Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_a7b1171b03

ALPINE COUNTY 2015 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN LPINE COUNTY AL TRANSPORTATIO December 2015 ---PAGE BREAK--- Blank Page ---PAGE BREAK--- 117 Meyers Street, Suite 120 Chico, CA 95928 (530) 895-1109 Report Prepared by: Alpine County 2015 Regional Transportation Plan ALPINE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISION Report Prepared for: 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, California 96120 transportation solutions The RTP guides transportation investments in Alpine County. This RTP covers the 2015-2035 period. It is updated ever 5 years. ADOPTED 12-15-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Blank Page ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1-1 About the ACLTC 1-1 About the RTP 1-1 Purpose of the RTP 1-1 RTP Elements 1-1 New Planning Requirements 1-2 Required Documentation 1-2 RTP Planning Process 1-2 Participation and Consultation Process 1-2 Public Outreach 1-3 Coordination with Natural Resource Agencies 1-3 Native American Tribal Government and Consultation Coordination 1-3 Coordination with Other Plans and Studies 1-4 Coordination with the California State Wildlife Action Plan 1-4 2 Existing Conditions 2-1 About Alpine County 2-1 Demographics 2-2 Population 2-2 Demographics 2-2 Age of Population 2-3 Historic Population Growth 2-3 Future Population Growth 2-3 Socioeconomic Conditions 2-4 Housing 2-4 Income 2-4 Employment 2-4 Commuting Patterns 2-4 Mode of Travel 2-6 Land Use 2-6 Roadway Transportation Network in Alpine County 2-6 Road Classification 2-6 State Highways 2-8 Other Important Roads 2-10 Forest Service Roads 2-10 Roadway Operations 2-10 Existing Traffic 2-10 Traffic Forecasts 2-11 Level of Service (LOS) 2-12 Existing and Forecasted Level of Service 2-13 Pavement Conditions 2-14 Vehicle Miles Traveled 2-14 Traffic Collisions 2-14 Transit 2-15 Dial-a-Ride 2-15 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council 2-15 Inter-agency Connections with Other Providers 2-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Foothill Rideshare Program 2-15 Amtrak 2-15 Greyhound 2-16 Carson Valley Aiporter Service 2-16 Non-Motorized Facilities 2-16 Bicycle 2-16 Pedestrian 2-16 Aviation 2-16 Alpine County Airport 2-16 Rail 2-16 Goods Movement 2-17 Connectivity Issues 2-17 3 Policy Element 3-1 Goals, Policies and Objectives 3-1 State Highway and Regional Roadways 3-2 Local Roads 3-4 Public Transit 3-5 Aviation 3-7 Goods Movement 3-7 Non-Motorized Transportation 3-8 Parking 3-9 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) 3-10 Air Quality and Environment 3-11 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-11 Regional Goals 3-12 Project Consistency for Funding 3-13 4 Action Element 4-1 Plan Assumptions 4-1 Maintenance Emphasis 4-2 Transportation Safety 4-2 Transportation Security/ Emergency Preparedness 4-2 Program-Level Performance Measures 4-3 Application of Performance Measures 4-3 Performance Measure 1 - Congestion/Delay/Vehicle Miles Traveled 4-4 Performance Measure 2 - Mode Share/Split 4-4 Performance Measure 3 - Safety 4-4 Performance Measure 4 - Transit 4-5 Performance Measure 5 - Transportation System Investment 4-5 Performance Measure 6 - Preservation Service/ Fuel Use/ Travel 4-5 Performance Measure 7 - Land Use 4-6 Transportation System Improvements 4-6 Project Lists 4-7 Roadway and Bridge Projects 4-7 Alpine County’s Financially Constrained Roadway Improvement Projects (Appendix E) 4-7 Alpine County’s Financially Constrained Bridge Improvement Projects (Appendix F) 4-7 Alpine County’s Financially Unconstrained Roadway Projects (Appendix G) 4-8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) ---PAGE BREAK--- Unconstrained Bikeway/Pedestrian Improvement Projects (Appendix I) 4-9 Constrained Airport Improvement Projects (Appendix J) 4-10 Constrained Transit Improvement Projects (Appendix K) 4-10 Roadway Maintenance Needs (Appendix L) 4-11 Washoe Tribe Project List (Appendix M) 4-11 State Projects List (Appendix N) 4-12 Goods Movement 4-13 Intelligent Transportation Systems 4-13 Environmental Impact 4-13 Alpine County Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions and prepare for Climate Change 4-13 5 Financial Element 5-1 Projected Revenues 5-1 Cost Summary 5-2 Revenue vs. Cost by Mode 5-3 State Highways Summary 5-3 County Roads Summary 5-3 Bridges Summary 5-3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Summary 5-4 Transit Summary 5-4 Aviation Summary 5-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) ---PAGE BREAK--- LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Meeting Summary 1-3 1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species in Alpine County 1-5 2.1 Alpine County Population Distribution 2000-2015 2-2 2.2 Population over 65 Years of Age in Alpine County 2-3 2.3 Alpine County Housing Units 2-4 2.4 Median Household Income in Alpine County 2-4 2.5 Major Employers in Alpine County 2-5 2.6 Commuting Characteristics for Alpine County Residents 2-6 2.7 Los Definitions/Characteristics 2-12 2.8 Maximum Daily Thresholds for Rural Highways 2-12 2.9 Existing LOS Designations 2-13 2.10 Forecasted LOS Designations 2-13 2.11 Collisions, 2010-2014 2-14 2.12 Alpine County Dial-A-Ride Ridership 2-15 2.13 Alpine County Daily Truck Traffic Volumes on State Highways, (2004-2013) 2-17 4.1 Roadway Improvement Projects (Constrained, 1-10 Years) 4-7 4.2 Bridge Improvement Projects (Constrained, 1-10 Years) 4-7 4.3 Alpine County Roadway Improvement Projects (Unconstrained, 11-20 Years) 4-8 4.4 Bridge Improvement Projects (Unconstrained, 11-20 Years) 4-8 4.5 Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects (Financially Unconstrained, 11-20 Years) 4-9 4.6 Aviation Improvement Projects (Constrained, 1-10 Years) 4-10 4.7 Transit Projects (Constrained, 1-10 Years) 4-10 4.8 Short-Range Roadway Maintenance Needs 4-11 4.9 Washoe Tribe Project List 4-11 4.10 State Project List 4-12 5.1 Expected Revenue 5-2 5.2 Cost Summary by Mode 5-2 5.3 State Highways Summary 5-3 5.4 County Roads Summary 5-3 5.5 Bridges Summary 5-3 5.6 Bicycle/Pedestrian Summary 5-4 5.7 Transit Summary 5-4 5.8 Aviation Summary 5-4 Table ---PAGE BREAK--- LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Location of Alpine County 2-1 2.2 Alpine County Demographics 2-2 2.3 Historical Population Growth 2-3 2.4 Alpine County Forecast Population 2-3 2.5 Location of Employment for Alpine County Residents 2-5 2.6 Location of Residence for Alpine County Workers 2-5 2.7 Major Roadway Facilities Functional Classification 2-7 2.8 State Highways in Alpine County 2-9 2.9 Alpine County Roadways 2-10 2.10 Average Annual Daily Traffic, 2013 2-11 2.11 Predicted Average Annual Daily Traffic, 2035 2-11 2.12 Roadway and Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 2013 2-14 Figure ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDICES A Stakeholder List B Public Outreach Documents C Recommended Conservation Actions for the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region D SHSP Summary E Constrained Roadway Project List F Constrained Bridge Project List G Unconstrained Roadway Project List H Unconstrained Bridge Project List I Unconstrained Bike/Pedestrian Project List J Constrained Aviation Project List K Constrained Transit Project List L Roadway Maintenance Needs M Washoe Tribe Project List N State Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /1-1 About the ACLTC The purpose of the plan is to provide a vision for the region, supported by transportation goals, for ten-year (2025) and twenty-year (2035) planning horizons. The RTP documents the policy direction, actions, and funding strategies designed to maintain and improve the regional transportation system using the following methods: 1 Introduction About the RTP Purpose of the RTP • Assessing the current modes of transportation and the potential of new travel options within the region. • Identifying projected growth corridors and predicting the future improvements and needs for travel and goods movement. • Identifying and documenting specific actions necessary to address the region’s mobility and accessibility needs, and establishing short-term and long-term goals to facilitate these actions. • Identifying and integrating public policy decisions made by local, regional, State, and Federal officials regarding transportation expenditures and financing. RTP Elements RTPs must include the following three elements: • The Policy Element (Chapter 3) describes the transportation issues in the region, identifies and quantifies regional needs expressed within both a short- and long-range framework, and maintains internal con- sistency with the financial element fund estimates. Related goals, objectives, and policies are provided along with performance indicators and measures. • The Action Element (Chapter 4) identifies project that address the needs and issues for each transporta- tion mode in accordance with the policy element. • The Financial Element (Chapter 5) identifies the current and anticipated revenue sources and funding strategies available to fund the planned transportation investments described in the action element. The intent is to define realistic financing constraints and opportunities. T he Alpine County Local Transportation Commission (ACLTC) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Alpine County. The ACLTC is comprised of an executive secretary and the five-member board of supervisors representing the various districts in the County. The RTPA is required by California law to adopt and submit an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) every five years. The last update to the Alpine County RTP was adopted in 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /1-2 New Planning Requirements RTP Planning Process Since the adoption of the most recent Alpine County RTP in 2010, there has been an update to the RTP Guidelines. The 2010 RTP Guidelines, adopted April 7, 2010, incorporated several key changes to the RTP process to address changes in the planning process resulting from MAP-21, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, Nuñez and Pavley) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375, Steinberg). SB 375 and AB 32 require the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in California to address in their RTPs how the region will meet Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction targets as specified by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Although RTPAs such as ACLTC are not subject to the stipulations of SB 375, incorporating strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the region is an important part of regional transportation planning for rural counties. Participation and Consultation