and bicycle projects in the Kirkwood resort area, local private roadways, and recreational access points. Figure 5-5 presents the detailed map and projects for Kirkwood area.  Bear Valley Projects – pedestrian and bicycle projects in the Bear Valley resort area, local county and private roadways, school zones, and recreational access points. Figure 5-6 presents the detailed map and projects for Bear Valley area.  Hung-A-Lel-Ti – pedestrian and bicycle projects in the Hung-A-Lel-Ti community including local streets, county roadways, and school zones. Figure 5-8 presents the detailed map and projects for Hung-A-Lel-Ti area. The abbreviations identified in the summaries above M, W, K, B, H) are used throughout the remainder of this document to identify the geographic location of each project. The projects presented in this chapter are all included in the implementation program presented in Chapter 7. This chapter provides more project background, context and detail than does Chapter 7 in order to provide as complete an understanding of each recommendation at the master plan level. 5.1 COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK The countywide bicycle and pedestrian network is comprised of new sidewalks, bikeways, highway crossings and improved highway shoulders.6 The network is designed to provide connectivity 6 The California Highway Design Manual (HDM) does not recommend a standard width for shared travel lanes on highways where bicyclists are expected, but the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommends a 14 foot shared travel lane width on highways without bikeway designation. This plan recommends AASHTO shoulder widths. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-2 between existing and recommended facilities. Table 5-1 lists the recommended projects that make up the network. Figure 5-1 maps the recommended projects and is followed by more detailed project maps of each community. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-3 Figure 5-1: Alpine County Recommended Improvements Overview Map ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-4 Table 5-1: Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Project ID Project Type Project Name From To Mileage C1 Sign Countywide Share the Road Signage All State Routes and highways that constrain parallel bicycle and motorist travel, including Ebbett’s and Monitor Passes. n/a C2 Sign Countywide Wayfinding Signage All bikeways and walkways. n/a C3 Program Countywide SR2S Program n/a M1 Shoulder SR 89 Shoulder and Pavement Improvements SR 4 Markleeville 4.7 M2 Class III Hot Springs Road Bicycle Route Pleasant Valley Road SR 89 0.9 M3 Sidewalk Markleeville Sidewalks Laramie Street Montgomery Street 0.1 M4 Cross Montgomery Street - SR 89 Crosswalks SR 89 Montgomery Street n/a M5 Sign SR 89 Bike Lane Signs and Shoulder Width Weber Street SR 88 6.3 M6 Class I Markleeville Class I Path Laramie Street County Building Driveway 0.7 M7 Class I Grover Hot Springs State Park Multi-Use Path Hot Springs Road and Pleasant Valley Road intersection Grover Hot Springs Park 3.0 M8 Park Bicycle Parking County Visitor Building, Library and Post Office n/a W1 Trail Alpine Village Trail Diamond Valley Road Barber Road 0.3 W2 Cross Manzanita / SR 89 Intersection Pedestrian Warning Signage Manzanita Drive/Lane SR 89 n/a W3 Class I Sierra Pines Class I Multi-Use Path Sierra Pines Trailer Park Manzanita Drive 0.3 W4 Trail Manzanita Drive/Diamond Valley Trail East end of Manzanita Lane Southwestern corner of Diamond Valley School 0.2 W5 Class II Diamond Valley Road Class II Bicycle Lanes SR 89 Washoe Boulevard 4.8 W6 Class II SR 88 bicycle lanes and shoulder widening SR 89 Luther Pass Road 5.8 W7 Class III Luther Pass Road Class III Bicycle Route SR 89 County Line 2.6 W8 Cross Carson River and Emigrant Trail Bicycle Crossing Warning Signage SR 88/Emigrant Trail Road Intersection SR 88/Carson River Road Intersection n/a W9 Park Woodfords bike parking County offices, general store, Diamond Valley Elementary, Health clinic n/a W10 Class III SR 88 Bicycle Route SR 89 Nevada State Line 6.0 K1 Class II SR 88 Bike Lanes and Shoulder Widening Kirkwood Meadows Road Luther Pass Road 13.6 K2 Sign SR 88 Speed Feedback Signage Kirkwood Inn Kirkwood Meadows Drive n/a K3 Cross Kirkwood Pedestrian Warning Flashing Beacons On SR 88 at Kirkwood Inn n/a K4 Cross Caples Lake Pedestrian Warning Signage Caples Lake parking lot exit SR 88 n/a K5 Cross Carson Pass Pedestrian Overhead Flashing Beacons On SR 88 In advance of Visitor Center n/a K6 Cross Loop Road Crosswalks Loop Road Kirkwood Meadows Drive n/a K7 Cross Kirkwood Meadows Road - Main Lodge Crossing Kirkwood Meadows Drive at Main Lodge n/a K8 Striping Pedestrian Access on Kirkwood Meadows Bridge Kirkwood Meadows Drive east of Main Lodge 0.1 K9 Class II Kirkwood Meadow Road Bike Lanes SR 88 Kirkwood Meadows Drive bridge 1.4 B1 Class I Bear Valley Loop Path Bear Valley Road Creekside Drive 0.6 B2 Sign Ebbett's Pass Share the Road Signage 1.5 miles south of reservoir 5 miles north of reservoir 6.5 B3 Cross Bear Valley Road Lake Alpine Trail Crossings Immediately west of Bear Valley Road 0.3 mile east of Bear Valley Road n/a B4 Cross Mosquito Lakes Pedestrian Crossing Mosquito Lakes Campground Entrance n/a B5 Sign Lake Alpine Speed Reduction SR 4 Entrance to Lake Alpine SR 4 Exit from Lake Alpine n/a B6 Park Bear Valley Bicycle Parking Bear Valley School n/a H1 Class I Hung-A-Lel-Ti Class I Multi-Use Path Health Center North segment of Diamond Valley Road 0.6 H2 Sidewalks and Crosswalks All roadways see below H2-1 Walkway Washoe Boulevard Walkway and Crosswalk Entire roadway length 0.3 H2-2 Walkway Circle Drive Entire roadway length 0.2 H2-3 Walkway Dutch Valley Road and Crosswalk Entire roadway length 0.2 H2-4 Walkway Hung-A-Lel-Ti Way Entire roadway length 0.1 H3 Sign Diamond Valley Road Pedestrian Warning Signs Northbound Diamond Valley Road in advance of Washoe Boulevard Eastbound Diamond Valley Road in advance of Washoe Boulevard n/a H4 Sign Diamond Valley Road Speed Feedback Signs Diamond Valley Road between both ends of Washoe Boulevard n/a H5 Park Hung-A-Lel-Ti Bicycle Parking Gym, Community Center, Health Center n/a ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-5 5.2 COUNTYWIDE WAYFINDING SIGN PROJECT Wayfinding signs installed along bikeways direct bicyclists to popular destinations. They also provide mileage information and can create a regional identity for facilities. Caltrans destination and mileage plaques added to bicycle route signs, as pictured to the right, serve as a starting point for wayfinding signage design. While standard Caltrans signage is effective, Alpine County should consider designing unique wayfinding signs to highlight the County’s exceptional bicycling environment and enhance tourism branding of the area. Information on the County’s wayfinding signage could include:  distance to destinations, e.g. communities, parks and rest areas;  route change indications;  average gradient/steepness or elevation gain by roadway segment; and  alternate routes to avoid steep grades. Additionally, wayfinding signs can provide information to pedestrians and hikers where applicable. Distance to destinations should be reflective of traveling by foot, posting shorter distances to destinations than on bicyclist signs. 5.3 COUNTYWIDE SHARE THE ROAD SIGNAGE PROJECT “Share the Road” (STR) signs alert motorists that bicyclists may be present on narrow roadways. California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) recommends installing STR signs in conjunction with bicycle warning signs, no less than 50 feet in advance of where bicyclists are expected. The County should implement a program to identify where STR signs should be installed. Collaboration with Caltrans, California Highway Patrol and Federal Scenic Highways will be required to identify the most effective sign installation locations, while avoiding sign clutter that will detract from the County’s scenic beauty. Table 5-2 lists preliminary recommendations where STR signs are appropriate and Figure 5-1 shows these locations on the Countywide map. Wayfinding signage can help bicyclists navigate to their destinations and make informed decisions about route choices. Share the Road signage could be installed along many roadways throughout Alpine County. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-6 Table 5-2: Recommended Share the Road Sign (STR) Locations Roadway From To All recommended Class III routes All uphill segments without shoulders SR 89 Markleeville SR 4 Ebbett’s Pass* 1.5 miles south of Kinney Reservoir 5 miles north of Kinney Reservoir Monitor Pass SR 89 Mono County Border * STR signage on SR 4 is recommended as project B2 on page 5-26. The other STR recommendations were not identified by the public 5.4 COUNTYWIDE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL The County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) policy to encourage walking and bicycling to school. This Plan recommends engineering improvements that support this policy. A Class I multi-use path, crosswalks and bicycle parking are recommended for the Bear Valley School area. Class II bicycle lanes on Diamond Valley Road and pedestrian warning signs at Manzanita Drive and SR 89 are recommended for Diamond Valley School area. This Plan also provides descriptions of possible encouragement, enforcement and evaluation programs on page 5- 38. The County Health Department currently sponsors SR2S encouragement programs at Diamond Valley School. Students from the Hung-A-Lel-Ti community are chaperoned by bicycle to Diamond Valley School during the fall and spring months. They also sponsor various bike fairs described in Section 3. The County should continue to support these and similar SR2S programs at all of the schools in Alpine County. The next steps in implementing SR2S efforts are for the County to apply for a State SR2S grant. These are typically due in July. The State Bicycle Transportation Account grant is also a possible source for engineering improvements around schools. More information about these grants is provided on page 6-9. The County may also consider developing a SR2S “Toolbox.” This Toolbox can provide strategies to integrate SR2S education programs into school curriculums and identify parents to lead encouragement programs. There is a wealth of information about implementing SR2S programs at the National Safe Routes to School website7. In addition, NHTSA teamed up with the Marin County Bicycle Coalition's Safe Routes to School project to produce an 88-page toolkit for use by educators and others to promote walking and biking to school that includes sections on mapping the routes to school, activities and outreach, and classroom lessons8. Additional SR2S information is discussed in sections 5.11.1 and 5.11.2. 7 www.saferoutesinfo.org 8 www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/Safe-Routes-2002/index.html ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-7 5.5 MARKLEEVILLE RECOMMENDATIONS The bicycle and pedestrian facilities recommended for Markleeville were selected with the goal of increasing access to the community’s recreational resources and providing pedestrian safety and circulation in the central business area. Recommendations for Markleeville are engineering intensive, with some projects requiring preliminary engineering studies. Figure 5-3 provides a map of the Markleeville improvements. 5.5.1 M1 - SR 89 Shoulder and Pavement Improvements This project recommends widening, striping and repaving the shoulders on segments of SR 89 from Laramie Street in Markleeville to SR 4. However, shoulder widening should only be considered where feasible and desired. The County should include this project in a Plans, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) request to Caltrans. Recommended guidelines for identifying improvement locations are listed below.  Shoulders should be widened to a width of at least two feet, assuming a twelve foot travel lane width.  Along topographically constrained segments, shoulder widening should be prioritized on uphill directions over downhill to accommodate for bicyclist/motorist speed differential.  Along segments on a hillside, as pictured above, the hillside should be graded to allow shoulder widening. The roadway should be re-striped to provide extra shoulder width on the uphill direction as illustrated in Figure 5-2.  STR signage should be installed on downhill segments without adequate shoulder width (at least two feet) for cyclists. Figure 5-2 illustrates the recommendations listed above. It is estimated that shoulder widening is feasible and/or needed on approximately 2.4 miles of this stretch of roadway. On feasible, straight stretches, as little as two feet of shoulder widening is recommended. Some stretches of SR 89 provide adequate shoulder width for bicyclists. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-8 Figure 5-2: Recommended Shoulder Width in Constrained Areas 5.5.2 M2 – Hot Springs Road Bicycle Route This project recommends designating Hot Springs Road and Montgomery Road as a Class III bicycle route from SR 89 to Grover Hot Springs Park. The Class III designation requires installation of bicycle route signs at an interval of one half mile, including BEGIN and END signs at both ends of the bicycle route. 5.5.3 M3 – Markleeville Sidewalks As identified in the Downtown Markleeville Revitalization Plan prepared in 2001, an improved streetscape is needed to enhance the pedestrian realm and make downtown more attractive. This project recommends sidewalks on both sides of SR 89 through Markeeville from Laramie Street to Weber Street. The streetscape should define on-street parking stalls, planting strips and sidewalks. As the County develops a streetscape design, grade differences between the roadway and adjacent buildings must be addressed. Along SR 89 between Montgomery Street and Weber Street the existing sidewalk is not at grade with the roadway. The foundations of the adjacent buildings are below grade on the east side and above grade on the west side of the roadway. Re-engineering the sidewalk in this stretch will be necessary to accommodate universal access and meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. The next step in implementing this project is to develop a preliminary engineering plan in FY 2011/2012, which should be based on the recommendations in this Plan and the Street Lighting and Sidewalks Plan. After obtaining a cooperative agreement with Caltrans, funding allocation approval Many segments of the Montgomery Street have adequate width for a zoned streetscape. The shoulders of SR 89 north of Markleeville should be widened to provide bicycle lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-9 from the Board of Supervisors and completing CEQA processes, project construction is estimated to commence in FY 2014/2015. 5.5.4 M4 - Montgomery Street-SR 89 Crosswalks Crosswalks are needed at Montgomery Street and SR 89. This plan recommends a transverse white crosswalk across Montgomery Street and a white ladder crosswalk across SR 89. The white ladder crosswalk should be accompanied by pedestrian warning signs and diagonal arrow plaques indicating the crossing location. This project should be added to the County’s PPM funding request to Caltrans. Appendix B provides additional detail on the specific facilities recommended. 5.5.5 M5 –SR 89 Bike Lane Signs and Shoulder Width This plan recommends additional bike lane signage on 6.3 miles of SR 89 from Markleeville to Woodfords. Bike lane BEGIN and END signs should be installed at both ends of this bikeway. In addition, CAMUTCD recommends installing Bike Lane signs at regular intervals to confirm bike route designation. CAMUTCD standard maximum interval is six miles. Due to the short length of this bike lane, an interval of every two miles is recommended. Installing signs after intersections is preferred if close to the recommended interval. In addition, the shoulders on SR 89 0.4 miles north of Weber Street should be widened to at least four feet to accommodate Class II bicycle lanes. The existing shoulder widths along this stretch are not four feet wide; however this area is signed as a bike lane even though it does not meet minimum standards. This project should be added to the County’s PPM funding request to Caltrans. 5.5.6 M6 –Class I Multi-Use Path As of the preparation of this plan, the County is exploring the opportunity to construct a park where the U.S. Forest Service facilities are currently located, adjacent to the County courthouse on SR 89. The potential addition of this park warrants additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities to connect it to downtown and the surrounding community. A Class I path east of SR 89 is recommended from Laramie Street to the County building entrance, where it will meet the sidewalks recommended in project M-4. The path alignment may use the existing pedestrian bridge located 120 feet (north) of SR 89 automobile bridge. The Forest Service owns the pedestrian bridge. The County should work with the Forest Service to obtain With USFS permission, the recommended Class I path could use the existing pedestrian bridge just north of the SR 89 Markleeville Creek Bridge. Much of SR 89 is constrained by hillsides and Markleeville Creek. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-10 a public access permit. Additionally, the County should work with Caltrans to provide bicycle and pedestrian access as part of future work to the SR 89 bridge. The next step in implementing this project is completing a conceptual design of the path alignment and documentation of engineering and permit requirements. 5.5.7 M7 – Grover Hot Springs State Park Multi-Use Path In 1997, the County conducted a preliminary design study of a Class I Multi-Use path from Markleeville to Grover Hot Springs. The study identified several constraints including land ownership, creek crossings and construction cost. The first step in proceeding with this project is to carefully evaluate and update the feasibility study and re-test public support for a path. As part of this Plan’s public outreach, attendees of the second public meeting voiced support for the Class I path and suggested that the County study the feasibility of using the adjacent ditch easement. This path will create a strong link between the State Park and the town of Markleeville and will likely be used by overnight visitors and residents. 5.5.8 M8 – Bicycle Parking More secure bicycle parking is needed in Markleeville to accommodate local and visitor shopping trips as well as long distance riders on rest stops. There are currently three racks in Markleeville: the Visitor Welcome Center, the County Library, and a deli/ice cream shop downtown. This plan recommends “inverted U” racks, or other rack designs that provide two securing points. The existing racks should be replaced and an additional rack should be placed at the Post Office. In many historic or unique locations, themed racks are installed to enhance the local identity and integrate bicycling into local culture. The County should install bicycle racks in a location convenient for bicyclists and snow plows. Bicycle racks should be installed near destination entrances, in a well lit and visible location and mounted on a concrete pad. Appendix B provides guidelines for installing bicycle racks. These bicycle racks, along with others recommend by this Plan, should be installed in FY 2010/2011 using Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds. “Inverted U” racks are recommended at the Markleeville Visitor Center, post office and library. Themed bicycle racks enhance local identity. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-11 Figure 5-3: Markleeville Recommended Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-12 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-13 5.6 WOODFORDS RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended improvements in the Woodfords area are intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to Diamond Valley School, especially for residents living in the Hung-A-Lel-Ti Community and Sierra Pines neighborhood. Additional recommendations accommodate regional bicyclists. Figure 5-3 provides a map of the Woodfords recommendations. 5.6.1 W1 - Alpine Village Trail A 0.3 mile unpaved trail is recommended along the east side of SR 89 from Diamond Valley Road to Barber Road. The path should be graded to a minimum width of four feet and separated from SR 89 by at least five feet.10 Additional study is needed to determine the feasibility of constructing this trail and the most desirable alignment. 5.6.2 W2 – Manzanita / SR 89 Intersection Pedestrian Warning Signage Pedestrian warning signage is recommended on SR 89 at Manzanita Drive and at Manzanita Lane. This pedestrian warning signage is intended to improve motorist awareness of pedestrians crossing SR 89 between Sierra Pines neighborhood and Diamond Valley School. The County should add this project to its PPM funding request to Caltrans. 5.6.3 W3 – Sierra Pines Class I Multi-Use Path A Class I Multi-Use Path is recommended along the west side of SR 89 from Sierra Pines neighborhood to Manzanita Lane. This path should meet CAMUTCD standards, provided in Appendix B. This multi-use path would serve the residents of the Sierra Pines community, particularly children walking and bicycling to Diamond Valley School. In coordination with the construction of this path, the County should investigate the need for a crossing guard at Manzanita Drive during school arrival and dismissal times. 5.6.4 W4 – Manzanita Drive/Diamond Valley Trail A graded trail is recommended between the east end of Lower Manzanita Drive and the southwest corner of the Diamond Valley School lot, a distance of 0.3 miles. This path would further facilitate students accessing Diamond Valley School from Sierra Pines neighborhood via the Class I multi-use path described in W3 above. The Manzanita Drive/Diamond Valley Path may utilize existing trails on South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) land. This project requires easements on three private parcels and close coordination with STPUD to design access that does not interfere with current or future wastewater treatment operations. 10 California Highway Design Manual requires a barrier between paths and highways that are within five feet of each other. Pedestrians currently cross at Manzanita and SR 89 and would benefit from additional pedestrian warning signage. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-14 5.6.5 W5 – Diamond Valley Road Class II Bicycle Lanes and Road Widening Class II bicycle lanes are recommended on Diamond Valley Road from SR 89 to Washoe Boulevard, a distance of 5.0 miles. This includes the south spur at the west end of Diamond Valley Road. Widening the roadway is required to accommodate four foot wide bicycle lanes. Widening may require tree removal and drainage modifications including widening two crossings of Indian Creek. Bike lane signs, including BEGIN and END signs, should be installed at a maximum interval of two miles. This interval is shorter than the Caltrans recommended six miles because of the expected use by Diamond Valley School students living in the Hung-A-Lel-Ti community, which participate in County Health and Human Services sponsored bicycle trains.11 Bike lane stencils should also be painted within the bicycle lanes on Diamond Valley Road immediately after intersections. Initiation of this project begins with County staff reconnaissance of the roadway in FY 2011/12 to determine issues related to prescriptive easements and shoulder widening, funded by force account. 5.6.6 W6 – SR 88 Class II Bike Lanes and Shoulder Widening Class II bike lanes are recommended on SR 88 from Luther Pass Road to SR 89. These bike lanes are an extension of project K1 and require widening shoulders to six feet. Bike lane signage and markings should be installed every two miles or after an intersection within a quarter mile of a two mile increment. 5.6.7 W7 – Luther Pass Road Class III Bicycle Route A Class III bicycle route is recommended for Luther Pass Road (SR 89) from the County boundary to SR 88/89. The shoulder widths and pavement conditions are inconsistent along this busy stretch of highway that is a popular bicycle route accessing Lake Tahoe to the north. Figure 5-2 illustrates recommended roadway design for topographically constrained areas. Some segments of SR 88/89 provide adequate shoulder width but need to be repaved. 11 Bicycle trains are chaperoned bicycle rides to school. The Department of Health and Human Services provides bicycle trains a few times a week, described on page 2-9 of this plan. Diamond Valley Road will need to be widened to accommodate bicycle lanes. The shoulders on potions of SR 88 should be repaved to accommodate a Class III bicycle route. Shoulder widening on segments of Luther Pass Road is recommended. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-15 5.6.8 W8 – Carson River Road and Emigrant Trail Bicycle Crossing Warning Signage Many bicyclists use Emigrant Trail Road and Carson River Road as alternative routes to SR 88 and 89. Crossing SR 88 at these roads can be challenging when on-coming motorists are not aware of the intersections. In an effort to increase motorist awareness of crossing bicyclists, Bicycle Warning signage should be installed 300 feet in advance of these intersections in both directions. 5.6.9 W9 – Woodfords Bicycle Parking More secure bicycle parking is needed in Woodfords to accommodate local commute trips as well as long distance riders on rest stops. There is currently one rack in Woodfords at Diamond Valley Elementary School. This plan recommends “inverted U” racks, or other rack designs that provide two securing points. The existing rack should be replaced and additional racks should be placed at the Health Department, County offices and General Store on SR 88. The County should install bicycle racks in a location convenient for bicyclists and snow plows. Bicycle racks should be installed near destination entrances, in a well lit and visible location and mounted on a concrete pad. These bicycle racks should be installed in FY 2010/11 with TE funds. 5.6.10 W10 – SR 88 Class III Bicycle Route A Class III bicycle route is recommended on SR 88 from the SR 89 junction in Woodfords to the Nevada State line. This segment is approximately six miles and an estimated three miles of shoulders need repaving or widening. Specific areas where shoulder improvements are needed should still be identified. Figure 5-2 illustrates recommended roadway design for topographically constrained areas. The establishment of a Class III bicycle route on SR 88 may qualify for Interstate Bicycle Route (IBR) designation from AASHTO, requiring a coordinated application from Caltrans and the Nevada Department of Transportation.12 An IBR designation has the potential to strengthen Alpine County’s image as a bicyclist destination 12 An application for IBR designation is found at: AASHTO Interstate Bike Route Designation: http://cms.transportation.org/?siteid=68 The SR 88 at Carson River Road is challenging for bicyclists to cross. After establishing a Class III bicycle route on SR 89 ma y be designated as an Interstate Bike Route. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-16 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-17 Figure 5-4: Woodfords Recommended Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-18 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-19 5.7 KIRKWOOD RECOMMENDATIONS Kirkwood recommendations focus on increasing motorist awareness of people crossing SR 88 and Kirkwood Meadows Road. Improvements are concentrated between Kirkwood Inn and Kirkwood Meadows Drive, around Caples Lake and improvements on Kirkwood Meadows Road. The County may choose to submit a PPM request to Caltrans for projects on SR 88. Projects in Kirkwood are on private land and should be considered by the Kirkwood Community Association and implemented by the Kirkwood Ski Resort. Figure 5-5 provides a map of the recommendations in Kirkwood. 5.7.1 K1 – SR 88 Class II Bike Lanes and Shoulder Improvements Class II bike lanes are recommended on SR 89/89 from Kirkwood Meadow Road to Luther Pass Road. Project W6 continues recommended Class II bike lanes from Luther Pass Road to SR 89. The shoulders of SR 88 between Kirkwood Resort and Luther Pass Road are deteriorated and should be widened to six feet to accommodate Class II bike lanes. Bike lane signs and markings should be installed every two miles or after an intersection that is within a quarter mile of a two mile increment. 5.7.2 K2 - SR 88 Speed Feedback Signage A 35 miles per hour speed limit sign is posted on SR 88 in both directions in advance of Kirkwood Inn. A curvy road warning sign accompanies this posted speed limit. In addition to the curvy conditions, cross-country skiers, hikers and bicyclists frequently cross SR 88 between Kirkwood Meadows Drive and Kirkwood Inn. To increase speed limit compliance and awareness of pedestrians, this Plan recommends installing solar speed feedback signs to accompany the existing posted speed limit signs and installing 35 MPH AHEAD signs in advance of the speed feedback signs, at a distance determined by Caltrans. The County should include this project in its PPM funding request to Caltrans. 5.7.3 K3 - Kirkwood Trail Crossing with Flashing Beacon Bicyclists, pedestrians, equestrians and skiers cross SR 88 in the vicinity of Kirkwood Inn and Kirkwood Meadows Drive. These users cross at different locations depending on time of year and snow conditions. Kirkwood Inn is the destination for most users and is located on SR 88 at a location with a clear line of sight for motorists. The County should work with Kirkwood and Caltrans to determine the most desirable crossing location. Stakeholder comments collected as part of this plan recommend a crossing location near the Kirkwood Inn driveway. Trail crossing signs should be installed at the identified crossing location. Because the CAMUTCD does Replacing the existing pedestrian warning signs with overhead beacons and reducing the speed limit is recommended on SR 88 at Kirkwood. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-20 not provide a standard trail crossing sign, this Plan recommends installing the National MUTCD standard sign. Signs directing users to the designated crossing should be installed on the existing fire access road. The Kirkwood Community Association and Kirkwood Ski Resort should consider conducting community outreach to notify users of the designated crossing. In advance of the recommended trail crossing, overhead trail warning signs with beacons should replace the existing pedestrian warning signs. These beacons should include distance plaques be installed approximately 500 feet in advance of the crossing. 5.7.4 K4 - Caples Lake Pedestrian Warning Signage Campers, hikers and fishing enthusiasts cross SR 88 between Twin Lakes Campsite Road and Caples Lake. The installation of pedestrian warning signage on SR 88 in advance of the Caples Lake exit is recommended. In addition, a pedestrian warning sign and diagonal arrow plaque should be installed at the exit, indicating where pedestrians will be crossing. To encourage pedestrians to use this crossing location, a sign directing pedestrians to “Cross Here” should be installed at the intersection of Twin Lakes Campsite Road. 5.7.5 K5 - Carson Pass Pedestrian Crossing with Flashing Beacon Pedestrians frequently cross SR 88 at the Carson Pass Information Center (south trailhead and snow park) and north Carson Pass trailhead and snow park parking lots. A pedestrian warning sign is currently installed between the north and south parking lots in the eastbound direction. The replacement of the existing pedestrian warning sign with a flashing beacon and distance plaque and adding a beacon with distance plaque 500 feet east of the Carson Pass Information Center entrance on westbound SR 88 is recommended.13 The addition of these beacons will designate this segment of SR 88 as a pedestrian zone. 5.7.6 K6 - Loop Road - Kirkwood Meadows Road Crosswalks Pedestrian warning facilities are needed at Kirkwood Meadow Road and Loop Road. Pedestrian and automobile volumes increase at this intersection dramatically during the ski season. Currently, this intersection is not controlled and does not have pedestrian facilities. A high-visibility white ladder crosswalk is recommended for the south leg of the intersection and a white traverse crosswalk for 13 The recommended distance for this beacon installation should be confirmed by Caltrans. The replacement of the existing pedestrian warning sign with an overhead beacon on eastbound SR 88 in advance of the Carson Pass Information Center is recommended. The 2010 National MUTCD provides a new trail crossing sign. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-21 the east and west legs of the intersection. In addition, an actuated overhead flashing beacon mounted over Kirkwood Meadow Road is recommended to accommodate winter pedestrian volumes. Unlike crosswalks, the beacon will not be as easily covered by snow, thus maintaining its effectiveness even during snowfall. 5.7.7 K7 - Kirkwood Meadows Road - Main Lodge Crossing Pedestrians frequently cross Kirkwood Meadows Road between the Main Lodge and Pub. Currently there are no pedestrian crossing facilities at this location. Because this is a mid-block crossing, which are areas where pedestrians are not normally expected to cross, high visibility facilities are recommended. The crosswalk should be white and ladder style with pedestrian warning signs and diagonal arrows pointing at the crosswalk on both ends of the crosswalk. Additional engineering analysis may determine that pedestrian actuated flashing beacons are warranted. Other solutions that blend with Kirkwood’s existing pedestrian walkways and have great longevity include extending the colored paving units through the designated crosswalk. 5.7.8 K8 - Pedestrian Access on Kirkwood Meadows Road Bridge Pedestrians that park in the east lots must use the Kirkwood Meadows Road bridge to access the Main Lodge. However, this bridge does not have pedestrian facilities. Striping shoulders at least four feet wide on the bridge is recommended to delineate an area for non-motorized travel. Additional improvements include extending the colored interlocking pavers used in other pedestrian zones to this shoulder area along the bridge. 5.7.9 K9 - Kirkwood Meadow Road Bike Lanes Road cyclists and mountain bikers both use Kirkwood Meadow Road during the summer months. Currently travel lanes are not striped on the roadway. Bicycle lanes should be considered when and if the resort stripes the roadway. High volumes of pedestrians cross between the Pub, pictured above, and the Main Lodge across the street. Striping bike lanes on Kirkwood Meadow Road should be included with future road work. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-22 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-23 Figure 5-5: Kirkwood Recommended Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-24 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-25 5.8 BEAR VALLEY RECOMMENDATIONS Improvements in the Bear Valley area are located in the Bear Valley Village, Lake Alpine, Mosquito Lakes and Ebbett’s Pass. Figure 5-6 provides a map of the Bear Valley improvements. 5.8.1 B1 - Bear Valley Loop Path Pedestrian volumes on Bear Valley Road from SR 4 to the north end of Creekside Drive are high during the winter season. However, this roadway segment does not have pedestrian facilities nor does it have clearly defined travel lanes. In addition, on-street parking is restricted on the west side and the roadway. Bear Valley Road is operated as a one-way road during winter to facilitate high automobile volumes. These existing conditions may change with new development of Bear Valley Village, which is discussed on page 3-4 and shown in Appendix E. The project provides pedestrian connections between a future Village Center (west of Bear Valley Road) and ski lift (north of No Name Road) however it does not provide a pedestrian connection from the parking lots on Creekside Drive. A Class I Multi-Use Path along the inner loop of Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive is recommended for pedestrians parking their vehicles in the parking lots along Creekside Drive. A guard rail or low fencing between the path and roadway is recommended to protect bicyclists and pedestrians from motorists and to delineate on-street parking. Snow on the path may be either removed or packed with machinery. Facility design considerations are listed below.  Drainage modification – Currently an open swale provides drainage. Some of the loop may require drainage modification. The Creekside Drive right-of-way may provide significant width to allocate approximately 14 feet for path use. However, along Bear Valley Road the existing drainage culvert may need to be relocated further east to accommodate the path.  Tree removal – Trees are located immediately adjacent to Bear Valley Road. The path may require selective tree removal.  Snow removal from the path – Separated multi-use paths require special snow removal equipment and must be cleared separately from the adjacent road, adding to the time and cost required. Additional discussion of snow removal is provided on page 5-36 in the Facility Maintenance section of this plan. This Plan recommends the following crossing facilities that will access the path.  