Process Required Documentation The Air Quality Conformity Determination provides an analysis of the emission of pollutants from transportation sources that can be expected to result from the implementation of this plan. This analysis must document that the projects included in the RTP, when constructed, will not emit more pollutants than allowed in the emissions budget set forth in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). As Alpine County is in attainment for all federal air quality standards, this RTP is not subject to transportation conformity requirements. Environmental documentation is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental documentation states whether there will be an environmental impact of the plan, and if so, what that impact will be. Depending on the scope of the plan and local environment, environmental documentation may be a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or a full environmental impact report (EIR). The ACLTC has preliminarily determined that the Alpine County 2015 RTP will not have significant effects on the environment and therefore expects to adopt a negative declaration, based on the Environmental Initial Study that finds no significant effect on the environment. The ACLTC coordinates with many other groups during the RTP development process. The Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) advises ACLTC on transit matters and is an integral part of the annual unmet transit needs process. Caltrans is responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the State Highway System and the portion of the Interstate Highway System within California. Alpine County is located in Caltrans District 10, with offices in Stockton. The ACLTC plans for the regional transportation system in coordination with regional stakeholders. During the development of this RTP the entities listed below were contacted for information and solicited for input: • Caltrans • Bear Valley Business Association • Scenic Byway Association • Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California • Alpine Trails Association • Bureau of Land Management • Woodfords Store • Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest • Adjacent County RTPAs and MPOs (Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mono and Tuolumne Counties and Tahoe MPO). For a comprehensive listing of entities and persons contacted, see Appendix A. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /1-3 The CTC Guidelines require agencies preparing the RTP to consult with and consider the interests of Tribal Governments in the development of transportation plans and programs, including funding of transportation projects accessing tribal lands through state and local transportation programs. This requirement has been emphasized in the 2010 RTP Guidelines. The lone Federally recognized tribal entity within Alpine County is the Hung A Lel Ti Community Council of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. This 2015 RTP update process actively encouraged the participation of the Hung A Lel Ti Community Council. The contact information for the Tribe is as follows: The Draft RTP and CEQA environmental document and checklist was distributed to various governmental and resource agencies through the State Clearinghouse process. Agencies were either provided a review copy of documents, or they receive a copy of the Notice of Availability saying where the documents can be viewed (in person and on the internet). Coordination with Natural Resource Agencies Native American Tribal Government and Consultation and Coordination Public Outreach Five outreach meetings with stakeholders and the general public were held throughout the RTP development process. The first community meeting was an informational meeting held in Markleeville. The next meeting, also in Markleeville, introduced the RTP and its goals, scope and projects to stakeholders. Further stakeholder meetings were held in Bear Valley and Hung A Lel Ti, which included representatives of local businesses and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (Washoe Tribe), respectively. A final meeting was held in Markleeville where an information table was staffed before the meeting. Maps and information regarding projects identified in the RTP were made available and staff were available to interact with the public. Meetings were advertised throughout the town of Markleeville and were posted on the RTP project website, Specified groups and stakeholders, including economic interests and Native American Tribal Governments, were invited personally to the meetings through mail. See Appendix B for public outreach materials, including the Alpine County Public Participation Plan. Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California Hung A Lel Ti Community Council 96 Washoe Blvd. Markleeville, CA 96120 Representative Contact Information: Kenneth Cruz [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Date Meeting February 19, 2015 Introductory Meeting, Markleeville March 19, 2015 Second Meeting, Markleeville March 31, 2015 Bear Valley Meeting April 21, 2015 Hung a Lel Ti Meeting May 28, 2015 Final Meeting, Markleeville Table 1.1 Meeting Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /1-4 Alpine County Short Range Transit Development Plan (2010) Alpine County General Plan (1999) Alpine County Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan (2015) RTPs of El Dorado, Calaveras, Amador, Tuolumne and Mono Counties in California, and Tahoe MPO/RTPA in Nevada and California Coordination with Other Plans and Studies The goals, policies, and objectives of this RTP are consistent with the goals of the following documents: Alpine County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2010) Tribal Transit Planning Survey (2009) Tribal Transportation Plan (1995) Circulation Element, adopted by Alpine County in 2011 Coordination with the California State Wildlife Action Plan According to the California State Wildlife Action Plan, the major stressors in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region are as follows: • Growth and land development. • Water diversions and dams. • Forest management conflicts. • Watershed fragmentation and fish barriers. • Altered fire regimes. • Hydropower project operations. • Excessive livestock grazing. • Excessive livestock grazing. • Invasive Plants • Introduced non-native fish. • Recreational Pressures. • Climate change. Stressors affecting upland habitats Stressors affecting aquatic and riparian habitats Alpine Airport Layout Plan (1995) Although Alpine County is located within the Sierra Nevada and Cascades region, the California state Wildlife Action Plan was not developed on a county-basis. The larger region that applies to Alpine County contains species, stressors and recommended actions that are not relevant to Alpine County. The Washoe Tribe representative identified only one project not previously identified by the county as a top priority. The Washoe Tribe has identified Diamond Valley Road as a safety hazard, and would like to see a shoulder-widening project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /1-5 Table 1.2 shows the endangered and threatened species in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region. As seen in Table 1.2, a large proportion of threatened and endangered species in the region are birds, which depend on uninterrupted tree canopy cover for habitat. The main stressors for birds include timber harvest and wildfire, and the California State Wildlife Action Plan suggests many actions for the County to take in conjunction with the State to improve fire and forestry management. For a complete list of actions suggested for wildlife management in Alpine County and the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region, see Appendix C. Classification Common Name Status Population Trend Shortnose Sucker Endangered Down Rough Sculpin Threatened Down Owens Pupfish Endangered Down Lost River Sucker Endangered Down Owens Tui Chub Endangered Down Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Threatened Down Kern Canyon Slender Salamander Threatened Stable Tehachapi Slender Salamander Threatened Stable Sierra Nevada Toad Endangered Down Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Endangered Down Limestone Salamander Threatened Down Shasta Salamander Threatened Stable Southern Rubber Boa Threatened Down Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard Endangered Down Swainson's Hawk Threatened Down Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Endangered Unknown Willow Flycatcher Endangered Down American Peregrine Falcon Endangered Up Greater Sandhill Crane Threatened Unknown California Condor Endangered Stable Bald Eagle Endangered Up Bank Swallow Threatened Down Great Gray Owl Endangered Unknown Least Bell's Vireo Endangered Stable San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel Threatened Down California Wolverine Threatened Unknown California Bighorn Sheep Endangered Down Mohave Ground Squirrel Threatened Unknown San Joaquin Kit Fox Threatened Down Sierra Nevada Red Fox Threatened Unknown Reptile Bird Mammal Threatened and Endangered Species in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region Table 1.2 Fish Amphibian ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-1 A lpine County is located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in eastern California, approximately 30 miles south of South Lake Tahoe, 85 miles south of Reno, Nevada and 120 miles east of Sacramento, California (see Figure 2.1). Alpine County is one of the smaller counties in California, with a land area equaling approximately 740 square miles. The County is bounded by El Dorado County to the north, Amador, Calaveras, and Tuolumne Counties to the west, Mono County to the south, and Douglas County, Nevada to the east. There are no incorporated cities in Alpine County. Markleeville, Kirkwood, Bear Valley, Woodfords and Alpine Village are the primary communities in the county; the tribal community of Hung A Lel Ti is located near Woodfords. Alpine County is the least populous county in California with only 1,175 people as of the 2010 Census count. The rural and mountainous nature of the County is ideal for recreational opportunities, including fishing, skiing, hiking, hunting, and bicycling. Almost 95% of the County’s land is publically owned, and includes portions of the Mokelumne and Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Areas and Humboldt-Toiyabe, Stanislaus and El Dorado National Forests. Grover Hot Springs State Park is also located in Alpine County, near Markleeville. About Alpine County 2 Existing Conditions 80 20 49 80 50 88 88 88 89 108 395 395 N E V A D A N E V A D A 120 395 M O N O M O N O T U O L U