Mark white traverse crosswalks on the north and west legs of the Bear Valley Road and Quaking Aspen Road intersection  Mark a white ladder crosswalk across the north leg of the Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive (north end) intersection A Class I path is proposed around the inner loop of Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-26  Mark a white traverse crosswalk across the east leg of the Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive (north end) intersection  Mark a white ladder crosswalk across Creekside Drive at the existing path accessing the northwest corner of the library parking lot; this crosswalk should only be marked in coordination with the curb extension recommended below  Construct curb extensions at both ends of the crosswalk, narrowing the roadway to two opposing travel lanes at 10 feet wide each. 5.8.2 B2 – Ebbett’s Pass Share the Road Signage This Plan recommends installing Share the Road signs on SR 4 approximately one and half miles south and five miles north of Kinney Reservoir. Signs should be installed at least 50 feet in advance of where motorists will need to share the road with bicyclists due to narrowing roadway width. 5.8.3 B3- Bear Valley/Lake Alpine Trail Crossings This Plan recommends two potential pedestrian and bicycle safety crossing improvements in the area of Bear Valley Village, one at the intersection of Bear Valley Road and SR4 and a second approximately 0.3 miles east of Bear Valley Road at the Bear Valley-Lake Alpine trail crossing of SR4. There is a high volume of pedestrian traffic crossing SR4 at Bear Valley Road primarily in winter months when skiers, snowshoers and sledders are accessing the Bear Valley Cross Country facilities on the south side of SR4 from the parking, rental and lodging facilities on the north side of SR4. Pedestrian crossings are concentrated at the west leg of the intersection where pedestrians follow the snowcat- packed pathway immediately west of and parallel to Bear Valley Road. In winter months, some pedestrians also walk directly on the plowed shoulder of Bear Valley road and also generally cross at the west leg of the intersection. Pedestrian crossings peak during the beginning and end of the ski day between roughly 9:00AM and 11:00 AM and between 3:00 PM and 4:30 PM, however there is substantial variation depending on weather, peak use days, and other factors. Many pedestrians cross at a slow rate because they are assisting young children, they are encumbered with various winter recreational equipment; and, the access to the crossing location is often slippery compact snow. The Bear Valley Cross Country equipment rental requires rental return by 4:30 PM meaning that some visitors are crossing during waning daylight hours during the shortest days of the year pedestrian. Skiers with their own SR 4 near Kinney Reservoir is winding and narrows, making it challenging for motorists to see bicyclists on steep hill curves where bicyclists are moving at a slower speed. An overhead pedestrian beacon, similar to the one pictured above, is recommended on SR 4 at Bear Valley Road. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-27 equipment may cross after 4:30 PM. In addition to the pedestrian crossings, Bear Valley Cross Country also uses this location for snowmobile and snowcat crossing. During summer months pedestrians and bicyclists also cross at this location but in fewer numbers and with less concentration during peak periods. This Plan recommends a pedestrian-actuated overhead flashing yellow beacon at the intersection of SR4 and Bear Valley Road subject to traffic engineering analysis and Caltrans approval in order to improve safety conditions for slow moving pedestrians and to provide all pedestrians with the opportunity to alert motorists. The support pole and mast arm structure should be located on the west side of the road immediately west of the entry to the Bear Valley Cross Country ski area. The pedestrian actuator button should be located on this main support pole. On the east side of SR4, the pedestrian actuator button could be located on or immediately adjacent to the existing street light pole located immediately west of Bear Valley Road given snowcat and snowmobile operation in this vicinity. Special consideration must be given to appropriate heights for the pedestrian actuators given varying snow depths, as well as snow grooming and removal in these immediate areas. The warning light should be a rapid stutter flash accompanied by “PUSH BUTTON FOR PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS – CROSS WITH CAUTION” signage. In order to advance this project, pursuant to California MUTCD Section 4B.102. Project Report, Alpine County must provide Caltrans with an investigation of conditions at locations where the new traffic signal is to be installed. This report will require documentation of traffic counts, a collision diagram, condition diagram, improvement diagram, cost estimate and other specialized data as appropriate. This Plan also recommends pedestrian and bicycle safety crossing improvements approximately 0.3 miles east of Bear Valley Road at the Bear Valley-Lake Alpine trail crossing of SR4. This crossing is used with greater frequency during snow free months and is a lower volume crossing than Bear Valley Road. This Plan recommends static trail crossing warning signage in order to alert motorists. Trail warning signage should be installed on the approach to the trail crossing at an appropriate distance determined by a traffic engineer and subject to Caltrans approval. 5.8.4 B4 - Mosquito Lakes Pedestrian Crossing This project recommends installing pedestrian warning and diagonal downward pointing arrow plaque on SR 4 in the Mosquito Lakes area. These signs should be installed on both directions of SR 4 at the Mosquito Lakes Campground entrance. Additional pedestrian warning signs supplemented with an AHEAD plaque should be installed in advance of the campground entrance on both approaches of SR 4. Bicyclists and hikers cross SR 4 at the trail connecting Bear Valley and Lake Alpine. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-28 5.8.5 B5 - Lake Alpine Speed Feedback Signs Pedestrians frequently walk on the shoulders of SR 4 at Lake Alpine where the speed limit is not posted. According to the California Vehicle Code, 55 miles per hour is the State Highway speed limit when is the speed is not posted. This Plan recommends reducing the speed limit to 35 miles per hour along Lake Alpine. In addition, the new speed limit signs should be accompanied by solar speed feedback signs to increase motorist compliance and advance warning signs. To start the implementation of this speed reduction, the County must submit a request identifying this need to Caltrans. Caltrans will study the location and determine if the speed reduction is warranted. 5.8.6 B6 –Bicycle Parking This Plan recommends improving the existing bicycle parking in Bear Valley, at the elementary school, library, Bear Valley Lodge and gas station. The existing bicycle parking at each of these locations provides “toaster” racks, which only allow one bicycle wheel to be secured. These racks should be replaced “inverted u” racks, which allows a bicycle wheel and frame to be secured and provides greater parking stability, encouraging use. Additional bicycle parking is needed at the elementary school, where the six existing bicycle parking spaces regularly fill to capacity. The County should work with the school to install at least six more spaces. ”Toaster” racks, pictured above, are not recommended because they do not adequately support parked bicycles. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-29 Figure 5-6: Bear Valley Recommended Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-30 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-31 5.9 HUNG-A-LEL-TI RECOMMENDATIONS Improvements presented for the Hung-A-Lel-Ti community include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Figure 5-8 is a map of these improvements. It should be noted that the Hung-A-Lel-Ti community is a sovereign nation and not under the jurisdiction of the County. Advancement of these project recommendations will require collaboration between the Hung-A-Lel-Ti governing council, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Alpine County. As of this Plan’s development, the community was in the process of developing its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which should consider implementing the recommendations in this plan. 5.9.1 H1 – Hung-A-Lel-Ti Class I Multi-Use Path As of the development of this Plan, pedestrians use an existing fire access road west of the community, shown in Figure 5-8. During a public outreach meeting at Hung-A-Lel-Ti, community members agreed that this path would receive very high use. This fire road provides an off-street connection between residences and the community center. The construction of a Class I multi-use path along the fire road from Diamond Valley Road in the north to the Health Center on Washoe Boulevard in the south, at a distance of 0.6 miles, is recommended to further encourage walking and enhance this off-street connection. 5.9.2 H2 - Walkways and Crosswalks Pedestrians in the Hung-A-Lel-Ti community must walk in the roadway where there are no sidewalks provided. Pedestrians frequently walk from their residences to the community center on Washoe Boulevard. This roadway along with others in the community has adequate width for striping walkway shoulders. Walkways should be considered on both sides of the roadways identified in Figure 5-8 and listed below.  Washoe Boulevard  Circle Drive  Dutch Valley Road  Hung-A-Lel-Ti Way This Plan recommends striping walkways on both sides of the roadways listed above. Walkways are essentially five foot wide shoulders with pedestrian warning signs. Sidewalks are needed on Hung-A-Lel-Ti roadways in order to accommodate existing pedestrian use. An in-street sign at Dutch Valley Road and Washoe Boulevard will alert motorists to yield to pedestrians. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-32 Crosswalks should also be considered at the intersection of Dutch Valley Road and Washoe Boulevard because of its close proximity to the community center and access to the residences on Dutch Valley Road. A white ladder crosswalk should be painted across Washoe Boulevard and accompanied with an in-pavement sign notifying motorists to yield to pedestrians. This sign should be installed in the middle of both lateral crosswalk stripes. A white traverse crosswalk should be installed on the west leg of the intersection. 5.9.3 H3 - Diamond Valley Road Pedestrian Warning Signs Diamond Valley Road forms the north and east boundary of the Hung-A-Lel-Ti community, curving from a north-south to east-west roadway, as shown in Figure 5-7. Mud Lake Road intersects this curve, which presents potential conflicts between motorists and pedestrians due to poor sight lines. There is no signage warning motorists of increased pedestrian activity or facilitating pedestrian crossing. This Plan recommends installing pedestrian warning signs on Diamond Valley Road in advance of the north and south ends of Washoe Boulevard, between which Mud Lake Road is located. Figure 5-7: Diamond Valley Road Curve Improvements 5.9.4 H4 – Diamond Valley Road Speed Feedback Signs This Plan recommends installing solar speed feedback signs on Diamond Valley Road in advance of both ends of Washoe Boulevard. The intent of the speed feedback signs is that motorist will slow down after seeing the pedestrian warning signs (project H3) and speed feedback signs. 5.9.5 H5 – Hung-A-Lel-Ti Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking is needed at three locations in the community: the community center, health center and gym. At least one “inverted u” bicycle rack is recommended for each location. The governing council, with the help of the County, should install more bicycle racks if one rack does not meet demand. Bicycle parking facilities should follow the guidelines provided in Appendix B. Diamond Valley Road Poor sight lines for oncoming traffic Mud Lake Road ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-33 Figure 5-8: Hung-A-Lel-Ti Recommended Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-34 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-35 5.10 FACILITY MAINTENANCE This section presents maintenance considerations and costs for the facilities recommended above. Smooth, crack-free surfaces should be maintained on paved facilities such as sidewalks and bikeways. Vegetation should be cleared away from the facility on a regular basis and, depending on the demand for the facility; snow should be cleared during winter months. 5.10.1 Pavement Roadway irregularities such as potholes and loose gravel can make bicycling and walking unsafe. Roadways with bikeways require specialized maintenance and, in general, greater attention to detail than roadways without them. For example, roadway repairing ad sealing must cover the entire existing paved width of the roadway in order to prevent creations of seams or lips in the shoulder area most frequently used by bicyclists. Likewise, pedestrians are susceptible to tripping or stubbing a toe on cracks and vertically displaced concrete. The recommendations in this plan include repair to SR 88 and SR 89 shoulders, which have been identified in the County’s Pavement Management Systems. These improvements require a cooperative effort between Caltrans and the County. This plan is the first step in repairing these shoulders and increasing bicyclist and pedestrian access. The next step is for the County to actively follow up with Caltrans to ensure that these shoulder improvements remain a priority. With the exception of a short segment in Markleeville, there are no sidewalks in Alpine County. However, sidewalks and multi-use paths are recommended throughout the County. The County should develop a maintenance schedule and identify funding sources to maintain these facilities once constructed. 5.10.2 Vegetation Vegetation enhances sidewalks and paths by providing shade, wind breaks and pleasant scenery. However, if not properly maintained, vegetation can block a sidewalk or path, deteriorating the user experience. Some considerations for vegetation removal are listed below.  The County or agency responsible for facility maintenance should have a vegetation maintenance schedule. Maintaining vegetation on a basis is recommended.  Volunteer organizations can assist with vegetation maintenance and path or route beautification.  Horizontal and vertical clearances should accommodate the expected user, more specifically high and wide clearances for equestrians and bicyclists, lower and narrower clearances for pedestrians. Appendix B provides design guidelines for vegetation clearances. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-36 5.10.3 Snow Removal While accumulating snowfall is a regular occurrence in Alpine County, snowfall amounts vary drastically throughout the county. Up to 11 inches of snow typically falls per winter month in Markleeville, while over 80 inches or more falls in Bear Valley. Even more snow falls in Kirkwood, which typically receives over 100 inches per winter month, totaling over 500 inches annually and making it one of the snowiest locations in the continental United States. With so much snowfall, maintaining bicycle and pedestrian facilities during the winter can be challenging. A review of communities similar to Alpine County’s, i.e. Lake Tahoe, California, Park City, Utah and Vail, Colorado, reveals that snow removal on sidewalks takes precedence over bicycle paths. In general, sidewalks are cleared after every snowstorm throughout the winter, and paths are either cleared for the first part of the winter—until snow accumulation makes the paths too difficult to clear— or not cleared at all. None of the communities listed plow all the paths in their jurisdiction throughout the winter because demand does not warrant it. Some communities plow a subset of their path network throughout the winter. Where this is the case, it is either due to safety considerations, the paths and the sidewalk are the same facility or because there is dedicated funding. The following snow-related issues should be considered before constructing a sidewalk, path or bikeway.  Caltrans typically plows snow onto sidewalks. However, it does provide local agencies with money for clearing sidewalks.  Responsible parties for snow removal should be clearly defined.  Gates, bollards and other access restricting devices should be removable to allow access for maintenance equipment.  Wider roadway shoulders intended for bicycles also provide additional snow storage during heavy snowfall events. However, snow should be cleared from the shoulder after the snow event and be relocated at a distance where it will not melt and refreeze on the facility.  Sand, salt and other slip mitigation should only be used when necessary and in select locations where ice builds up or dense trees prevent natural snowmelt to protect water quality.  Reflective snow posts should be installed on facilities that protrude into roadways, i.e. curb extensions and guard rails.  Property owner participation in sidewalk snow removal is frequently not very successful unless the sidewalk is in front of a business.  Snow removal is estimated to cost $146 per mile per snowfall event, assuming a machine speed of 1.3 miles per hour.14 14 Mount Shasta Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-37 5.10.4 Maintenance Schedule Table 5-3 recommends a schedule for maintaining Alpine County’s bicycle and pedestrian facilities. An estimated annual cost for maintaining a full build out of recommended improvements is provided in Table 7-7 on page 7-14. Table 5-3: Maintenance Schedule Item Frequency Sign replacement/repair 1-3 years Trail pavement marking replacement 1-3 years On-street pavement marking replacement 1-3 years Pavement sealing/potholes 5-15 years/30-40 years for concrete Clean drainage system Annually Pavement sweeping Annually, Spring Shoulder mowing and weed removal Bi-Annual – Fall/Spring Trash disposal As needed, twice a week Inspect bridge abutments and structures After each storm Restroom cleaning/repair Weekly Pruning to maintain vertical clearance 1-4 years Remove fallen trees As needed (on trail only) Weed control during growing season Maintain emergency telephones Annually Maintain irrigation lines/replace sprinklers Annually Fencing 5 years 5.11 PROGRAMS Programs can support non-motorized travelers by implementing the listed below and described in the following sections.  Education – Teach legal and safe bicycling and walking through schools, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and bicycle organizations.  Encouragement – Organize events throughout the County and schools that encourage bicycling and walking.  Enforcement – Deploy CHP and the Sheriff Department to problem spots for targeted enforcement and install speed feedback trailers.  Evaluation – Utilize standard methods to survey travel behavior and monitor collision data. Establish benchmarks to compare future data. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-38 5.11.1 Education 5.11.1.1 Safe Routes to School Safe Route to School (SR2S) is a widely popular program that applies the four “E’s” to promote walking and bicycling to school. There are funding sources at the State and Federal level that are described in Chapter 6. The National Center for Safe Routes to School provides guidance and the materials necessary to implement a SR2S program.15 The Center provides bicycling and walking curriculum tailored for specific age groups, student and parent survey forms, and ideas of how to promote walking and bicycling to school. Some of these ideas are provided below.  Bicycle Rodeo – Invite the Sheriff Department or CHP to teach bicycle skills on school grounds, away from traffic.  Walking School Bus – Identify parents willing to walk a group of students to school.  Bicycle Train – Identify parents willing to bicycle with students to and from school.16  Golden Sneaker Award – Spray paint a sneaker gold, mount it on a plaque, and award the class that walks the most. Alpine County already implements a range of encouragement programs. Diamond Valley School students participate in nature outings to Indian Creek Reservoir and other wildlands within walking distance of Diamond Valley School and chaperoned “bicycle trains” from Hung-A-Lel-Ti community. The Alpine County Health Department sponsors the bike train. 5.11.2 Encouragement The programs described below are intended to encourage bicycling and walking in Alpine County. Some of these recommended programs are already implemented by the County, while others will help make Alpine County more attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians of all abilities. 5.11.2.1 International Walk/Bike to School Day International Walk/Bike to School Day is typically the first Wednesday in October and should be promoted by the schools in Alpine County. The County should assist school principals in this promotion by applying for Safe Routes to School funding. The funding will help pay for some administration of SR2S events as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities identified in this plan. 15 More information about the National Center for Safe Routes to School can be found at: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/. 16 Diamond Valley Elementary school currently provides bicycle chaperones. SR2S programs teach children bicycling and walking skills in a safe environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-39 5.11.2.2 Helmet Giveaways Helmet giveaways encourage safe bicycle riding and elementary schools are an effective venue to distribute helmets. As an active promoter of bicycling and walking to school, the County Health and Human Services Department would be an appropriate administrator of a giveaway program. The giveaway could be part of the existing Bike-a-Thon, with CHP demonstrating the proper way to wear a helmet. 5.11.2.3 Promotional Events Alpine County’s Death Ride has gained notoriety as a premier bicycling event. The Death Ride is one example of how Alpine County can use events to promote bicycling and walking and further the vision of Alpine County as a bicycle “mecca” for visitors and locals. The County can apply its experience from the Death Ride to implement other promotional events. Death Ride Alpine County should extend its 29 years of ever increasing success by continuing to host and promote the Death Ride. The County can also use future events as an opportunity to promote bicycle tourism and promote the County’s expanding bicycle network. 5.11.2.4 Trails Club Many ideas were generated through the stakeholders meetings and public workshops associated with the development of this Plan. One recurring concept was interconnecting hiking and mountain biking trails on public lands with walking and bicycle routes throughout the County. A fine example of this is a trail “triangle” connecting Grover Hot Springs State Park with the town of Markleeville and the facilities at Turtle Rock Park. Since grant funding for recreation trails on public lands is more limited than transportation oriented trails, interested community members could organize a “Trails Club”. The trails club would develop a vision develop Alpine County into a premiere outdoor recreation destination) and mission( i.e. increase mountain bike access on federal lands). The club would work with USFS, BLM and the County to accomplish their vision, organize volunteers and get trails constructed and maintained. There are many wonderful opportunities to connect campgrounds, recreational facilities, and existing “out and back” trails into a network of multi-use trails and paths that link into the developed communities. Once these connections are created, bicycle parking at trailheads in the developed areas such as Markleeville will be much needed. 5.11.2.5 Non-Motorized Traveler User-Map As facilities recommended in this Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan are constructed, Alpine County should consider producing a Non-Motorized Traveler User-Map. Local and visiting bicyclists, pedestrians and hikers alike would benefit from a map directing them to Alpine County’s Alpine County should continue to promote its highly successful Death Ride event. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-40 scenic destinations along the non-motorized network. The map could be part of a brochure that includes:  descriptions of Alpine County’s historic and natural attractions,  identification of roadways with steep slopes,  popular bicycling routes,  brief description of the California vehicle codes pertaining to bicycling and walking, and  illustrations of safe bicycling and walking behavior, e.g., hand signals and crossing at crosswalks. 5.11.2.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Website A website dedicated to bicycling and walking in Alpine County could be a valuable resource for residents and visitors. The website could be hosted on the current County or Chamber of Commerce sites and provide a one-stop resource for everything bicycling and walking in the area. The website contents could include:  information about events, e.g., Death Ride, Bike to Work Day, Walk/Bike to School Day,  link to “Map My Ride” or other bicycle route mapping applications,  a PDF version of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan,  links to bicycle coalitions and organizations active in the County, and  County hotline contacts to report maintenance issues. 5.11.3 Enforcement Traffic law enforcement can make walking and bicycling more comfortable. For example, many motorists do not know that bicyclists have the legal right to use a full traffic lane if passing a slower vehicle. Nor do many motorists know that they are required to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, whether it is marked or not.17 By contrast, many bicyclists do not know that motorist traffic laws also apply to them, including stopping at stop signs. Nor do many pedestrians know that it is unlawful to cross outside of a crosswalk. Deploying an officer to locations where these infractions frequently occur, known as targeted enforcement, deters unlawful behavior, thereby increasing the comfort of bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists. 17 Crosswalks exist at all intersections and do not have to be painted, as defined by Caltrans and FHWA. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-41 5.11.3.1 Speed Feedback Trailer Speed feedback trailers display the speed of oncoming traffic, in an effort to slow motorists by making them aware that they are speeding. Speed feedback trailers can be effective in slowing motorists thereby making walking and bicycling more comfortable. The CHP has used a speed feedback trailer in Bear Valley to slow motorists. The CHP deploys the trailer upon request and confirmation that the trailer is needed. Bear Valley and downtown Markleeville have been identified as locations where motorists commonly speed. In addition, snow mobilers speed in Bear Valley during winter. The County should continue to request trailer deployment throughout the year and request the enforcement of lawful snowmobilers. 5.11.4 Evaluation Evaluation programs include public surveys, bicycle and pedestrian counts, and collision analyses. The County can use evaluation programs to its advantage by using the data obtained from them in applying for bicycle and pedestrian funding. Many Federal and State grants require or recommend that applicants demonstrate that they have implemented evaluation programs. 5.11.4.1 National Household Travel Survey Add-On Conducted since 1969, the National Household Travel Survey Add-on inventories the nation’s daily and long distance travel behavior. The Federal Highway Administration samples from households throughout the nation and therefore the data are not appropriate for State or local travel analysis. However, a State or local agency can pay for households in their jurisdiction to be surveyed as a means of evaluating travel behavior for a specific area. Alpine County should consider purchasing the National Household Travel Survey Add-On to track the effectiveness of its bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 5.11.4.2 School Travel Surveys School travel surveys can reveal how students are traveling between home and school, how they feel about their travel mode, and why their parents choose a particular travel mode. All of this information can help identify ways to decrease solo-family driving to school. For example, students may feel that walking to school is uncomfortable because of the lack of sidewalks or speeding drivers. The County or school district may then request the CHP to deploy targeted enforcement to address specific issues identified in the School Travel Survey. In addition, school travel survey data strengthens SR2S grant applications. 5.11.4.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting - National Documentation The Institute of Transportation Engineers is teamed with Alta Planning and Design to develop the first consistent method in the United States for counting bicyclists and pedestrians. The project relies on local sources, including volunteers, to conduct the counts, which are then entered Counting and surveying bicyclists and pedestrians annually can strengthen grant applications. ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMMENDATIONS 5-42 into a National data base. By participating in this national documentation project, the County establishes a baseline to measure future counts against and contributes to the National database and like school travel surveys, count data strengthens grant applications. 5.11.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Reports The need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be supported by identifying areas with frequent collisions. Collision data is collected by the Statewide Integrated Traffic Report System (SWITRS). The County should utilize SWITRS to collect collision data annually and thus keeping an up to date record of bicycle and pedestrian safety that can aid in identifying needed bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-1 6 FUNDING This chapter reviews potential funding sources for the recommended projects in this plan. It begins with a description of the Federal legislation that guides transportation funds and is followed by an overview of Federal, State and local funding sources. The funding sources presented here are incorporated into Chapter 7 implementation. 6.1 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FUNDING BACKGROUND Bicycle and pedestrian projects are broadly eligible for funding from almost all of the major federal highway, transit, and safety programs. Typically, bicycle projects must be “principally for transportation, rather than recreation purposes” and must be designed and located following requirements of State, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) Plans. The Alpine County Local Transportation Commission (ALTC), comprised of the County’s Board of Supervisors, is the County’s RTPA and is responsible for producing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).18 The ALTC may use its discretion in identifying bicycle and pedestrian projects that meet local needs and for inclusion in its RTP. Projects identified in the RTP and this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan follow Caltrans design guidelines and therefore satisfy federal requirements. 6.1.1 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act Signed into law in 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, (SAFETEA-LU) is the federal legislation that works to increase bicycle and pedestrian use and safety. By providing funding opportunities, planning processes and policy language, SAFETEA-LU has a goal to increase bicycle and pedestrian use by 15 percent while simultaneously reducing the number of non-motorized persons killed or injured in traffic crashes by 10 percent. While SAFETEA-LU provides legislation that supports the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, it does not require bicycle and pedestrian accommodation in every transportation project. SAFETEA-LU presumes that transportation professionals will exercise “due consideration” of non- motorized users in new and improved transportation facilities. SAFETEA-LU programs fund construction projects only, with the exception of the Surface Transportation Program Transportation Enhancement set-aside, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. These programs are described in the following Sections. SAFETEA-LU expires in 2009. However, Congress is drafting a new federal transportation bill for reauthorization in 2010. Programs developed from SAFETEA-LU are described in the following 18 A review of the RTP is provided in Section 3.2.1 of this plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-2 Section and organized by funding source. Some programs funded by SAFTEA-LU are not applicable to this Plan, i.e. Interstate Maintenance, and are therefore not included. Figure 6-1 shows how federal transportation funding is allocated to state, regional and local programs. Figure 6-1: Funding Source Flow Chart ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-3 6.1.2 Funding Source Acronyms and Online Resources Acronyms are commonly used for efficient referencing of funding sources, agencies and organizations. Table 6-1 provides a list of acronyms used in this plan and the online resource locations where more information about the funding source, agency or organization can be found. Table 6-1: Funding Acronyms and Web-Based Resources Acronym Agency/Organization Online Resource CBT Community Based Transportation Grant http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html CCC California Conservation Corps http://www.cccfoundation.net/projects.html CDBG Community Development Block Grant http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/ programs/ CFA Community Facilities Act (Mello Roos) DD64 Deputy Directive 64 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_stree ts_files/dd_64_r1_signed.pdf EEMP Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program http://resources.ca.gov/eem/ EJCS Environmental Justice: Context Sensitive Planning Grant http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html FLHP Federal Lands Highways Program http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/transportation.htm GF General Fund Not available through Alpine County website. HBP Highway Bridge Program HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.htm LTF Local Transportation Fund ALTC provides meeting minutes that discuss Local Transportation Funds. NHS National Highway System http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/ca_north/in dex.htm NSBP National Scenic Byways Program http://www.byways.org/explore/byways/2305/ OTS Office of Traffic Safety http://www.ots.ca.gov/Grants/Apply/Proposals_2010.asp PPM Planning, Programming and Monitoring http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist10/ RPA Rural Planning Assistance Fund http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/owp/index.ht ml RTCA Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/contactus/cu_app ly.html ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-4 Acronym Agency/Organization Online Resource RTP Recreation Trails Program http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=24324 SHOPP State Highway and Operations Protection Program http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/shopp.htm SID Special Improvement District See description on page 6-12. SR2S Safe Routes to School (California) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/sr2s. htm SRTS Safe Routes to School (Federal) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/srts.h tm STIP State Transportation Improvement Program http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/STIP.htm STP Surface Transportation Program http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/stp.htm TCSP Transportation Community and System Preservation Program http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/ TDA Transportation Development Act Article 3 Website not provided for Alpine County TE Transportation Enhancements http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/ TIP Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_61 06.html TPG Transportation Planning Grant http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html WCB Wildlife Conservation Board http://www.wcb.ca.gov/Pages/wcb_grant_information.asp 402 State and Community Safety Program http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/grants/402lu.html ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-5 6.2 FEDERAL SOURCES Most Federal funding sources are administered through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Many of these programs allocate funds to State level agencies for regional and local distribution. The Federal Transit Administration and various non-profit organizations also provide funding and technical assistance for non-motorized facilities and programs. Table 6-2 provides descriptions of the Federal funding sources, matching funds required and eligible applicants. Table 6-2: Federal Sources Program Eligible Applicants Matching Funds Discussion CCC Public land managers Not applicable CCC is a public service program which occasionally provides assistance on construction projects. The CCC may be written into grant applications as a project partner. In order to utilize CCC labor, project sites must be public land or be publicly accessible. CCC labor cannot be used to perform regular maintenance; however, it can perform annual maintenance, such as the opening of trails in the spring. CDBG Public agencies Varies CDBG provides money for streetscape revitalization, which may be largely comprised of pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Grantees may use funds for acquiring real property; building public facilities and improvements, such as streets, sidewalks, and recreational facilities; and planning and administrative expenses, such as costs related to developing a consolidated plan and managing CDBG funds. FLHP No application process None Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are eligible for construction in conjunction with each of the FLHP roadway classifications, Forest Highways, Indian Reservation Roads, Park Roads and Parkways, Refuge Roads and Public Lands Highways. Selected projects are at the discretion of the department charged with administration of the funds. The projects must be transportation-related and tied to a plan adopted by the State. HBP State 20% Bridges must be defined as “functionally obsolete” or “structurally deficient” to qualify. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are typically incidental to a large project and may include a range of on-street facilities and trails. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-6 Program Eligible Applicants Matching Funds Discussion HSIP State Up to 10% HSIP funds are allocated to States as part of SAFETEA- LU. The goal of HSIP funds is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. HSIP requires the responsible state agency to develop and implement a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). A portion of the HSIP funds allocated to each state are set aside for construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads. If the State has a Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the remainder of the funds may be allocated to other programs, including projects on bicycle and pedestrian pathways or trails and education and enforcement. Caltrans administers the State HSIP allocation and previous application deadlines have been in October. LWCF Authorized public agencies 50% LWCF is programmed by the National Park Service, providing grants for planning and acquiring outdoor recreation areas and facilities, including trails. The fund is administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation in California. Applicants must fund the entire project. Property acquired or developed under the program must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational use. NHS State 20% SR 88 is the only eligible Alpine County road. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be considered in all resurfacing, reconstruction or expansion projects. NSBP State 20% The National Scenic Byways Program identifies roads with outstanding scenic, historic, and cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities as National Scenic Byways. The program provides funding for scenic byway projects and for planning, designing, and developing scenic byway programs. National Scenic Byways Program can be used to fund on-street and off- street bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, intersection improvements, user maps and other publications. Grant applications for National Scenic Byways Programs are forwarded to the FHWA division office by the state or tribal scenic byways coordinator. State Routes 4 and 89 from Bear Valley to Markleeville are designated scenic byways. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-7 Program Eligible Applicants Matching Funds Discussion RTCA Non-profit organizations, community groups, tribes or tribal governments, and Public agencies Not applicable RTCA is a National Parks Service program that provides technical assistance via direct staff involvement, to establish and restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds and open space. The RTCA program provides planning assistance only—there are no implementation monies available. Projects are prioritized for assistance based upon criteria that include conserving significant community resources, fostering cooperation between agencies, serving a large number of users, encouraging public involvement in planning and implementation and focusing on lasting accomplishments. Federal agencies may be the lead partner only in collaboration with a non- federal partner. RTP Public agencies, non- profit organizations 20% The Recreational Trails Program funds development and maintenance of recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Annually, the Federal Highway Administration distributes funds to each state based on gasoline tax revenue from registered off-road vehicles in the state. California State Parks administers the State RTP allocation. SRTS Public agencies None Safe Routes to School programs are intended to increase the number of children walking and bicycling to school by making it safer for them to do so. Federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funds are allocated to each State to be administered by their transportation departments. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects within two miles of a grade school or middle school are eligible, as are education, encouragement and enforcement programs (non-infrastructure programs). STP State 20% STP provides the greatest flexibility for funding bicycle and pedestrian facilities and non-construction programs. Unlike other federal funds, STP funds projects not part of the Federal-aid Highway System, including maps and non-motorized coordinator positions. As such, States and MPOs should use STP funds as their primary non- motorized funding source. Ten percent of the State STP funds must be set aside for Transportation Enhancements (TE), which include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-8 Program Eligible Applicants Matching Funds Discussion TE State 20% TE defines 12 eligible activities that include three related to non-motorized transportation. 1. Provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities 2. Provision of safety and educational bicycle and pedestrian activities 3. Conversion of old railroad corridors to bicycle and pedestrian trails TIP State and Federal Public Land Not available Formally known as the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATPPL), the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program funds transportation modes that reduce congestion in National Parks, wildlife refuges, National Forests and public lands. Improving bicycle, pedestrian and ADA access is funded by this program. TSCP Public and tribal agencies are eligible for discretionary grants 20% TSCP provides federal funding for projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade centers through intermodal transportation planning, including traffic calming. The program is intended to provide communities with the resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation and environmental activities. 402 State None Section 402 is SAFETEA-LU’s State and Community Grant for highway safety. Bicycle and pedestrian safety activities, such as enforcement, are eligible for 402 funding. In order for the State to be eligible for funding allocation, it must have a Highway Safety Plan and Performance Plan. The California Highway Safety Plan is available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/ SHSP/SHSP_Final_Draft_Print_Version.pdf. The HSP provides strategies to improve bicyclist safety and increase bicycle use. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-9 6.3 STATE SOURCES State sources are administered by the various State of California departments, including Caltrans. State non-motorized monies sources include taxes, bonds and allocation of federal monies. State programs typically used to fund non-motorized facilities are the BTA, SR2S and TDA Article 3 funds. Table 6-3 provides descriptions of the State funding sources, matching funds required and eligible applicants. Table 6-3: State Sources Program Eligible Applicants Matching Funds Discussion BTA Public agencies 10% BTA is a Caltrans administered program funding bicycle facility construction. Applicants must have a Caltrans approved bicycle transportation plan to be eligible for funding. Applications are due annually on December 1 for projects slated for construction the following fiscal year. Maximum project award is $500,000. CBT Local governments, RPTA’s 20% The CBT grant, administered by Caltrans as part of the Transportation Grant Program, provides funding for projects that exemplify livable community concepts including pedestrian improvement projects. Eligible applicants include local governments, MPO’s and RPTA’s. DD64 Not applicable Not applicable Deputy Directive 64 requires Caltrans to consider bicycle and pedestrian needs at all levels of roadway construction, i.e. planning, design and engineering. EEMP Public agencies and non-profit groups None The California Natural Resources Agency, in coordination with Caltrans, administers the EEMP, a program that funds projects that mitigate the environmental impacts of an existing transportation facility that has been modified. Bicycle, pedestrian and trail projects have been awarded in the past. The program awards an average of $200,000 to $300,000 per project and past application deadlines have been in November. EJCS Transit districts, cities, counties and tribal governments None The EJCS, administered by Caltrans as part of the Transportation Grant Program, promotes context sensitive planning in diverse communities and funds planning activities that assist low-income, minority and Native American communities to become active participants in transportation planning and project development. This grant is funded by the State Highway Account at $1.5 million annually state-wide. Maximum grants are $250,000. Hung-A-Lel-Ti projects are especially applicable for this funding source. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-10 Program Eligible Applicants Matching Funds Discussion OTS Governmental agencies, state colleges and universities, school districts, fire departments and public emergency services providers None Grants are used to establish new traffic safety programs, expand ongoing programs or address deficiencies in current programs. Pedestrian safety is included in the list of traffic safety priority areas. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation or construction. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and priority is given to agencies with the greatest need. Evaluation criteria to assess need include: potential traffic safety impact, collision statistics and rankings, seriousness of problems, and performance on previous OTS grants. Proposal deadline is January 31. PPM Public Agencies None Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds are derived from the RTPA’s STIP funds and may be used for Project Study Reports (PSR) for projects within Caltrans right of way. RTPAs that do not receive federal metropolitan planning funds may use up to five percent of STIP funds for PPMs. RPA RTPAs Not applicable RPA funds are a line item in the State budget that is allocated by the Office of Regional and Interagency Planning. The RTPA may use no more than 25 percent of funds for administrative uses. Expenses incurred prior to June 30 maybe reimbursed up to 60 days thereafter. Up to 25 percent of funds not expended may carry over into the future fiscal year. SHOPP Public agencies None SHOPP projects are capital improvements relative to maintenance, safety, and rehabilitation of State highways and bridges. These can include bridge sign and lighting rehabilitation and mobility improvements. Jurisdictions work with Caltrans to place their projects on the ten-year SHOPP list. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) granted funding to this program in California. SR2S Cities and counties 10% In addition to the Federal Safe Routes to School program, California legislated funding for its own . Funding can be used for infrastructure projects within the vicinity of a school that serves kindergarten through 12th grade. The fund is primarily for construction, but up to 10% of the program funds can be used for education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-11 Program Eligible Applicants Matching Funds Discussion STIP RTPAs No application STIP includes projects on and off the State Highway System and is funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment Fund and other funding sources. STIP is typically updated every two years. To be included in the STIP, projects must be included in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Plan (ITIP), prepared by Caltrans or the Regional Transportation Improvement Plans (RTIPs), prepared by regional agencies. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible. WCB Public agencies and non-profit groups None WCB is a California State board that provides grants for the acquisition of lands or improvements that preserve wildlife habitat or provide recreational access for hunting, fishing or other wildlife-oriented activities. Up to $250,000 dollars are available per project. Applications are accepted quarterly. Projects eligible for funding include interpretive trails, river access, and trailhead parking areas. The State of California must have a proprietary interest in the project. Local agencies are generally responsible for the planning and engineering phases of each project. TDA Cities and local jurisdictions (applying once every 5 years) None Funds are available for transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. According to the Act, pedestrian and bicycle projects are allocated two percent of the revenue from a ¼ cent of the general state sales tax, which is dedicated to local transportation. These funds are collected by the State, returned to each county based on sales tax revenues, and typically apportioned to areas within the county based on population. Because Alpine County is the least populated California county, it typically receives $50,000-$75,000 annually. Eligible pedestrian projects include construction and engineering for capital projects and development of comprehensive pedestrian facilities plans. These funds may be used to meet local match requirements for federal funding sources. RSTP Government agencies, non- profit organizations and partnerships None RSTP is a block grant program that provides funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects, among many other transportation projects. Under the RSTP, the local MPO or COG prioritizes and approves projects that receive RSTP funds. Agencies can transfer funding from other federal transportation sources to the RSTP program in order to gain more flexibility in the way the monies are allocated. In California, 62.5% of RSTP funds are allocated according to population and the remaining 37.5% is allocated to projects statewide. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-12 6.4 REGIONAL AND LOCAL PROGRAMS The Regional and Local Programs discussed below focus on using development fees to fund non- motorized transportation facilities, with the exception of the Local Transportation Fund. Typically, development fees are used to mitigate the impact of increased traffic as a result of a development. Table 6-4 describes regional and local funding sources. Since these funding sources attain and allocate monies differently taxes and revenues), and are mitigation funds not grants they do not require matching funds. Projects within the special district or tax area are eligible. Table 6-4: Regional/Local Sources Program Discussion CFA The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act was passed by the California Legislature in 1982 in response to reduced funding opportunities brought about by the passage of Proposition 13. The Mello-Roos Act allows any county, city, special district, school district, or joint powers of authority to establish a Community Facility District (CFD) for the purpose of selling tax-exempt bonds to fund public improvements within that district. CFDs must be approved by a two-thirds margin of qualified voters in the district. Property owners within the district are responsible for paying back the bonds. Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities are eligible for funding under CFD bonds. CIF CIF’s require developers to pay for on- and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities to mitigate future traffic impacts from development. GF One of the local revenue sources of cities, towns, and counties available for use on pedestrian improvements are general funds resulting from sales taxes, property taxes, and other miscellaneous taxes and fees. There are generally few restrictions on the use of these funds, which are utilized for a large variety of local budget needs. As such, there is typically high demand for these funds for numerous government services. Design and construction of sidewalks and pathways through use of this funding source usually receives limited support from local governments unless their constituents lobby effectively for such use. LTF Established by the California legislature under the state Transportation Development Act of 1972, local transportation fund (LTF) revenues are derived from a one quarter cent of the State’s current 7.25% sales tax collected statewide. These funds are used for transit, unless the County finds no demand for transit, special transit for disabled persons, and bicycle and pedestrian purposes. SID Counties and cities may establish special improvement districts to fund specified public improvement projects within a designated district. Property owners in the district are assessed for the improvements and can pay the amount immediately or over a span of 10 to 20 years. Street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and streetlights are some of the common improvements funded by special improvement districts. ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-13 6.5 ELIGIBLE FACILITIES BY SOURCE Non-motorized facilities and program eligibility is specific to individual funding sources. Most funds are for facilities construction, as opposed to encouragement and education programs. Table 6-5 cross-references non-motorized facilities and programs with funding sources to determine project eligibility. Table 6-5: Eligible Facilities by Source Facility Type 402 BRI BYW FLH FTA HSIP JOBS NHS PLA RTP SRTS STP TCSP TE TEA Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan   * Bicycle Lanes on Roadway           Bicycle Parking Facilities         Bicycle Racks on Buses       Bicycle Storage/Service center         Coordinator Position  Crosswalks, New or Retrofit     Curb Cuts and Ramps    Helmet Promotion     Maps       Paved Shoulders         Police Patrol        Safety Brochure/Book           Safety/Education Position          Shared Use Path/Trail      Sidewalks, New or Retrofit      Signal Improvements     Signed Bike Route    Single Track Hike/Bike trail    ---PAGE BREAK--- FUNDING 6-14 Facility Type 402 BRI BYW FLH FTA HSIP JOBS NHS PLA RTP SRTS STP TCSP TE TEA Spot Improvement Program    Traffic Calming     Trail/Highway Intersection      Training      Source: FHWA . ---PAGE BREAK--- 7-1 7 IMPLEMENTATION This chapter provides a basis for implementing the recommended non-motorized transportation network for Alpine County. Projects are scored using a defined set of criteria and ranked into near-, mid-, and long-term projects. 