M N E T U O L U M N E P L A C E R P L A C E R E L D O R A D O E L D O R A D O S I E R R A S I E R R A N E V A D A N E V A D A A L P I N E A L P I N E C A L A V E R A S C A L A V E R A S A M A D O R A M A D O R 120 Figure 2.1 – Location of Alpine County ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-2 The U.S. Census reported the January 2000 population for Alpine County at 1,208, and the 2010 U.S. Census reported the population at 1,175. In January 2015, the population was estimated at 1,121 by the California Department of Finance (DOF), which calculates to approximately -0.48 percent change per year on average. Countywide population density in 2015 was estimated to equal 1.5 persons per square mile. The distribution of population between the unincorporated communities of the County is shown in Table 2.1. Population Demographics Jan 2000 Jan 2005 Jan 2010 Jan 2013 Jan 2014 Jan 2015 Percent Change (2010 - 2013) Markleeville 203 209 200 283 - - 39.4% Mesa Vista 181 186 178 224 - - 23.8% Alpine Village 143 147 141 120 - - -16.1% Kirkwood 96 99 94 66 - - -31.3% Bear Valley 99 102 97 65 - - -34.3% Hung A Lel Ti Tribal Community 234 241 230 170(3) - - -27.4% Total County Population 1,208 1,216 1,175 1,165 1,122 1,121 -7.2% Table 2.1 Alpine County Population Distribution 2000-2015 Source: (1)U.S. Census 2000, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Alpine County residents are predominately white however, there are substantial percentages of Native American (24%) and Hispanic (10%) populations. The demographics of Alpine County are detailed in Figure 2.2 (US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2009-2013). Demographics 72.8% 7.5% 1.3% 0.6% 17.5% 2.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% White Hispanic Asian African American American Indian Multirace Figure 2.2 Alpine County Demographics ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-3 Alpine County’s 65+ demographic is growing more rapidly than the statewide average, and is expected to reach approximately 34% of the total population by 2060 (Table 2.2). Age of Population 2000 2010 2040 2060 % of population 65+ 9.9% 19.0% 28.0% 34.0% Table 2.2 Population over 65 Years of Age in Alpine County Source: ACS 2009-2013 The population of the county has been slowly declining at 0.92 percent annually within the past 5 years, down to the most recent population estimate of 1,121 in 2015, shown in Figure 2.3. Historic Population Growth While the population of Alpine County has been declining in recent years, the DOF population forecast reports an overall population increase for the next 20 years. Alpine County population is expected to increase approximately 10.3 percent between 2010 and 2020 and peak in 2025 before decreasing through the RTP horizon year, 2035. The trend can be seen in Figure 2.4. Future Population Growth 1,175 1,296 1,329 1,328 1,296 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 Figure 2.4 Alpine County Forecast Population 1,208 1,216 1,175 1,165 1,122 1,121 1,060 1,080 1,100 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,180 1,200 1,220 1,240 Jan 2000 Jan 2005 Jan 2010 Jan 2013 Jan 2014 Jan 2015 Figure 2.3 Historical Population Growth ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-4 Transportation needs stem from travel demand, which is influenced by current socioeconomic conditions including number of households, employment, the transportation network, the intensity and location of development and employment centers, and recreation needs. Housing Socioeconomic Conditions According to the ACS 2009-2013, the total number of housing units in Alpine County reached 1,761 in 2013 (Table 2.3). This number reflects a large number of seasonal and recreational housing units that are vacant for large portions of the year. Approximately 78% of all housing units in Alpine County are vacant. Place 2000 Housing Units 2010 Housing Units 2013 Housing Units Occupied 2013 Vacant 2013 Markleeville 92 194 254 39.0% 61.0% Mesa Vista 57 103 133 85.7% 14.3% Alpine Village 66 69 54 81.8% 18.2% Kirkwood 19 757 811 1.7% 98.3% Bear Valley 67 531 509 N/A N/A Total County 483 1654 1,761 21.5% 78.5% Source: US Census 2000, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Table 2.3 Alpine County Housing Units Income The median household income in Alpine County of $58,636 in 2013 is comparable to the state average of $61,021 in 2010 (Table 2.4). In the 2010 U.S. Census, 410 households were used to determine the median income in Alpine County, indicating that only primary households were surveyed. 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013 23,491 26,663 24,929 41,875 63,478 58,636 Median Household Income in Alpine County Table 2.4 Source: US Census, ACS 2009-2013 Employment The number of employed persons 16 years of age and older in Alpine County is reported at 454 in 2013 (ACS 2009-2013). The recreation and tourism industry accounts for a large portion of employment. Major employers and number of employees are shown in Table 2.5. Commuting Patterns The U.S. Census Center for Economic Studies, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) offers detailed data on commuting characteristics, which has been summarized by commute pattern for Alpine County residents (Figure 2.5) and for Alpine County workers (Figure 2.6). Of the total number of working Alpine County resident, 17.6% work outside the County and 32.6% work in nearby Nevada, and approximately 73% of Alpine County workers reside in other counties. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-5 Employer Name Location Industry Employed Kirkwood Ski Summer Resort Kirkwood Resorts 500 to 999 Alpine County Government Markleeville County Government 50 to 99 Alpine County School Markleeville Schools 20 to 49 Intero Real Estate Svc Markleeville Real Estate 20 to 49 Kirkwood Meadows Utility Kirkwood Water & Sewage Companies-Utility 20 to 49 Sorensen's Resort Markleeville Chalet & Cabin Rentals 20 to 49 US Forestry Dept Markleeville Government-Forestry Services 20 to 49 Bear Valley Mountain Resort Bear Valley Resorts Unknown Table 2.5 Major Employers in Alpine County 85 74 61 29 8 7 5 5 5 5 26 0 20 40 60 80 100 Alpine County, CA Douglas County, NV Calaveras County, CA El Dorado County, CA Carson City, NV Tuolumne County, CA Stanislaus County, CA Plumas County, CA Placer County, CA Nevada County, CA All Other Locations Number of Jobs Figure 2.6 Location of Residence for Alpine County Workers 85 74 67 55 52 45 20 16 14 14 116 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Alpine County, CA Alameda County, CA Douglas County, NV Washoe County, NV El Dorado County, CA Carson City, NV Santa Clara County, CA San Joaquin County, CA Stanislaus County, CA San Fransisco County, CA All Other Locations Number of Jobs Figure 2.5 Location of Employment for Alpine County Residents ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-6 Mode of Travel Travel in Alpine County is primarily automobile-oriented due to the rural nature of the County, low development densities, severe winter weather, and limited options for non-auto modes of travel. An estimated 68.3% of residents drive to work, as seen in Table 2.6 (ACS 2009-2013). Number of Workers Total Total Workers (16 years and over) 454 454 Public Transportation 0 0.0% Walked 34 7.5% Biked 0 0.0% Worked at Home 109 24.2% Car: 310 68.3% Drove alone 237 76.5% Carpooled 73 23.5% Work in county of residence 226 49.8% Work outside county of residence 80 17.6% Worked in state of residence 306 67.4% Worked outside state of residence 148 32.6% Table 2.6 Commuting Characteristics for Alpine County Residents Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2009-2013) Means of transportation to work: Place of work: Land Use Alpine County has a total of 465,030 acres. According to the 2009 Alpine County General Plan, 95 percent of land is publicly owned and designated as wilderness or open space. Of the remaining land, 86% is in agriculture use (primarily grazing) and approximately 5% is zoned as residential and used to meet the counties housing demand. According to Caltrans Maintained Mileage data, the public road system in Alpine County consists of 82.71 miles in the State highway system, 134.96 miles in the County roadway system, 64.64 miles in the jurisdiction of the US Forest Service, 3.95 miles in the State Park service and 1.1 miles in Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), totaling about 287 miles. The four State Routes (SR) located in the county are SR 4, SR 88, SR 89, and SR 207. Due to harsh winter weather and heavy snowfall, many of the roads serving the County are subject to winter closures. Several sections of SR 4 and SR 89 have regular winter closures. Roadway Transportation Network in Alpine County Road Classification Figure 2.7 displays the major roadways in Alpine County along with their functional classification, as designated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The general function and development characteristics of the current classification system are described on page 2-8. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-7 E L D O R A D O E L D O R A D O T U O L U M N E T U O L U M N E C A L A V E R A S C A L A V E R A S A L P I N E A L P I N E M O N O M O N O P L A C E R P L A C E R N e v a d a N e v a d a Kirkwood Woodfords Bear Valley Markleeville Alpine Village 89 88 88 4 88 4 Airport Foothill Rd Diamond Valley Barney Riley Emigrant Trail y k N/A Jeep Blue Lakes Rd Blue Lakes Rd p N/A Woodfords Alpine Village 88 89 88 Woodfords Inset Kirkwood Inset Kirkwood 88 MAJOR ROADWAY FACILITIES FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2.7 Minor Arterial Other Principal Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Roads Alpine County Roadway Functional Classification 89 ± 0 4 8 12 16 2 Miles 0 2 4 1 Miles 0 2 4 1 Miles ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-8 Arterials provide the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access control. The minor arterials identified in Alpine County are integrated inter-county roads connecting Alpine County to surrounding counties and cities, including cities and communities in the Bay Area and Central Valley. SR 4 and SR 89 are classified as minor arterials. Other principle arterials in Alpine County connect with cities with populations 50,000 or greater. SR 88 and Luther Pass Road are classified as other principal arterials. Collectors provide a less highly developed level of service at a lower speed for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials. The FHWA further delineates collectors into major and minor collectors. Major collectors connect to arterials or regional destinations, and minor collectors generally connect local roadways to major collectors. Major collectors in Alpine