7.1 PROJECT PRIORITY The established methodology for prioritizing the implementation of non-motorized facilities is to rank them by criteria developed by County staff and stakeholders. The project Stakeholder Group provided input in the development of the ranking criteria which are listed below.  Transportation Need  Universal User  Public Support  Lead Agency Capacity  Construction Feasibility  Recreational Demand Table 7-1 provides criteria definitions. Because this is a planning level document, projects are scored by data collected from site visits and input from County staff and Steering Committee members and does not include detailed engineering design guidelines specific to a project and its location. Definitions of the project phases are provided below.  Near-Term Projects - Near-term projects received the highest scores and should be constructed or, for more complex projects, started within five years, i.e. by 2015. Complex near-term projects requiring moderate or major site engineering and/or additional study should be started by 2015.  Mid-Term Projects - Mid-term projects received moderate scores and should be constructed within 10 years, i.e. by 2020. Mid-term projects may be constructed before near- term projects if the implementing agency finds it efficient, e.g. in conjunction with planned roadwork.  Long-Term Projects - Long-term projects received the lowest scores and should be constructed within 20 years, i.e. by 2030. Note: The project prioritization is meant as a flexible concept to help the County, Caltrans and other implementing agencies construct a non-motorized network in Alpine County rationally and avoid creating a discontinuous network. However, implementing agencies may use their discretion in constructing the network. Projects should be constructed in conjunction with planned roadwork regardless of priority ranking. The estimated project costs are based on planning level cost estimates and assumptions which are provided in Table 7-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION 7-2 7.2 RANKING CRITERIA Table 7-1 defines the criteria used to score and rank the projects into near-, mid-, and long-term projects. Projects were also ranked by the Steering Committee based on overall desirability and usefulness to the community at large. One high-priority project was allowed per community area of the County Woodfords, Bear Valley, Markleeville, etc.). Although this ranking was wholly subjective—it was also generally unanimous. It should be noted that the Hung-A-Lel-Ti projects were not part of this Steering Committee ranking because these projects were identified during a separate meeting with the Washo community. Table 7-1: Ranking Criteria Definitions Criteria Definition Scoring Transportation Need Provides connections to work centers and schools from established origin points, i.e. neighborhoods, other schools, other work centers. 3 = Project directly accesses a work center or school within (five miles for cyclists and quarter mile for pedestrians). 2 = Project indirectly accesses a work center or school within (five miles for cyclists and quarter mile for pedestrians). 1 = Project indirectly accesses a work center or school within (ten miles for cyclists and half mile for pedestrians). 0 = Project does not provide access to a work center or school. Universal User Scores the project’s ability to serve the widest range of users, i.e. type and ability. User types are listed below. 1. Pedestrian 2. Bicyclist 3. Cross-Country Skier or Snowshoer 3 = Project is easily used by the greatest age and ability ranges and user types. 2 = Project is easily used by adults and requires moderate effort from children. 1 = Project requires moderate effort from adults. 0 = Project requires a high level of effort from adults. Public Support Score based on the project meeting the following criteria. 1. Stakeholder support 2. Prior identification in agency plans 3. Identification by the general public 3 = Meets all three of the criteria. 2 = Meets criterion one and two. 1 = Meets criterion one, two or three. 0 = Does not meet any of the criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION 7-3 Criteria Definition Scoring Lead Agency Capacity Score based on the lead agency’s capacity to design/implement project and considers available funding sources. 3 = Lead agency has secured and dedicated funding to non-motorized projects. 2 = Lead agency has been allocated transportation funds for non- motorized facilities but has not dedicated them to non-motorized projects. 1 = Lead agency has not been allocated funds for non-motorized facilities but exhibits competitive grant eligibility. 0 = Lead agency has not been allocated funds for non-motorized projects and does not exhibit competitive grant eligibility. Construction Feasibility Score based on the level of engineering and design required to construct the project. 3 = Does not require site engineering. 2 = Requires limited site engineering. 1 = Requires moderate site engineering and additional study. 0 = Requires major site engineering and additional study. Recreational Demand Score based on qualitative professional estimate of the project’s recreational demand. 3 = High use. 2 = Moderate use. 1 = Low use. 0 = Isolated location, limited use. ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION 7-4 7.3 COST ASSUMPTIONS The costs used in this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are “planning level,” which estimate project cost using industry standard assumptions. The material cost for corridor improvements i.e., bikeways, shoulder improvements and sidewalks are estimated using an average per mile or linear foot cost. Sign and crosswalk costs use a per unit cost. Additional costs associated with construction, i.e. plans, specifications, estimates, environmental and contingency are dependent on the facility type. Engineering intensive projects such as sidewalks and Class I paths are assumed to have 30 percent additional costs. Less intensive projects that may require removing and adding roadway striping are assumed to have 20 percent additional costs. Signage projects are assumed to have 15 percent additional costs. Table 7-2 provides the assumed unit costs, additional costs and resulting total cost. Table 7-2: Cost Assumptions Facility Unit Cost Additional Costs* Total Cost Bicycle Rack (6 bikes) $500 15% $575 Bulb-Out (ea) $30,000 30% $39,000 Class I (per mile) $600,000 30% $780,000 Class II Bike Lanes (per mile) $40,000 20% $48,000 Class III Bike Route (per mile) $5,000 15% $5,750 Crosswalk Ladder (ea - 40 ft) $1,000 15% $1,150 Crosswalk Traverse (ea - 40 ft) $400 15% $460 Curb Ramp with truncated domes (ea) $1,850 30% $2,405 In-Street Sign (ea) $250 15% $288 Overhead Flasher (ea) $18,000 15% $20,700 Overhead Flasher – Solar with foundation – (ea) $87,000 15% $100,000 Prefabricated Pedestrian Bridge (sf) $300 30% $390 Solar Speed Feedback Sign (ea) $15,000 15% $17,250 Shoulder Widening wide per mile) $230,000 30% $299,000 Sidewalk, curb, gutter (sf) $10 30% $13 Trail (Clearing, Excavation) (mi) $200,000 30% $260,000 Wayfinding/Warning Signs (ea) $400 15% $460 * Includes plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E), environmental and contingency. ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-5 7.4 PROJECT RANKING AND COST TABLE Table 7-3 ranks the recommended projects by near, mid and long term implementation phases. Each project was scored based on the criteria defined in Table 7-1. It is important to note that this project ranking is a flexible concept meant to help the County prioritize project implementation. The County may use its discretion to implement any project regardless of ranking. Table 7-3 also presents the cost of each project. Cost was not used as a ranking criterion. Table 7-3: Project Ranking and Cost Table ID Type Project Name Transportation Need Universal User Public Support Lead Agency Capacity Construction Feasibility Recreational Demand Score Total Cost Countywide Projects are implemented at the County’s discretion. C1 Sign Countywide Share the Road Signage $9,200 C2 Sign Countywide Wayfinding Signage $29,900 C3 Program Countywide Safe Routes to School Program NA Near-Term Projects M4 Cross Montgomery Street - SR 89 Crosswalks 3 2.5 3 2 3 2 15.5 $3,450 B6 Park Bicycle Parking 3 3 1 2 3 3 15 $575 K2* Sign SR 88 Speed Feedback 3 1 2 3 3 2 14 $35,420 K6* Cross Loop Road Crosswalks 3 2 1 2 3 3 14 $3,220 K7* Cross Kirkwood Meadows Road - Main Lodge Crossing 3 2 1 2 3 3 14 $3,220 ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-6 ID Type Project Name Transportation Need Universal User Public Support Lead Agency Capacity Construction Feasibility Recreational Demand Score Total Cost M2 Class III Hot Springs Road Bicycle Route 3 3 1 2 3 2 14 $4,600 M3 Sidewalk Markleeville Sidewalks 3 3 3 2 1 2 14 $143,000 M5 Sign SR 89 Bike Lane Signs and Shoulder Width 2 1 2 3 3 3 14 $482,560 W9 Park Woodfords Bicycle Parking 3 1 1 3 3 3 14 $2,300 W6 Class II with Shoulder Widening SR 88 Bicycle Lanes and Shoulder Widening 2 2 3 3 1 3 14 $1,558,700 K1 Class II with Shoulder Widening SR 88 Bike Lane and Shoulder Widening 2 2 3 3 1 3 14 $2,740,400 B1 Class I Bear Valley Loop Path 3 3 2 1 1 3 13 $552,240 B3 Cross Bear Valley Road and Lake Alpine Trail Crossings 0 3 1 3 3 3 13 $106,260 H2- 1 Walkway Washoe Boulevard Walkway and Crosswalk 3 3 1 3 2 1 13 $9,750 H3 Sign Diamond Valley Road Pedestrian Warning Signs 2 2 1 3 3 2 13 $1,380 H4 Sign Diamond Valley Road Speed Feedback 2 3 1 3 2 2 13 $34,500 ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-7 ID Type Project Name Transportation Need Universal User Public Support Lead Agency Capacity Construction Feasibility Recreational Demand Score Total Cost H5 Park Bicycle Parking 3 1 1 3 3 2 13 $1,725 K3 Cross Kirkwood Pedestrian Warning Flashing Beacons 1 3 2 2 2 3 13 $43,240 M1 Shoulder SR 89 Shoulder and Pavement Improvements 2 1 2 3 2 3 13 $351,325 Mid-Term M6 Class I Markleeville Class I Path 2 3 3 1 1 3 13 $546,000 M8 Park Bicycle Parking 3 1 1 2 3 3 13 $1,725 W2 Cross Manzanita / SR 89 Intersection Pedestrian Warning Signage 3 2 1 3 3 1 13 $920 B5 Sign Lake Alpine Speed Feedback 0 2 1 3 3 3 12 $36,340 H2- 2 Walkway Circle Drive 2 3 1 3 2 1 12 $5,200 H2- 3 Walkway Dutch Valley Road and Crosswalk 2 3 1 3 2 1 12 $5,720 K8* Striping Pedestrian Access on Kirkwood Meadows Bridge 3 2 1 1 2 3 12 $2,300 ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-8 ID Type Project Name Transportation Need Universal User Public Support Lead Agency Capacity Construction Feasibility Recreational Demand Score Total Cost K9* Class II Kirkwood Meadow Road Bike Lanes 3 1 1 1 3 3 12 $67,200 W1 Trail Alpine Village Trail 3 3 2 1 1 2 12 $78,000 W5 Class II Diamond Valley Road Class II Bicycle Lanes 3 2 2 2 1 2 12 $240,000 H1 Class I Class I Multi- Use Path 3 2 1 1 2 2 11 $468,000 H2- 4 Walkway Hung-A-Lel-Ti Way 1 3 1 3 2 1 11 $2,600 W8 Cross Carson River and Emigrant Trail Bicycle Crossing Warning Signage 1 1 2 2 3 2 11 $1,840 W10 Class III SR 88 Bike Route and Shoulder Improvements 2 1 1 3 2 2 11 $500,250 Long-Term B2 Sign Ebbett's Pass Share the Road Signage 0 1 1 3 3 2 10 $5,520 B4 Cross Mosquito Lakes Pedestrian Crossing 0 1 1 3 3 2 10 $1,840 K4 Cross Caples Lake Pedestrian Warning Signage 0 1 1 3 3 2 10 $920 ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-9 ID Type Project Name Transportation Need Universal User Public Support Lead Agency Capacity Construction Feasibility Recreational Demand Score Total Cost W4 Trail Manzanita Drive/Diamond Valley Trail 3 1 1 2 2 1 10 $52,000 W7 Class III Luther Pass Road Class III Bicycle Route 0 0 2 2 3 3 10 $44,850 K5 Cross Carson Pass Pedestrian Overhead Flashing Beacons 0 1 1 3 2 2 9 $41,400 W3 Class I Sierra Pines Class I Multi- Use Path 2 3 0 1 1 1 8 $234,000 M7 Class I Grover Hot Springs State Park Multi-Use Path 0 1 2 1 1 2 7 $2,340,000 Total Build-Out Cost $10,783,590 * Kirkwood is a privately owned area outside of the County’s jurisdiction. The prioritization of Kirkwood projects is meant to aid the Kirkwood Community Association and Ski Resort bicycle and pedestrian project implementation process. ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-10 7.5 FINANCE PLAN Table 7-4 presents a finance plan for building the selected recommended projects in this plan. The intent of this plan is to present secured funds and possible resources available for bicycle and pedestrian facilities for years 2010 through 2014. Facilities were selected based on their prioritization presented in Table 7-3, the amount of time required for implementation, and if they could be implemented in coordination with other projects and grant sources. These selection factors result in the finance plan including mid- and long-term facilities. The grey shaded rows present the County Transportation Enhancement funds currently secured. Where appropriate, these funds are recommended to be used to match grant awards. This plan assumes that the County or lead agency will be awarded the grant. However the grants may not be awarded and the County will use its discretion in completing the project. Projects within Caltrans ROW, particularly on SR 4, 88 and 89, are presented and should be submitted to Caltrans for Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) funding eligibility. These projects are grouped in Table 7-5. Table 7-4: Finance Plan Project ID Project Name Project Phase Project Cost Recommended Source Cost to County or Required Match Remaining TE Amount Notes 2010/11 $367,000 $367,000 of TE funds are available for 2010/11. M4 Montgomery Street - SR 89 Crosswalks Near $3,450 PPM $0 $367,000 This project is prioritized due to its ease of implementation, low cost and demonstrated need. W5 Diamond Valley Road Class II Bike Lanes (Additional Study) Mid $5,000 Force Account $5,000 $362,000 Additional study needed to determine prescriptive easement. M5 Additional SR 89 Bikeway Signage Near $5,000 RPA $5,000 $357,000 This finance recommendation is to install eight Bike Route and two Share the Road signs. The complete recommendation for M5 is to also identify segments for shoulder widening at a cost of $477,000. ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-11 Project ID Project Name Project Phase Project Cost Recommended Source Cost to County or Required Match Remaining TE Amount Notes B6 Bear Valley Bicycle Parking Near $575 TE $575 $356,425 M8 Markleeville Bicycle Parking Near $1,725 TE $1,725 $354,700 W9 Woodfords Bicycle Parking Near $2,300 TE $2,300 $352,400 M2 Hot Springs Road Bicycle Route Near $4,600 TE $4,600 $347,800 This TE project allocation is for 10 bicycle route signs, including BEGIN and END signs. 2011/12 Current cycle appropriation + Remaining funds from previous cycle = $397,800 $50,000 of TE funds has been appropriated for 2011/12. W5 Diamond Valley Road Class II Bike Lanes Mid $240,000 SR2S 2011 $24,000 $373,800 Dependant on 2010/11 study to determine current easement and ROW. SR2S grant typically due in June (2010). C2 Countywide Wayfinding Signage Near $29,900 TE $29,900 $343,900 This project includes 65 wayfinding signage along popular cycling and walking routes throughout the County. W2 Manzanita Drive / SR 9 Pedestrian Warning Signage Mid $920 PPM $0 $343,900 The County should submit this project to Caltrans as a PPM request. K2 SR 88 Speed Reduction at Kirkwood Near $920 PPM $0 $343,900 The County should submit this project to Caltrans as a PPM request. K3 Kirkwood Pedestrian Flashing Beacons on SR 88 Near $43,240 PPM $0 $343,900 The County should submit this project to Caltrans as a PPM request. ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-12 Project ID Project Name Project Phase Project Cost Recommended Source Cost to County or Required Match Remaining TE Amount Notes B3 Bear Valley Road and Lake Alpine Trail Crossings on SR 4 Mid $106,260 PPM $0 $343,900 The County should submit this project to Caltrans as a PPM request. 2012/13 Current cycle appropriation + Remaining funds from previous cycle = $404,900 $61,000 of TE funds has been appropriated for 2012/2013 M3 Markleeville Sidewalks- Preliminary Design Near $30,000 TE $30,000 $374,900 This cost is for developing preliminary design documents. H4 Diamond Valley Road Speed Feedback Mid $34,500 EJCS $0 $374,900 Requires coordination with the Hung-A-Lel-Tei tribe liaison. H2 Hung-A-Lel-Ti Walkways Near- Long $23,270 EJCS $0 $374,900 All walkways are included in this project, regardless of prioritization score in Table 7- 3. H5 Hung-A-Lel-Ti Bike Parking Near $1,725 EJCS $0 $374,900 H2/H5 County staff time $2,500 Force Account $2,500 $372,400 Staff time is required to coordinate with tribe leaders and the BIA. C1 Countywide Share the Road Signage Near $9,200 TE $9,200 $363,200 This project recommends that the County identify specific locations where STR signage is needed. 2013/14 Current cycle appropriation + Remaining funds from previous cycle = $512,200 $149,000 of TE funds has been appropriated for 2013/2014 M3 Markleeville Sidewalks Near $390,000 TE $390,000 $122,200 This project includes landscaping and lighting in addition to sidewalks. Remaining TE Funds $343,900 To be used at the County's discretion. ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-13 7.6 PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING PROJECTS As discussed on page 6-10, the ACLTC can submit requests to Caltrans for PPM funding of projects in Caltrans ROW. Table 7-5 groups the PPM projects recommended for prioritized implementation. The project costs presented includes planning and construction costs. Table 7-5: PPM Projects Implementation Year Project ID Project Name Project Phase Project Cost 2010/11 M4 Montgomery Street - SR 89 Crosswalks Near $3,450 2011/12 W2 Manzanita Drive / SR 9 Pedestrian Warning Signage Mid $920 2011/12 K2 SR 88 Speed Feedback Signs at Kirkwood Near $35,420 2011/12 K3 Kirkwood Pedestrian Flashing Beacons on SR 88 Near $43,240 2011/12 B3 Bear Valley /Lake Alpine Trail Crossing on SR 4 Mid $106,260 Total $189,290 7.7 COST BY PHASE Table 7-6 presents the cumulative cost of projects by phase, assisting the County in determining future transportation fund allocations. The majority of cost for build out of the network is made up of improvements that require shoulder or roadway widening or are Class I multi-use paths. Table 7-6: Cost by Priority Phase Estimated Cost County Discretionary Projects $39,100 Near-Term (Started or Completed by 2015) $6,067,865 Mid-Term (Started or Completed by 2020) $1,956,095 Long-Term (Started or Completed by 2030) $2,720,530 Total $10,783,590 7.8 MAINTENANCE COST Table 7-7 presents the average annual cost to maintain the recommended facilities. It is important that the agency responsible for maintenance considers this cost as essential to maximizing the user experience. Without regularly scheduled maintenance facilities deteriorate and user numbers decrease. ---PAGE BREAK--- MPLEMENTATION 7-14 Table 7-7: Maintenance Cost Facility Unit Cost Description Length (Miles) Yearly Cost Notes Class I Multi-Use Path $8,500 Miles/Year 5.1 $43,600 Lighting and debris and removal of vegetation overgrowth. Class II Bicycle Lane $2,000 Miles/Year 12.0 $24,000 Repainting lane stripes and stencils, sign replacement as needed Class III Bicycle Route $1,000 Miles/Year 9.5 $9,500 Replacing signage and shared use stencils as needed Walkways $8,500 Miles/Year 1.0 $8,200 Repairing sidewalks and bridges, sweeping striped shoulders, maintaining vegetation Natural Surface Trails $5,000 Miles/Year 0.4 $2,200 Maintaining vegetation, erosion control/spot resurfacing Average Cost/Year $87,500 Estimated 10-Year Cost (2019 dollars) $2.5 M 10-year cost includes one time cost of pavement seal coat at $10,000 per mile for Class I bikeways and estimates inflation rates calculated using conversion factor of 2.78.* Cost does not include patching and repair as these vary significantly by facility. * Inflation rate conversation factor estimate is the average rate between years 2000 and 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-1 APPENDIX A BTA COMPLIANCE Table A-1 is provided for the convenience of Caltrans Staff, to outline the elements within the Alpine County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that comply with the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) requirements. Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is a significant source of funding for bicycle facility construction. To become eligible for such funding, a jurisdiction must adopt a bicycle plan that meets certain BTA requirements. The following table lists the name and location of elements within the Alpine County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that meet Caltrans BTA requirements. In cases where a brief summary is sufficient to meet BTA requirements, that summary is included below. In cases where the BTA requirement is not applicable, that is noted below. Table A-1: BTA Compliance BTA 891.2 Required Plan Elements Compliant Elements in Plan Location The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan. Existing Bicycle Commuters Section 4.2 Page 4-3 Estimated Increase in Bicycle Commuters Section 4.3 Page 4-3 A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers. Map and description of existing land use and settlement patterns Chapter 4 Appendix D Page 2-4 Page D-3 Map and description of proposed land use and settlement patterns Chapter 5 Appendix E Page 5-3 Page E-3 Locations of residential neighborhoods Section 1.1 and 2.1 Pages 1-1 and 2- 1 Locations of schools Section 2.1.2 Pages 2-4 and 2- 5 Locations of shopping centers Section 2.1.1 Pages 2-4 and 2- 5 Locations of public buildings Section 1.1 Pages 2-4 and 2- 5 Locations of major employment centers Section 2.1.1 Pages 2-4 and 2- 5 A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. Map of existing bikeways Section 2.2 Pages 2-4 and 2- 5 Description of existing bikeways Section 2.2 Page 2-4 Map of proposed bikeways Section 5.1 Pages 5-3 Description of proposed bikeways Sections 5.4 to 5.8 Pages 5-6 to 5-26 ---PAGE BREAK--- BTA COMPLIANCE A-2 BTA 891.2 Required Plan Elements Compliant Elements in Plan Location A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping enters, public buildings, and major employment centers. Map and description of existing end- of trip bicycle parking facilities Section 2.2 Pages 2-4 and 2- 5 Map and description of proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities Sections 5.4 to 5.8 Pages 5-6 to 5-26 A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. Map and description of existing bicycle facilities for connections with other modes Not applicable Map and description of proposed bicycle facilities for connections with other modes Not applicable Parking facilities at transit stops and terminals Not applicable Provisions for bicycles on transit vehicles Not applicable A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. Map and description of existing end- of-trip facilities Section 2.2 Pages 2-4 and 2- 5 Map and description of proposed end-of-trip facilities Sections 5.4 to 5.8 Pages 5-6 to 5-26 A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and compile existing data on the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists. Description of bicycle safety and education programs Section 5.10.1 Page 5-32 Law enforcement of Vehicle Code provisions pertaining to bicycle operations Section 5.10.3 Page 5-34 Effect of programs on accidents involving cyclists Sections 5.10.1 and 5.10.3 Pages 5-32 and 5-34 A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan. Description of public involvement in developing the plan Section 1.3 and Appendix C Page 1-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- BTA COMPLIANCE A-3 BTA 891.2 Required Plan Elements Compliant Elements in Plan Location A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but no limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting. Description of coordination and consistency with other local and regional plans Chapter 3 Page 3-1 Programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting Section 2-6 Page 2-8 A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation. Description of proposed projects Sections 5.10.1 and 5.10.3 Pages 5-32 and 5-34 Priority list of proposed projects Section 7.3 Page 7-4 A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area. Description of past expenditures Section 3.1.2 Page 3-2 Estimated future financial needs Sections 7.3 to 7.6 Pages 7-4 to 7-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- BTA COMPLIANCE A-4 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- B-1 APPENDIX B DESIGN GUIDELINES This appendix provides design guidelines for the bicycle and pedestrian facilities recommended in this plan. Bicycle facility design guidelines follow Caltrans Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Highway Design Manual (HDM) standards. Pedestrian design guidelines follow these standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-2 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-3 B.1 CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH Description Multi-use paths accommodate multiple user types, e.g. bicyclists, hikers, skaters. Multi-use paths should be paved and designed to the standards provided below to qualify for State and Federal transportation funding. Unpaved paths are typically considered to be for recreational use and eligible for only for a few funding sources. Graphic Summary of Standards • Paved surface • Two foot graded shoulders • Eight to twelve feet path widths best accommodate multiple users • Eight foot vertical clearance • Longitudinal grades of 5 percent or less, 2-3 percent preferred when possible • Cross slopes of 2 percent or less • Wash crossing paved with concrete, including rock or culverts underneath, to allow water to flow under in flood events • Parallel swale on both sides of path captures runoff and creates habitat for planting • Seating and interpretive features at key points along the path Potential Applications • Where roadways do not allow for additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities but right of way does • Casual bicyclists and pedestrians are expected to use the path. (People that bicycle for sport typically prefer on-street facilities.) ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-4 B.2 CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH CROSSING Description Class I path and roadway intersections present an opportunity for bicycle and automobile collision. It is for this reason that these intersections are thoughtfully designed to minimize this opportunity. The graphic below illustrates required and optional design treatments. At a minimum, crossings should be marked with high visibility crosswalks and warning signage. Graphic Potential Applications This plan does not recommend Class I facilities that cross roadways. However, future extensions may cross roadways. The recommended paths are listed below. • W1 - Alpine Village Path • W3 – Sierra Pines Path • B1 – Bear Valley Loop Path Summary of Standards • High visibility crosswalks – yellow for crosswalks within 500 feet of schools • W11-1 and W16-9p signs on roadway approach • W2-1 and R1-1 signs on path approach ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-5 B.3 CLASS II BIKE LANE MINIMUM STANDARDS Description Chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual provides standards for bicycle facilities planning and design. These standards outline minimum dimensions, proper pavement markings, signage and other design treatments for bicycle facilities. Graphic Summary of Standards • Bicycle lanes shall be one way facilities, running with the direction of traffic. • Where on-street parking is allowed, bicycle lanes must be striped between the parking area and the travel lanes. • Width of bicycle lane: • Without an existing gutter, bicycle lanes must be a minimum of four feet wide. • With an existing gutter, bicycle lanes must be a minimum of five feet wide. • Where on-street parking stalls are marked and bicycle lanes are striped adjacent to on-street parking, bicycle lanes must be a minimum of five feet wide. • Where on-street parking is allowed but stalls are not striped, bicycle lanes must be a minimum of 12 feet wide. Depending on the type and frequency of traffic, wider bicycle lanes may be recommended. • Bicycle lane striping standards: • Bicycle lanes shall be comprised of a six inch solid white stripe on the outside of the lane, and a four inch solid white stripe on the inside of the lane. • Bicycle lanes must never be delineated with raised barriers. • The inside four inch stripe of the bicycle lane should be dropped 200 feet prior to any intersection where right turns are permitted, and the outside six inch stripe should be dashed in this location. Bicycle lanes are generally not marked through intersections. • Bicycle lanes shall never be striped to the right of a right-hand turn lane • Bicycle lane signage standards: • The R81 (CA) bicycle lane sign shall be placed at the beginning of all bicycle lanes, on the far side of arterial street intersections, at all changes in direction and at a maximum of .six mile intervals. • Standard signage is shown in Chapter 9 of the 2006 California MUTCD. ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-6 B.4 CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTE Description Roadways designated as Class III bicycle routes should have an outside travel lane that accommodates simultaneous, parallel use of bicycles and automobiles. Travel lanes with a minimum width of 14 feet are preferred, though CA HDM does not have a standardized width. Class III bicycle routes are designated with bicycle route signage that is installed at regular intervals. Graphic Potential Applications • Segments of SR 88, SR 89 and Highway 4, as recommended in this plan • Local road that cannot accommodate Class II bicycle lanes. Summary of Standards • Outside travel lanes at least 14 feet wide • Bicycle route signs installed immediately after intersections and/or at regular intervals ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-7 B.5 ON-STREET BIKEWAY REGULATORY & WARNING SIGNAGE Description Signage for on-street bikeways includes standard BIKE LANE and BIKE ROUTE signage, as well as supplemental signs such as SHARE THE ROAD and warning signage for constrained bike lane conditions. Graphic Figures are from Chapter 9 of the 2006 MUTCD, California Supplement. Potential Applications • Install Bike Lane and Route signs appropriately at all bikeways, Class I, II and III. • Install Share the Road signage along sinuous and narrow roadways that do not allow simultaneous and parallel travel of motorists and bicyclists, especially in uphill locations where bicyclists travel slower than motorists. Section 5.3 recommends locations where STR is needed. Summary of Standards • Signage should be installed on existing signposts if possible, reducing visual clutter along the path or roadway. • The County should coordinate with the National Scenic Byways to ensure compliance on SR 4. (CA) ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-8 B.6 BICYCLE PARKING Description Secure bicycle parking is an essential element of a complete bicycle network. The number of bicycle spaces provided should follow the Markleeville Downtown Revitalization Plan’s recommendation of 10 percent of required automobile parking spaces. In Alpine County, which receives measurable snow fall, bicycle parking should be either mobile or installed out of the way of snow removing machinery. Graphics Potential Applications • Retail establishments, i.e. Woodfords General Store and Downtown Markleeville. • Resorts • Schools • Parks • Trailheads Summary of Standards • The rack element (part of the rack that supports the bicycle) should keep the bicycle upright by supporting the frame in two places without the bicycle frame touching the rack. The rack should allow one or both wheels to be secured. • A standard inverted-U style rack (shown above) is a simple and functional design that takes up minimal space on the sidewalk and is easily understood buy users. In general, avoid use of multiple-capacity “wave” style racks. Users commonly misunderstand how to correctly park at wave racks, placing their bikes parallel to the rack and limiting capacity to 1 or 2 bikes. • Position racks so there is enough room between adjacent parked bicycles. If it becomes too difficult for a bicyclist to easily lock their bicycle, they may park it elsewhere. A row of inverted racks should be situated on 30” minimum centers. • Empty racks should not pose a tripping hazard for visually impaired pedestrians. Position racks out of the walkway’s clear zone. • When possible, racks should be located close to a main building entrance, in a lighted, high- visibility, covered area protected from the elements. Long-term parking should always be protected. ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-9 B.7 MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL Description The width and slope of mountain bike trails can vary depending on the desired user. Beginner skill levels typically prefer trails at least 10 feet wide, whereas intermediate and advanced bikers typically prefer trails between two and four feet wide. Desired slopes also vary between skill levels. Beginners typically prefer little or no slopes, with a maximum of a 10 percent slope in short segments. Intermediate and advanced bikers typically prefer slopes from 15 percent to 20 percent, with a maximum sustained pitch of 10 percent. The trail surface must be fairly stable to ensure ease of tire movement; native, stabilized earth surfaces are preferred. Care should also be taken to trim brush and trees overhanging the path, taking into account the increased height and speed of cyclists. Again, the desired vertical clearance is dependent on the biker’s skill level. Vertical clearances of eight to twelve feet are recommended in most cases. Graphic Potential Applications • County, BLM and USFS land Summary of Standards • 2-10 ft wide path • 8-12 ft vertical clearance • 0 -20 percent slopes, with 10 percent maximum sustained pitch • Cross-slopes should not exceed 8 percent to prevent erosion • Native earth /stabilized earth base • Stacked rock and/or signs at trail junctions • Hours are dawn to dusk ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-10 B.8 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Description The trail design should consider the ability of the desired pedestrian. Pedestrians that use a wheelchair or other mobility assistance device require a paved surface that complies with ADA standards. In contrast, physically fit pedestrians may require little more than a two foot clearing of semi-packed earth, though a minimum width of four feet is recommended. The required easement for a trail can vary, but 20 feet is preferred to allow the greatest flexibility in trail placement. The minimum recommend easement width is five feet. Graphic Potential Applications • W1 - Alpine Village Trail • W4 – Manzanita/Diamond Valley Trail Summary of Standards • Four to six feet wide trail • Twenty foot easement preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-11 B.9 DOWNTOWN SIDEWALKS Description Areas with commercial or retail activity provide excellent opportunities to develop an inviting pedestrian environment. The frontage zone in retail and commercial areas may feature seating for cafés and restaurants, or extensions of other retail establishments, like florists shops. The furnishings zone may feature seating, as well as newspaper racks, water fountains, utility boxes, lampposts, street trees and other landscaping. These sidewalks should provide an interesting and inviting environment for walking as well as window shopping. Graphic Potential Applications • Markleeville Sidewalks Summary of Standards • Wide pedestrian zone (sidewalks) • Two foot wide planter strip ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-12 B.10 ADA SIDEWALKS – GRADE AND CROSS SLOPE Description Making sidewalks and trails ADA compliant ensures that the grade and the cross slope of the sidewalk or trail is safe for disabled users. Gentle grades are preferred to steep grades due issues of control, stability and endurance. The cross slope is significant for issues of control, not only for wheelchair users, but for those with difficulty walking as well. All new construction or re- constructed street shall meet accessible design standards pursuant ADA. Graphic Potential Applications • All newly constructed bicycle and pedestrian facilities funded in part by State and/or Federal sources. Summary of Standards • Cross slope should not exceed two percent. • Longer, steeper grades should have landings every 400 feet where people can rest. • Eight percent ramp slope • Two percent cross slope ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-13 B.11 PEDESTRIAN WARNING SIGNAGE Description Signage may be used to warn road users, e.g. motorists and bicyclists, of possible pedestrians and indicate where pedestrian infrastructure is located. Pedestrian warning signage, as pictured below to the right, warns road users that pedestrian may be using the roadway. To provide warning of pedestrian crossings, this sign should be accompanied with a diagonal arrow. Signs providing the distance to the crossing may also supplement pedestrian warning signs. Pedestrian Overhead Beacons may also be installed to increase awareness of pedestrians. Beacons are mounted to hang over a roadway and may have flashing lights. Beacons should only be used where there is a demonstrated need. Graphic Caltrans Pedestrian Warning Signage W11-2 Bear Valley Pedestrian Overhead Sign Potential Applications • Locations with high pedestrian activity, e.g. campgrounds, fishing holes, residential developments, resorts • SR 88 at Kirkwood • SR 88 at Caples Lakes • SR 88 at Carson Pass Summary of Standards • Pedestrian signs should be installed according to the guidelines set forth in the CAMUTCD. • Diagonal arrow signs (W16-7p) shall accompany pedestrian warning signs (W11-2) at marked or unmarked pedestrian crossings. • Pedestrian crossing signs should be "Fluorescent Yellow-Green" per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A MUTCD revision (Final Rule Docket No. 96-9, RIN 2125-AD89) adopted the optional use of fluorescent yellow-green (FYG) for warning signs related to pedestrians, bicycle and school applications. • W11-2 should be installed in advance of pedestrian crossings at isolated crossing areas and may be accompanied with a plaque showing the distance to the crossing. • Warning signage should be placed on existing signposts if possible to reduce visual clutter. ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES B-14 B.12 CROSSWALKS Description Crosswalks types vary depending on their location. Transverse crosswalks are appropriate are appropriate for locations with low pedestrian and automobile volumes. High visibility crosswalks, such as piano key and ladder, are appropriate for locations with high pedestrian volumes and/or where pedestrians are not expected, i.e. mid-block crossings or poorly visible areas. Within 500 feet of schools, crosswalks should be colored yellow. Graphic Potential Applications • Crosswalks at the SR 89 and Montgomery Street intersection. • Crosswalks at the Kirkwood Meadows Road and Loop Road intersection. Summary of Standards • Crosswalk line widths shall be between 12 and 24 inches wide • Crosswalks should not be less than six feet wide • Longitudinal striping should be spaced 12 to 60 inches apart and should avoid wheel paths . ---PAGE BREAK--- C-1 APPENDIX C PROJECT MEETING NOTES ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-2 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-3 C.1 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #1 July 30, 2009 Meeting Participants Ian Moore, Alta Planning + Design Sheri Brown Dion, Alta Planning + Design Zachary Wood, Alpine County LCTC Lisa Fontana, Alpine County School District Superintendent John Cotter, Alta Alpina Cycling Club Teresa Burkhauser, Alpine County Chamber of Commerce Joyce Coker, Community Member Michael Robinson, Caltrans District 10 (by telephone). Agenda Participants covered the following agenda: 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. What is a bicycle / pedestrian master plan? Why does Alpine County need one? 3. Role of Steering Committee 4. Review draft goals and objectives 5. Review bicycle and pedestrian problem areas and facility needs (opportunities and constraints) 6. Summary / Next steps / Next meetings Meeting Notes The summary of discussion below is organized according to the numbered agenda items listed above. Each topic of conversation is referenced according to its corresponding agenda number. 1. Zach and Ian provided introductions of the project, the County’s and Alta’s role. Each Steering Committee participant introduced themselves. Joyce Coker joined us as an At Large Community Member. 2. Ian reviewed what a BPMP is and how it will help Alpine County secure funding for future improvements. 3. Sheri reviewed the role of the Steering Committee. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-2 4. Sheri briefly reviewed the draft Goals. The group then brainstormed additional “big picture” thoughts about the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in Alpine County –summarized below: a. Bike lanes are needed in key locations along highways. b. Bike lanes would encourage a safer route to the school in Woodfords for kids and adults c. Bike safety is a key issue. The highway 88 canyon below (east of) Sorenson’s Resort is dangerous. Automobile speed is a huge issue since most of the roadways were designed without shoulders or sidewalks. People drive fast and posted speed is not enforced adequately. d. There are no easy routes for bikes on the roads. Through Pleasant Valley – Indian Creek has bike lanes. e. There should be an easy bike route from Markleeville to Grover Hot Springs State Park. f. Alpine County has lots of open space but very limited places to ride (for mountain bikes). g. Community is looking for attractions for visitors (walks, trails, maps, safety information) and places for locals and kids to ride. It should be easier for people to ride to work between Woodfords and Markeleeville. h. Alpine County could/should be a “Bicycle Mecca for the Entire Country”. i. We should develop a “green” visitor industry. j. There is limited conflict between ATV’s and mountain bikes because the U.S. Forest Service has a dedicated ATV area at Blue Lakes. There may be some conflict between equestrians and mountain bikes. k. There is a Rural Advisory Committee hosted by the U.S. Forest Service. This committee advises the USFS on funding projects from monies returning to the community from resource extraction. Their report is to be completed this fall. We should coordinate with this group on projects. Add this to the Goals and Objectives. Modifications to the Goals and Objectives included the following: New Goal: Coordinate with State and Federal land management agencies U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, California Department of Fish and Game and California State Parks) on public lands planning efforts that may affect bicycles and pedestrians. Objective 3.1: Reduce or enforce vehicle speed on roadways to increase bike trips to work and school. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-3 Objective 3.3: Support Safe Routes to School efforts that increase the number of students walking to school. Note: this may only be applicable in Bear Valley. Since Alpine County is so rural most students are too far from school to walk or bike. However, walking and/or biking at and around school for fitness is appropriate. 5. The group gathered around the maps Alta provided and noted where bicycle and pedestrian problem areas and facility needs were. Please see maps for further detail. 6. Group confirmed August 27 and September 24 for the second and third meetings. Both will be scheduled in the afternoon from 1PM to 3 PM. The location may change. The public meeting date was left open for the time being. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-4 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-5 C.2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #2 August 27, 2009 Meeting Participants Sheri Brown Dion, Alta Planning + Design Zachary Wood, Alpine County LCTC Lisa Fontana, Alpine County School District Superintendent John Cotter, Alta Alpina Cycling Club Teresa Burkhauser, Alpine County Chamber of Commerce Joyce Coker, Community Member Shane Marquardt, Alpine County Public Health Agenda Participants covered the following agenda: 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Briefly review August meeting including Final Goals and Objectives and Existing Conditions map 3. Develop specific project and program concepts 4. Summary / Next steps / Next meetings Meeting Notes The summary of discussion below is organized according to the numbered agenda items listed above. Each topic of conversation is referenced according to its corresponding agenda number. 1. Sheri welcomed the group. The meeting began about 10 minutes late. Michael Robinson did not join on speaker phone as originally planned. 2. Sheri briefly reviewed the Goals and Objectives with recommended changes discussed at the August meeting. South Tahoe Public Utility District should be added to the list of public agencies in Goal 7. STPUD is not technically a public agency, but a quasi public agency with an elected Board of Directors. They manage most of the land in Woodfords surrounding the public school. Coordination with STPUD will be key to providing off-highway access to the school from the surrounding neighborhoods. Sheri reviewed the existing conditions map – some additions are noted on the map. 3. Sheri presented an overview of the types of projects that a BPMP is most successful as a starting place for funding and implementation. The projects fall into three categories: transportation, recreation and community/economic development projects and programs. The group then began to discuss potential projects. These are described below and diagramed on the Alpine County BPMP base maps. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-6 a. From Caples Lake Caltrans Maintenance Station to Kirkwood Meadows Drive – speed limit should be lowered to 45 mph for safety. A portion of this is already 45 mph. Additional signage or parking management along highway may be needed to increase pedestrian safety across highway at new boat launch and near campground. b. Provide shoulders along highway 88 from Sorenson’s through canyon approximately 2 miles. Add “Share the Road” signs through here as well or alternately “Yield to Life”. c. Recreation project: develop trail system connecting Hot Springs to Markleeville to Turtle Rock Campground to Springs Campground. See note on map of campground triangle. Would support bike tourism and allow cyclists to camp in one location and “tour” the triangle as a day trip. d. Kirkwood cross-country skiers cross highway in uncontrolled location. This is a safety issue. Could be signed? i. Woodfords High School and Diamond Valley Elementary have two issues: safe transit to school from 3 neighborhoods and recreation/health program involving bicycling or walking during school hours. All the connections described below would serve local school children as well as residents who work nearby. ii. Connect Sierra Pines trailer park to school with route not on highway. Cross highway quickly then access Lower Manzanita and request an access point across STPUD land to DV Elementary. iii. Connect Alpine Village to DV Elementary via existing STPUD maintenance roads and connecting to Diamond Valley Road or potentially across private land with easement. Diamond Valley Road would also need shoulder improvements to provide safety (or sidewalks). iv. Connect Hung-A-Lel-Ti community to DV Elementary. Currently a program to chaperone children to school by bike along Diamond Valley Road. First year of program and participation is pretty good. This program is sponsored by the County Health Department. The distance is 4 miles one-way. Children would be more apt to ride to school without chaperones if the road had class 2 bike lanes or better. v. Additional trails for walking and biking exist south of the school onto STPUD land. These trails could be improved for health/recreation/outdoor education programs during school hours. It is possible the trails/roads could be additionally improved to connect to Turtle Rock Recreation Area and Campground and beyond that to Markleeville. e. Bicycle crossing safety issue where Carson River Road intersects Highway 88. Blind corner with hill makes crossing on bikes unsafe unless you are a very experienced cyclist. Decrease speed limit or sign crossing? Likely that speed limit will be decreased once Caltrans decides to signal the Highway 88-89 intersection in Woodfords. This area through Woodfords is very hazardous. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-7 f. Markleeville town could be connected to Markleeville Village either along Hot Springs Road with shoulder improvements or through a class 1 trail. g. Class 1 trail and Hot Springs Road shoulder improvements have been previously explored as potential projects circa 1998 (to connect Markleeville to Grover Hot Springs State Park). This project has not moved forward due to: understaffing at County, private land owner issues and lack of funding (or perceived expense). This effort should be re- examined for feasibility and current estimated expense. Class 1 would be used by residents to connect to town (walking) and visitors to bike from town to G.H.S. State Park. h. Pedestrian crossing issues in town of Markleeville at Hot Springs Road and Highway 89 intersection. There is a feasibility study examining crossing bulbouts. Need to consider snow removal in winter. i. Most of Markleeville town is not ADA accessible. There are several destinations that could attract visitors for a walking tour through the village including the Library, museum and Markleeville Creek. There is a loop that could be a “Markleeville Historic Walk” with some small improvements including signage and possibly sidewalks. j. Group very interested in possible sign program to identify bike/ped friendly routes and to promote Alpine County as a “Bike Mecca” or green tourist friendly area. 4. Group confirmed September 24 for the third meeting at 1 PM. The public meeting date was left open for the time being. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-8 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-9 C.3 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #3 September 24, 2009 Meeting Participants Sheri Brown Dion, Alta Planning + Design Zachary Wood, Alpine County LCTC Dr. Lisa Fontana, Alpine County School District Superintendent John Cotter, Alta Alpina Cycling Club Teresa Burkhauser, Alpine County Chamber of Commerce Joyce Coker, Community Member Dr. Richard Harvey, Alpine County Public Health Aaron Johnson, Mountain Adventures Seminars, Bear Valley Nate Whaley, Kirkwood Community Assn & Kirkwood Mtn Resort Michael Robinson, CalTrans District 10 Scott Moss, Alpine County LTC staff Agenda Participants covered the following agenda: 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Briefly review August Meeting 3. Review proposed projects and programs and prioritization criteria 4. Develop Steering Committee recommended prioritization 5. Summary / Next steps / Next meetings Meeting Notes The summary of discussion below is organized according to the numbered agenda items listed above. Each topic of conversation is referenced according to its corresponding agenda number. 1. Sheri welcomed the group and quickly brought new participants up to speed to the extent possible. The meeting began about 10 minutes late. 2. Sheri briefly reviewed the project types: transportation, recreation and community/economic development projects and programs. 3. Sheri walked the group through the projects defined at the August meeting for each area of Alpine County. Clarifications for projects follow: ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-10 a. B1 – Extend sidewalk around loop road. Main issue is bicycle, pedestrian and automobile conflict. Roadway is very wide. School kids and residents use this road to access the school, library and community clinic. In winter there are snow removal issues – so sidewalks need to accommodate this. This road may need traffic calming as well as clarification of where to walk, bike and drive. b. B4 – This is a road sign project. c. B5 – Alpine Lakes are also has congestion at both entrances. Perhaps lower speed limit for automobiles? Congested area signage? d. According to Caltrans signage issues are better addressed through the local transportation commission. e. K1 – Sight distance and shoulder improvements may be in the works from Caltrans. This will help drives see pedestrians, but additional traffic calming measures may help drivers be more aware of bikes and pedestrians. Adding class 2 or 3 bike lanes/ways will also help this crossing. f. K2 – Crossing serves pedestrians in winter and summer. Winter use by cross- country skiers who tromp across highway in ski boots. Summer use by pedestrians. Equestrians also cross highway in this area, but ALL groups actually cross at different locations. Consolidation of crossings may help safety for all. g. W6 – Health and bike access grant for this project. h. M9 – Bridge is a historic structure and in need of other repairs. Pedestrian access on both sides would be great since there is a fishing access on the upstream side and a future park on the side. Other issues with the bridge (and why this project has not been implemented in the past includes channel scour and other hydraulic/hydrologic and floodplain issues). i. The projects identified at Hung-a-lel-ti were dropped. We agreed that is was best to meet with the Hung-a-lel-ti community directly to solicit interest and direction for bicycle and pedestrian projects in their neighborhood. 4. Group used dot voting to rank project that would provide greatest benefit to community – most important for community. Ranking for each area of Alpine County was as follows: a. Bear Valley – B1 received all dots for this area b. Markleeville – M3 Sidewalk improvements along Highway 89 (4 dots); M6 pedestrian crossing of HWY 89 (3 dots); M4 sidewalk along Montgomery Street (1 dot); M2 Class 2 bike lanes on Hot Springs Road (1 dot); and M8 completion of existing bike lanes on Hwy 89 (1 dot). c. Woodfords – W6 class 2 bike lanes along Diamond Valley Road (3 dots); W9 class 2 bike lanes on Hwy88/89 through Carson River Canyon for approximately 2 miles (3 dots); W2 crossing and access project from Sierra Pines to DV School (2 dots); W5 ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-11 safety signs along DV Road (1 dot); and W1 Class 1 bike path from Alpine Village to DV Road (1 dot). d. Kirkwood – K2 Pedestrian/cross-country skier crossing of Hwy 88 (7 dots). e. Group confirmed November 4 for the public workshop at 6 PM. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-12 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-13 C.4 HUNG-A-LEL-TI TRIBE MEETING October 16, 2009 The project consultant, Alta Planning and Design presented with the assistance of the County at the Community Council Meeting on October 16, 2009. Six people attended the meeting and provided input on how bicyclists and pedestrians can be better accommodated in the area. A summary of the issues and recommendations they provided are listed below. The project consultant used this input to develop recommendations for the area. • Low broad speed bumps on Washoe Drive to slow cars • Add shoulders to Diamond Valley Road from the community to SR 88 and Diamond Valley School • Construct Class I path on the fire road along the northwest corner of the community o Construct recreation or exercise stations along path • Safety signs are needed along Diamond Valley Road to warn motorists of bicyclists and pedestrians • Sidewalks on all residential streets in the community • Speed limits around the community on Diamond Valley Road • Bike racks at the community center, wellness center and gym • Shoulders on Carson River Road ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT MEETING NOTES C-14 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-1 APPENDIX D LAND USE MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- LAND USE MAP D-2 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- LAND USE MAP D-3 Figure D-1: Land Use Map ---PAGE BREAK--- LAND USE MAP D-4 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- E-1 APPENDIX E BEAR VALLEY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- BEAR VALLEY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT E-2 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- BEAR VALLEY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT E-3