County serve primarily intra-county travel serving smaller communities and countywide trip generators, such as consolidated schools shopping, and recreational activities, and trip may be comparable to those of minor arterials in low-density areas. Major collectors in Alpine County include Hot Springs Road, Blue Lakes Road, Diamond Valley Road, Emigrant Trail and Foothill Road. Airport Road is the lone identified minor collector in Alpine County. Local Roads provide access to adjoining properties and primary residences. There is virtually no through traffic. The majority of maintained miles in Alpine County are classified as local roads. State Highways The four State highways in Alpine County are shown in Figure 2.8. A summary description is provided below: State Route 4 is an east-west 2-lane conventional highway (classified as a minor arterial) beginning in Contra Costa County at the City of Hercules and ending in Alpine County at SR 89 near Markleeville, and has a length of approximately 197 miles. The 58-mile stretch of SR 4 from Arnold in Calaveras County to its endpoint at SR 89, known as Ebbett’s Pass Scenic Byway, is designated as a National Scenic Byway. Portions of SR 4, including the section from Monitor Jct. to Lake Alpine, are closed regularly during winter due to severe winter weather. State Route 88 is an east-west 2-lane conventional highway (classified as other principle arterial) beginning in Stockton at SR 99 and ending at in Minden, Nevada, and has a length of approximately 122 miles. SR 88 is a State Scenic Highway. SR 88 closes over Carson Pass during severe winter weather events. State Route 89 is a 243 mile north-south 2-lane conventional highway (classified as a minor arterial) beginning at I-5 near Mount Shasta and ending at US 395 near Coleville, California in Mono County. SR 89 is a major thoroughfare for many mountain communities, as it runs through Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Plumas, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, and Mono counties. SR 89 is a State Scenic Highway. SR 89 closes from Monitor Pass to US 395 during severe winter weather events, and rarely over Luther Pass. State Route 207 is a north-south 2-lane conventional highway beginning at SR 4 near Bear Valley and ending at Mount Reba at the Bear Valley Ski Resort parking lot, and is only 1.36 miles in length. SR 207 is open year round as it is the only way to access the Bear Valley Ski Resort. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-9 E L D O R A D O E L D O R A D O T U O L U M N E T U O L U M N E C A L A V E R A S C A L A V E R A S A L P I N E A L P I N E M O N O M O N O P L A C E R P L A C E R N e v a d a N e v a d a Kirkwood Woodfords Bear Valley Markleeville Alpine Village 89 88 88 4 89 4 89 207 STATE HIGHWAYS IN ALPINE COUNTY FIGURE 2.8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-10 Other Important Roads Alpine County is a destination for many tourists seeking outdoor recreation. The annual “Death Ride” takes place every summer, and brings cyclists through 129 miles of Alpine County Roadway including Monitor Pass, Ebbett’s Pass, and Carson Pass, ending in the community of Woodfords. Hot Springs Road connects Markleeville with the popular Grover Hot Springs State Park. Diamond Valley Road provides important access for residents in the Woodfords area including residents of Hung A Lel Ti. Additionally, Blue Lakes Road provides access to recreational destinations and serves as a snowmobile route during winter road closures. Forest Service Roads Approximately ninety-five percent of Alpine County’s land area is government owned and administered by the U.S Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or Departments of the State of California (Figure 2.9). Many Forest Service roads, such as Hot Springs Road, Blue Lakes Road, and Indian Creek Road, are maintained by the County through cooperative agreements and are included in the County’s mileage. A small number of roads, such as the Markleeville Ranger Station Road, are still being maintained by the Forest Service. According to the California Division of Transportation System Information, Alpine County has approximately 46 miles of US Forest Service Roads. Approximately 17% of roadway mileage in Alpine County is US Forest Service Roads. State Highway System County Roadway System US Forest Service State Park Service Bureau of Indian Affairs FIGURE 2.9 ALPINE COUNTY ROADWAYS Roadway Operations Existing Traffic As seen in Figures 2.10, SR 88 and SR 89 have the highest Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in Alpine County (Department of Transportation, Transportation Counts). SR 88 and SR 89 are the main routes for goods movement in Alpine County, and truck traffic comprises up to 13% of the total, traffic in some sections. Traffic counts have declined between 2010 and 2013 for all locations and state routes, with the exception off SR 89 at the Alpine/El Dorado County Line, SR 89 at the Picketts Junction, and SR 89 at Markleeville and Webster. It is important to note that a significant portion of traffic in Alpine County is tourist related. The proportion of tourist traffic is difficult to quantify without extensive studies, however, the Bay to Tahoe Recreation and Tourism Travel Impact Study can offer an idea of tourist related traffic in the surrounding area. This survey determined that approximately 4 million people from the Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose regions ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-11 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Calaveras County - Alpine County Mount Reba Road Lake Alpine Bullion, JCT. RTE. 89 Ebbetts Pass Summit SR 88 at: Amador- Alpine County Line Caples Lake Carson Pass Summit Picketts, West Junction SR 89 Nevada State Line Woodfords, East Junction SR 89 SR 89 at: Mono - Alpine County Line Bullion, Junction SR 4 West Laramie St Markleeville, Webster Street Alp/Ed Co Line; Luther Pass Picketts, West Junction SR 88 SR 207 at: Junction SR 4 Mt. Reba Ski Resort 1150 1225 1075 [PHONE REDACTED] 2200 2475 2575 3400 3100 390 630 [PHONE REDACTED] 2400 750 740 Avaerage Annual Daily Traffic Figure 2.10 Average Annual Daily Traffic, 2013 2013 Traffic Forecasts Traffic predictions were made based on the Alpine County and surrounding County population forecasts of no more than 1% annual growth on average. Most traffic in Alpine County is through traffic from bordering Counties, Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area in California and Reno in Washoe County, Nevada. Washoe County is expected to experience the largest average annual growth in the next twenty years, at approximately 1.1% growth per year on average. As seen in Figure 2.11, AADT is not expected to increase dramatically between 2015 and the horizon year of this RTP, 2035. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1250 1330 1170 [PHONE REDACTED] 2395 2690 2800 3700 3370 425 [PHONE REDACTED] 2665 2610 815 805 Figure 2.11 Predicted Average Annual Daily Traffic, 2035 accounted for approximately 8 million trips between Amador, Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado Counties in 2013. The survey also found that 60%-70% of vehicle trips were tourist, while the remaining 30%-40% were commuter on US-50 and I-80. While these estimates are not based on routes in Alpine County, they do reinforce the idea that tourist related through traffic accounts for a significant proportion of traffic in the Tahoe region. SR 4 at: ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-12 Level of Service (LOS) LOS is used to rate a roadway segment’s traffic flow characteristics, and acts as an indicator of roadway performance, assisting in determining when roadway capacity needs to be improved, using a scale of A through F (Table 2.7). LOS A through LOS C are considered to be acceptable, although some situations allow for LOS D and E in areas of short peak traffic impacts. LOS for rural highways is largely determined by roadway geometry factors, such as grades, vertical and horizontal curves, and the presence of passing opportunities (Table 2.8). In mountainous topography and particularly through canyons, roadway LOS can be low, even absent substantial traffic volumes. LOS Description A Represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of other in the traffic stream B Stable flow, but the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable C Stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interaction with others in the traffic stream D Represents high density, but stable flow E Represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level F Represents forced or a breakdown in traffic flow Table 2.7 LOS Definitions/Characteristics Source: Highway Capacity Manual - Transportation Research Board, 2010 A B C D E 4-Lane Major Freeway 25,400 41,600 58,400 71,000 79,200 2-Lane, Class I Highway 1,200 3,700 7,600 13,600 21,000 2-Lane, Class II Highway 1,700 4,100 8,200 16,600 21,200 Rural Principal Arterial (2 lane) 2,600 5,900 10,300 16,900 20,200 Rural Minor Arterial (2 lane) 1,200 3,300 6,400 11,000 15,500 Rural Major Collector (2 lane) 1,300 3,900 7,500 12,600 16,900 Rural Minor Collector (2 lane) 1000 3,000 5,500 8,750 11,200 Rural Local Road 600 2,000 3,500 4,900 5,500 Based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, which provided maximum peak hour flows. The values in this table were converted to daily travel using the peak period percent (approximately 10 percent) for these facilities. LOS Table 2.8 Maximum Daily Volume Thresholds for Rural Highways Classification ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-13 By measuring the AADT on State highways in Alpine County from Figure 2.10 against the LOS thresholds from Table 2.8, LOS designations are identified in Table 2.9. All segments of highway in Alpine County are currently at an acceptable LOS rating. Due to the very minor predicted increase in AADT throughout the lifetime of this RTP, few changes are expected in the LOS ratings of state routes in Alpine County. In 2035, all highway segments are expected to be operating at an acceptable LOS rating. State Route 88 from Woodfords to the Nevada State line is the most impacted roadway in Alpine County. The addition of several left-turn pockets on this section of highway (see Table 4.9 on page 4-12) will assist in maintaining traffic flow by allowing slowing vehicles to exit the main roadway. Route LOS SR 4 Calaveras - Alpine County Line A Mount Reba Road B Lake Alpine A Buillion Jct., Rte. 89 A Ebbertts Pass Summit A SR 88 Amador - Alpine County Line B Caples Lake B Carson Pass Summit B Picketts, West Jct., SR 89 B Nevada State Line C Woodfords, East Jct., SR 89 B SR 89 Mono - Alpine County Line A Buillion Jct., SR 4 West A Laramie St. A Markleeville, Webster Street A El Dorado County Line, Luther Pass B Picketts, West Jct., SR 88 B SR 207 Jct., SR 4 B Mount Reba Ski Resort B Table 2.9 Existing LOS Designations Route LOS SR 4 Calaveras - Alpine County Line B Mount Reba Road B Lake Alpine A Buillion Jct., Rte. 89 A Ebbertts Pass Summit A SR 88 Amador - Alpine County Line B Caples Lake B Carson Pass Summit B Picketts, West Jct., SR 89 B Nevada State Line C Woodfords, East Jct., SR 89 C SR 89 Mono - Alpine County Line A Buillion Jct., SR 4 West A Laramie St. A Markleeville, Webster Street A El Dorado County Line, Luther Pass B Picketts, West Jct., SR 88 B SR 207 Jct., SR 4 B Mount Reba Ski Resort B Table 2.10 Forecasted LOS Designations Existing and Forecasted Level of Service ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-14 Vehicle Miles Traveled The daily vehicle miles traveled for Alpine County roadways can be seen in Figure 2.12 (California Public Road Data, Division of Transportation System Information). The daily vehicle miles travelled exceeds the total mileage of roadway in the case of the State Highway System, meaning some vehicles may be making more than one trip per day. In all other cases, daily vehicle miles traveled is significantly lower than total roadway mileage. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Total Roadway State Highway System County Roadway System US Forest Service State Park Service Bureau of Indian Affairs 165 129 35 1.4 0.4 0.1 265 83 131 46 4 1.9 Figure 2.12 Roadway and Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 2013 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Total Miles Traffic Collisions According to California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System (SWITRS), 91% of the 151 traffic collisions that occurred in Alpine County between 2010 and 2014 occurred on State highways (Table 2.11). These 151 collisions resulted in 6 fatalities. A very high number of collisions in Alpine County have involved a 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 34 37 25 30 25 Collisions on State Highways 31 30 23 28 24 Collisions Involving 14 12 9 8 9 Fatalities 1 2 1 1 1 Table 2.11 Collisions, 2010-2014 Source: SWITRS Pavement Conditions Due to limited funds, many roadways have pavement conditions that are in need of repair. The average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for roadways in Alpine County is 44. PCI values range from 0-100, and optimally, pavement improvements will occur when PCI reaches around 66; at lower PCI ratings, the cost of improvements per area of roadway increases exponentially. With a PCI of 70 or above, preventative maintenance is relatively inexpensive at about $4.60-$4.85/square yard. When the PCI is between 50 and 70, repair costs go up to about $18.05-$18.80 per square yard. Once PCI falls below 50, as in Alpine County, repair costs rise to $28.45- $29.73 per square yard, and can go up to almost $70 per square yard for roads that deteriorate to the point of needing a total reconstruction. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-15 Transit Dial-a-Ride The Dial-A-Ride program is for the general public and persons needing transportation assistance and is provided by Alpine County Community Development. Dial-A-Ride service is by appointment only and provides rides to and from Markleeville, Woodfords, Hung A Lel Ti, Minden, Gardnerville, Dresslerville, South Lake Tahoe, and the Carson City Area. This service operates Monday- Wednesday from 8:00am to 5:00pm and costs $2.00-$5.00 for one way fare and $4.00-$10.00 for round trip fare, depending on the service area and trip length. Dial-A- Ride provides special needs service for medical and social security needs only on Thursdays, and includes trips to and from Reno, Truckee, Placerville, and Sacramento. Other destinations that can be accomplished within a 12-hour period may be approved of the Community Development Director. Passengers requesting Dial-A-Ride service should book appointments 48 hours in advance and are booked on a first come, first served basis. Inclement weather may cause delays and/or cancellation of services until conditions improve. Dial-A-Ride will not operate on roads where snow or icy conditions are present or where chain controls are in place. According to the Triennial Performance Audit, Dial-A-Ride ridership has decreased from 2009-2012, with an increase between 2009 and 2010 which is detailed in Table 2.12. 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 One-way passenger trips 494 611 457 % Change from previous year 23.7% -25.2% Table 2.12 Alpine County Dial-A-Ride Ridership Source: Triennial Performance Audit for Alpine County Transit Social Services Transportation Advisory Council The purpose of the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) is to identify the County’s unmet transit needs through public input from a broad representation of service providers and public members representing the elderly, the handicapped, and persons of limited means. There are currently no social service providers offering transportation services to residents in Alpine County; however, Dial-A-Ride is utilized as a means for special needs, medical, and social security services on Thursdays. While the Dial-A-Ride ridership count has decreased from 2010-2012, the elderly population, 65+, of Alpine County (approximately 19%) is expected to continue to grow. With a growing elderly population, Dial-A-Ride services will most likely see a steady demand for its transportation services. Foothill Rideshare Program Inter-Agency Connections with Other Providers The Foothill Rideshare Program was a joint effort between Alpine County, Tuolumne County, Calaveras County, and Amador County to promote resident’s usage of intra-county carpooling. Due to lack of need and the cost of maintaining the program, the Foothill Rideshare is no longer in service, and no alternatives are being considered. Amtrak Amtrak Bus provides service in South Lake Tahoe, approximately 20 miles north of Alpine County. This station provides a bus connection to Amtrak’s nationwide rail and bus network. This location is accessible via the Dial- A-Ride service. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-16 Rail Bicycle There is currently no rail service within Alpine County. The nearest rail-line is in Truckee, approximately 74 miles north of Alpine County. The rail line is for passenger use only and is operated by Amtrak. Truckee also has a freight rail. Non-Motorized Facilities Alpine County state highways are very popular among cyclists due to the relatively low traffic volumes and impressive scenery. The annual ‘Death Ride’ event, which occurs every July and attracted just over 3,500 registered bikers in 2010, is based in Markleeville. Bikers ride through 129 miles of Alpine County roadway and climb 15,000 feet through Monitor Pass, Ebbetts Pass, and Carson Pass. Participants often train within Alpine County in the months leading up to the ride. The Lake Alpine Trail is an important bicycle/pedestrian facility in Alpine County, for tourists and residents alike. The Lake Alpine Trail is a paved pathway that circles Lake Alpine from the east end of the lake to Silver Tip Campground. The path continues as an unpaved trail from the campground into Bear Valley. With Bear Valley Ski Resort and Kirkwood Ski Resort offering bike rentals in the summer, numerous trails, and a bike park at Kirkwood, bicycling has become a staple summer recreational and tourist activity. Alpine County currently has a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, with a goal to improve overall bicycle and pedestrian safety. Pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, are limited to downtown Markleeville and the Bear Valley Ski Resort. Pedestrian There are few pedestrian-designated facilities in Alpine County. SR 89 through Markleeville does not have any sidewalks. In Kirkwood and Bear valley, signs warn motorized traffic of pedestrians. Aviation Alpine County Airport Alpine County owns and operates one public use general aviation airport, Alpine County Airport. The Alpine County Airport is located approximately 3 miles north of Markleeville, approximately 65 miles south of the Reno-Tahoe International Airport, and approximately 130 miles east of Sacramento International Airport. It is the only state designated general aviation facility within a 20 mile radius. Alpine County Airport Facilities include one unlit runway. According to the Alpine County General Plan, the airport serves approximately 100 aircrafts annually. The airport manager estimates that air traffic will increase approximately 10% to 15% per year. A private operator that provides intercity bus service with routes throughout California and the U.S. Greyhound provides service within the region in Carson City and Reno in Nevada, and Truckee, California. These locations are accessible via the Dial-A-Ride service. Although the Carson Valley Aiporter Service does not operate in Alpine County, it does provide regular service from Minden and Gardenville in Nevada to the Reno-Tahoe Airport. The Dial-a-Ride service may be used to connect locations throughout Alpine County to Minden. Greyhound Carson Valley Airporter Service ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-17 Connectivity Issues Goods Movement Highway/ Counter Location 2004 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 SR 4 at: Calaveras County - Alpine County 24 23 25 26 26 26 23 Bullion, JCT. RTE. 89 20 21 22 23 23 23 23 SR 88 at: Nevada State Line 266 329 281 281 278 278 252 Picketts, West Junction SR 89 258 277 236 230 222 222 198 SR 89 at: Mono - Alpine County Line 19 14 17 13 13 13 19 Bullion, Junction SR 4 West 40 29 25 36 38 38 34 Picketts, West Junction SR 88 124 136 304 280 300 320 320 SR 207 at: Junction SR 4 45 46 46 45 45 45 45 Mt. Reba Ski Resort 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Table 2.13 Alpine County Daily Truck Traffic Volumes on State Highways, (2004-2013) Source: California Department of Transportation The main routes for truck traffic in Alpine County are SR 89 and SR 88, respectively (see table 2.13). SR 89 is a major connector for mountain communities in the Sierras, and SR 88 connects Stockton and the surrounding central valley with western Nevada. Truck traffic through Alpine County is not expected to increase rapidly in the future, as much of the truck traffic traveling from California to Nevada utilizes Interstate 80 to the north of the County. Winter roadway closures on SR 4, SR 88 and SR 89 prohibit resident and visitor travel within and through the County. Portions of SR 4, including the section from Monitor Jct. to Lake Alpine, are closed regularly during winter due to severe winter weather, as well as SR 88 over Carson Pass and SR 89 from Monitor Pass to US 395. SR 89 is a major thoroughfare for many mountain communities, as it runs through Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Plumas, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, and Mono counties. Road closures prohibit all travel, and disconnect county highways from other highways, transit options and other modes. Highway The rural nature of Alpine County inherently creates connectivity issues involving roadways, transit, and non- motorized modes of transportation. Severe winter weather creates additional obstacles to providing County residents with reliable, interconnected travel options. Dial-A-Ride service is by appointment only and provides rides to and from Markleeville, Woodfords, Hung A Lel Ti, Minden, Gardnerville, Dresslerville, South Lake Tahoe, and the Carson City Area. Although Dial-A-Ride does provide special needs service for medical and social security needs, service is only provided on Thursdays. Additional trips can be made to and from Reno, Truckee, Placerville, and Sacramento with a 12-hour period may be approved of the Community Development Director. The need for a reservation to reach destinations Transit ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /2-18 may discourage some potential users from utilizing the Dial-a-Ride services, especially for everyday trips, such as school or work. Pedestrian Bicycle There are few pedestrian-designated facilities in Alpine County. SR 89 through Markleeville does not have any sidewalks. Pedestrian facilities in the County, including sidewalks, are limited to downtown Markleeville and the Bear Valley Ski Resort. In addition, signs warning motorized traffic of pedestrians exist in Kirkwood and Bear Valley. The annual ‘Death Ride’ event, which occurs every July and attracted just over 3,500 registered bikers in 2010, is based in Markleeville. Bikers ride through 129 miles of Alpine County roadway and climb 15,000 feet through Monitor Pass, Ebbetts Pass, and Carson Pass. Participants often train within Alpine County in the months leading up to the ride. Despite the high usage of the highways in Alpine County for bicycling, few separate recreational facilities exist for pedestrians and bicyclists. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-1 T he purpose of the Policy Element of the RTP is to provide guidance to regional transportation decision- makers and promote consistency among federal, State, regional, and local requirements. As required by the State of California, the Policy Element must: 3 Policy Element • Describe transportation issues in the region. • Identify and quantify regional needs expressed within both short- and long-range planning horizons. • Maintain internal consistency with the Financial Element and fund estimates. This chapter describes the transportation issues in the Alpine County region and provides goals, objectives, and policies to assist in setting transportation priorities. Goals, Policies and Objectives The comprehensive goals, objectives, and policies that have been developed for this RTP meet the needs of the region and are consistent with the County’s regional vision and priorities for action. These objectives are intended to guide the development of a transportation system that is balanced, multi-modal, and will maintain and improve the quality of life for residents and visitors of Alpine County. The goals, objectives, and policies for each component of the Alpine County transportation system are discussed below. They cover both short-range (0-10 years) and long-range (11-20 years) desired outcomes. They are consistent with the policy direction of the ACLTC, the 2009 Alpine County General Plan Circulation Element (2009), the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and the California Transportation Plan (CTP 2040). The Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) is defined as a constrained four-year prioritized list of regionally significant transportation projects that are proposed for federal, state and local funding and is a prerequisite for federal funding. The Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) is a five year list of projects that is prepared by Caltrans, in consultation with MPOs and RTPAs. Projects included in the interregional program shall be consistent with the Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan and relevant adopted RTPs. The projects outlined in the Action Element of this RTP are consistent with the FTIP and ITIP process. The current Alpine County General Plan (2009) contains the following overall goals for Alpine County: • Maintain the existing secenic quality available along all of Alpine County’s highways (Goal 29). • Improve safety and circulation on State Route 88 to and through Alpine County (Goal 30). • Improve safety and circulation on State highway 4 to and through Alpine County (Goal 31). • Improve safety and circulation on State highway 89 to and through Alpine County (Goal 32). • Construct safe and efficient intersections for present and future levels of highway use (Goal 33). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-2 Issues: Objective: Identify and prioritize improvements to the roadway system. Policy: Support Tri-County (Amador County Transportation Commission, Alpine County Local Transportation Commission and Calveras Council of Governments) Letter of Agreement (LOA) projects which improve safety, mobility and reliability for visitors and residents of Alpine County and travel to and from Alpine County. With low traffic volumes, decreasing population and inadequate funds, expanding the capacity of the roadway system in the county is not a high priority for Alpine County. This sentiment was echoed in the public input process. Safety improvements and maintaining the existing system are of central importance. Goal 1: Provide and Maintain a Safe, Efficient, and Convenient Countywide Roadway System that Meets the Travel Needs of People and Goods Within the Region and Connecting to Points Beyond. State Highway and Regional Roadways • Increase County minimums for Alpine County (Goal 34). • Ensure County minimum amounts are spent in Alpine County (Goal 35). • Provide for the cost of maintenance on new and existing County roads (GOAL 36). • Upgrade existing roads and add new roads to the County system that meet projected needs and planned functional classifications and insure that private roads do not become a burden or threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public (Goal 37). • Provide for the transit needs of the County in a timely and economic fashion (Goal 38). • Establish safe and adequate aviation facilities (Goal 39). • Develop bicycle circulation and support facilities where safe and reasonable (Goal 40). • Develop pedestrian circulation for the betterment of local commerce as well as the safety and con- nience of local citizens (Goal 41). • Fulfill the parking needs of local citizens and visiting traffic (Goal 42). • Establish winter trails for cross-country ski and snowmobile use (Goal 43). • Develop, maintain, and use pipeline, power line and communication facilities in a wise and efficient manner (Goal 44). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-3 Objective: Maintain roadways at acceptable safety standards. Policy: Identify and eliminate unsafe conditions on State highways and intersections, in coordination with Caltrans. Policy: Prioritize roadway projects according to safety standards, including required maintenance and repair, in the most cost effective manner given available resources. Objective: Maintain Caltrans’ desired Level of Service (LOS) on all State highways. Objective: The County will work with developers and Caltrans to ensure that intersection improvements are installed at the appropriate time and in accordance with State and County design standards. Policy: If LOS falls below policy levels, coordinate with Caltrans to program projects which will improve traffic flow through the affected corridor. Objective: Implement improvement projects which will help to reduce vehicle speeds in community commercial areas as well as increase the walkability and attractiveness of downtown areas. Objective: Employ ITS strategies when feasible and cost effective. Policy: The ACLTC will consider implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies for individual modes based on availability, feasibility and funding. Policy: Developers shall be responsible for constructing or improving intersections at new developments, including resort communities and ski areas, to maintain acceptable LOS on roadways that provide access or are affected by the development during the implementation of planned or phased development in these areas. Policy: The County will pursue traffic calming and streetscape projects in the downtown Markleeville area in coordination with stakeholders and avoiding significant loss of parking. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-4 Objective: Accept new roads into the locally maintained road system only when they meet the criteria established by the County and when financial means exist to support both maintenance and snow removal. Policy: Prioritize roadway maintenance projects based on pavement condition data obtained from the Pavement Management System and Roadway Data Analysis Report and the overall regional importance of the local roadway. Local Roads Policy: Existing roads should be maintained and upgraded as a priority over the construction of new roads to new areas except where the public benefit clearly outweighs overall costs. Issues: As with State highways and regional roadways, expanding the capacity of the local roadway system in the County is not a priority or financial reality for Alpine County. Pavement maintenance and safety improvements continue to be the highest priorities for the local roadway system. Goal 2: Upgrade and Maintain Roadways in Order to Preserve the County Roadway System. Objective: Improve overall pavement condition ratings to a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 50 or better so as to reduce the need for expensive roadway reconstruction projects over the long- term. Policy: Develop a PMS and roadway inspection schedule as recommended in the Pavement Management System Report, and update the PMS report every few years as needed. Policy: Consider imposing traffic impact fees on any industrial, commercial, residential, or other development permit for the purpose of improving affected local roads. Objective: Maintain LOS on County roadways (evaluated for average daily traffic conditions) and at intersections (evaluated for peak hour conditions using the current Highway Capacity Manual methodology) to ensure travel delays and congestion do not cause impacts to drivers. New development must comply with the Road Capacity policy and procedures outlined in the General Plan Land Use Element: Public Services and Facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-5 Policy: If LOS falls below level implement projects which will improve traffic circulation on County roadways. The County may allow exceptions to the LOS standards where it finds that the improvements or other measures required to achieve the LOS standards are unacceptable based on established criteria. In allowing any exception to the standards, the County shall consider the following factors: • The number of hours per day that the intersection or roadway segment would operate at conditions worse than the standard. • The ability of the required improvement to significantly reduce peak hour delay and improve traffic operations. • The right-of-way needs and the physical impacts on surrounding properties. • The visual aesthetics of the required improvement and its impact on community identity and character. • Environmental impacts including air quality and noise impacts. • Construction and right-of-way acquisition costs. • The impacts on general safety. • The impacts of the required construction phasing and traffic maintenance. • The impacts on quality of life as perceived by residents. • Consideration of other environmental, social, or economic factors on which the County may base findings to allow an exceedance of the standards. Exceptions to the standards will only be allowed after all feasible measures and options are explored, including alternative forms of transportation. Public Transit Issues: Despite low ridership on Alpine County public transit services, there is a portion of the population who require transportation to Douglas County or other urban areas for work, commercial or medical purposes. According to the American Community Survey, approximately 3.8 percent of households in Alpine County had no vehicle available to them in 2013 (latest data available), and that percentage increases to 6.9 for larger household sizes. Maintaining a limited level of transit service with the goal of more consistent service throughout both sides of the County is an important regional transportation need for Alpine County; however, it is difficult to provide these services in a cost effective manner. Goal 3: Provide for the Mobility Needs of County Residents, Visitors and Employees Within the Financial Constraints of State and Federal Transit Funding. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-6 Objective: Tailor public transportation and transit service provisions to the area’s population characteristics. Policy: Implement recommendations from the Alpine County Short Range Transit Plan. Update the plan a minimum of every five years as required by Caltrans or as necessary. Policy: Consider transit services first in areas where the greatest operational efficiencies exist dependent needs, recreational areas). Policy: Include the Washoe Tribe in the transit planning process. Objective: Provide life-line transportation for transit-dependent residents. Policy: The ACLTC will conduct a minimum of one public hearing annually to consider and take testimony on unmet transit needs prior to expending LTF funds. Policy: Ensure that public transit services are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Policy: Expand transit service to meet the needs of employees commuting between Douglas County and Alpine County as warranted and financially feasible. Policy: Support transit projects that serve visitors and residents for commute and recreation trip purposes and that would enhance economic development. Policy: Encourage coordination of inter- and intra-county transit service. Objective: As funding permits, develop transit service as an effective alternative transportation mode choice. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-7 Aviation Issues: Improvements to the airport are needed. Alpine County’s only funding source for airport capital improvements is the California Aid to Airport Program (CAAP) program, which has seen cutbacks in recent years due to State budget shortfalls. This indicates that other funding sources need to be pursued. Goal 4: Maintain the Alpine County Airport as a Safe and Operable General Aviation Facility. Expand Airport Services Only if Additional Funding is Available Beyond CAAP Annual Grant Program. Objective: Promote the safe, orderly, and efficient use of airport and air space and compatible land uses as addressed in the updated Airport Layout Plan. Policy: Support land use decisions that discourage or prevent development in the vicinity of the airport that may present significant public safety issues. Policy: Implement Airport Capital Improvement Projects as funding allows with priority for projects which are required to improve the safety of the airport. Goods Movement Issues: While truck traffic is not generated at a substantial level within Alpine County, Alpine County includes several trans-Sierra State highways which are important roadways for interregional goods movement. It is therefore an important regional transportation need to maintain pavement and implement safety projects on the State highways to a level that is sufficient for goods movement. Goal 5: Provide for the safe and Efficient Movement of Goods Within Alpine County and Connecting to Points Beyond. Objective: Mitigate conditions that transporters of goods deem dangerous or unacceptable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-8 Objective: Integrate pedestrian and bikeway facilities into a multimodal transportation system. Non-Motorized Transportation Issues: There is a need to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities for recreational users, tourists and residents in Alpine County. Wider shoulders, bike lanes and paths will greatly increase safety in the region while way-finding signage and safe crossing areas will improve connectivity between community destinations. The public input process indicated that providing additional facilities for bicyclists is an important regional transportation need for both motorists and non-motorists. Goal 6: Promote a Safe, Convenient and Efficient Non-Motorized Transportation System that is Part of a Balanced Overall Transportation System. Policy: Implement recommendations of the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Continue to update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in order to be eligible for State and Federal funding. Policy: Incorporate non-motorized facilities where feasible when implementing improvements or new developments to the existing roadway network. Policy: Prioritize roadway and street designs that avoid conflicts between automobiles and non- motorized users. Policy: Place a high level of importance on maintenance projects which will assist goods movement. Policy: Provide proper road geometry and consider passing lanes on roadways intended to accommodate truck traffic such as SR 88 and 89. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-9 Policy: Require bikeway and pedestrian facilities in all appropriate future and development projects to facilitate onsite circulation for pedestrian and bicycle travel and connections to the proposed system. Policy: Pursue alternative funding mechanisms for the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as look for potential partnerships or interagency agreements. Policy: Implement complete streets that are context sensitive to rural areas, that foster equal access by all users in the roadway design. Objective: Provide a pedestrian and bikeway system that emphasizes safety. Policy: Prioritize improvement projects which will increase bicycle safety along corridors and intersections frequently used by school children, recreational cyclists, residents and visitors. Objective: Promote off-street parking to reduce congestion, to accommodate snow removal, and to ensure safety and mobility. Parking Policy: Coordinate with Caltrans and the US Forest Service to construct and maintain off-street parking facilities as needed along State highways and County roadways to serve summer and winter recreational travelers. Goal 7: Fulfill the Parking Needs of Local Citizens, Travelers and Tourists ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-10 Objective: Employ ITS strategies when feasible and cost effective. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Issues: Ridesharing and carpooling is an important regional transportation need for Alpine County. This is a relatively inexpensive form of transportation assistance which can benefit all residents, particularly commuters and those in areas not served by public transit, such as Bear Valley. As noted in the Draft Transit Planning Survey, ridesharing will improve mobility for Washoe Tribe members. Goal 8: Promote the Use of Alternative Transportation to Reduce the Negative Impacts of Single-Occupant Vehicle Travel and to Increase Mobility for Alpine County Residents. Objective: Advance the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) in a thorough, cost effective manner that is feasible and appropriate in a rural context. Policy: Support the use of public transportation as a transportation control measure to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions. Policy: Work with Caltrans and local jurisdictions to locate and develop park-and-ride lots. Policy: Provide outreach to media, employers, and the general public to promote awareness of alternative transportation. Designate a rideshare coordinator as necessary. Policy: Encourage special event organizers to promote carpooling among event attendees. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-11 Air Quality and Environment Issues: In California, transportation accounts for 41.2 percent of GHG emissions. Transportation strategies include: reducing, managing, and eliminating non-essential trips, GHGs and air pollution through smart land use, ITS, demand management, value pricing, and market-based manipulation strategies. With a population of less than 1,200 people and no traffic congestion, it is not likely that Alpine County policies will have a noticeable effect on GHG emissions. However, it is important that the county transportation and land use decision-makers pursue projects that adhere to adopted state strategies. Goal 9: Enhance Sensitivity to the Environment in all Transportation Decisions. Objective: Promote transportation policies and projects that support a healthy environment. Policy: Conduct environmental review consistent with CEQA for individual projects as they advance to the implementation stage of development. Policy: Avoid wildlife when constructing transportation facilities contained in the proposed system whenever feasible. If sensitive areas are affected by new routes, mitigate impacts through the appropriate CEQA or NEPA process. Objective: Ensure that transportation projects contribute to the goal of lowering vehicle emissions. Policy: Prioritize and recommend transportation projects that minimize vehicle emissions while providing cost effective movement of people and goods. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Goal 10: Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-12 Objective: Reduce or maintain GHG emissions from transportation related sources in Alpine County. Policy: Comply with State and Federal climate change regulations and standards. Policy: Consider GHG emissions as part of every transportation capital improvement project decision. Policy: Pursue projects with positive GHG impacts that are realistic given the rural nature of Alpine County, including transit programs, ridesharing programs, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, ITS strategies, and maintenance of existing roadways to reduce vehicle emissions. Regional Goals Objective: Include regional entities in the transportation planning process. Policy: Coordinate with Caltrans, California Transportation Commission, Washoe Tribe, neighboring Transportation agencies, local governments, Federal and State resource agencies and other pertinent entities when planning transportation capital improvements. Policy: Develop plans that meet the standards of the California Clean Air Act and the Federal Clean Air Act and Amendments in coordination with the local Air Pollution Control District. Goal 11: provide a Well-Balanced Regional Transportation System that Meets the Needs of All users. Policy: Promote projects that can be demonstrated to reduce air pollution, such as alternative fuel programs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /3-13 Project Consistency for Funding Funding programs eligibility criteria include requirements that the projects be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the RTP. Listed below by RTP goal are project categories consistent with this RTP document: State Highway and Regional/Local Roadways • Capacity increasing projects only where alternative solutions would not be practical or cost-effective in resolving the problem. • Transportation maintenance and preservation projects. • Projects that maintain the interregional integrity of the state highway system. Public Transit • Projects that reduce mobile source emissions without construction of new facilities for single-occupant vehicles. • Multi-occupant vehicle systems, such as public transit, ridesharing projects, and park-and- ride facilities. • Transportation projects that will contribute to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita, while maintaining economic vitality and sustainability. Aviation • Projects to enhance surface connections to airports. Goods Movement • Projects to enhance the movement of agricultural, commercial, and industrial goods. Non-Motorized Transportation • Bicycle and pedestrian projects. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) • System management, demand management, and other transportation control measures included in trip reduction ordinances and/or air quality attainment plans. Air Quality and Environment • Transportation projects that integrate transportation facilities into surrounding communities in an environmentally sensitive way. Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Projects that reduce mobile source emissions without construction of new facilities for single-occupant vehicles. Regional Goals • Projects that meet the needs of persons whose mobility is limited by inaccessible transportation systems. • Capacity increasing projects only where alternative solutions would not be practical or cost-effective in resolving the problem. • Projects that improve transportation safety. • Transit or roadway connections to urbanized areas which provide important medical and commercial services for Alpine County residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-1 T his chapter presents a plan to addresses the needs and issues for each transportation mode, in accordance with the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Policy Element. It is within the Action Element that projects and programs are prioritized as short- or long-term improvements, consistent with the identified needs and policies. These plans are based on the existing conditions, forecasts for future conditions and transportation needs discussed in the Existing Conditions Section and Policy Element and are consistent with the Financial Element. 4 Action Element Plan Assumptions In addition to the data discussed above, it is necessary to base the Action Element on a series of planning assumptions, as presented below: • Environmental Conditions – No change is assumed in attainment status for air or water quality affected by transportation projects. • Travel Mode – The private automobile will remain the primary mode of transportation for residents and visitors. Public transportation will remain a vital service for the elderly, low- income, and for persons with mobility limitations. Bicycle and pedestrian travel will increase modestly, for both recreational and utility purposes. • Changes in Truck Traffic – The proportion of truck traffic on State highways will remain relatively steady during the planning period. Primary goods movement corridors are along SR 88 and 89 between Nevada and South Lake Tahoe as well as between Nevada and the Western Sierra foothills. • Recreational Travel – Recreation oriented local travel will continue to have a major impact on State highways in the County as will intra-county visitor travel. SR 4 from Calaveras County and SR 88 from Amador County will be the primary visitor travel corridors. Monitor Pass is also an important corridor for trans-Sierra travelers. • Transit Service – Though future planning efforts may lead to expansion of services in Alpine County, any expansion will not significantly impact overall traffic levels. It is anticipated that the demand for public transit will increase as the population ages. • Population Growth – Alpine County will not be subject to the same development pressures as its neighboring counties. The Alpine County population is not expected to increase at a rate greater than California Department of Finance projections of 1 percent annually. • Planning Requirements – New State and Federal requirements with respect to climate change and GHG emissions will continue to shape the planning process in the future. This RTP is a dynamic document which will be updated as requirements change. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-2 Maintenance Emphasis Transportation Safety Addressing transportation safety in a regional planning document can improve health, financial, and quality of life issues for travelers. In the past, transportation safety has been addressed in a reactionary mode. There is a need to establish methods to proactively improve the safety of the transportation network. In response to this, California developed a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). This plan sets forth one primary safety goal: reduce roadway fatalities to less than one per one hundred million per vehicle miles traveled. The SHSP focuses on 16 “Challenge Areas” with respect to transportation safety in California. For each Challenge Area, background data is provided, a specific goal is established, strategies are considered to achieve that goal, and institutional issues which might affect implementation of that goal are discussed. The latest California SHSP Challenge Areas are summarized in Appendix D along with safety strategies and implementation actions that could be applied to the Alpine County region. In addition to the identified challenge aras in the SHSP, agencies and tribal governments are eligible to apply for safety grants through the FHWA and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Transportation Security/ Emergency Preparedness Transportation security is another element which is incorporated into the RTP. Separate from transportation safety – transportation security and emergency preparedness addresses issues associated with large-scale evacuation due to a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Emergency preparedness involves many aspects including training and education, planning appropriate responses to possible emergencies, and communication between fire protection and county government staff. In the Alpine County region, forced evacuation due to wildfire, flood or landslide is the most likely emergency scenario. Alpine County is approximately 740 square miles of forested landscape with small pockets of population centers and no formal countywide evacuation plan has been developed for the region. Identifying evacuation routes and other methods of evacuation is pertinent to the scope of the RTP. Three major state highways traverse Alpine County and act as the primary evacuation routes for local communities. Seasonal closures on SR 4 and SR 89 limit evacuation possibilities during the winter months. For the eastern portion of the county, evacuation routes should follow SR 89/88 east to Minden, Gardnerville or SR 88/89 north to US 50 in South Lake Tahoe. For Bear Valley residents, there is only one route out of the county in the winter: SR 4 west to Calaveras County. The implementation of Intelligent Transportation System projects such as Road Weather and Information Systems (RWIS), Changeable Message Signs (CMS), and Closed Circuit Television (CCT) could assist with maintaining a steady flow of traffic on these State highways while keeping evacuees informed. Although Alpine County communities are relatively close to the state highway system, the communities of Hung A Lel Ti, Alpine Village, and Paynesville depend on local roadways such as Emigrant Trail, Diamond Valley Road, and Foothill Road for access to the State highways. In Alpine County, the limited available funding is focused on maintaining existing roadway, transit, non- motorized, and airport facilities and programs. There are no new capital projects anticipated to be needed in Alpine County in the short range horizon. Furthermore, should a capacity increasing project become a regional priority, it shall be initiated only when fully or largely funded by revenue sources that otherwise could not be used for maintenance activities. Other capital projects can only be implemented after new funding sources become available to allow full funding of ongoing maintenance responsibilities. The County has limited capacity to fund large projects even when outside funding is available. The policy element of this RTP includes safety goals and objectives that comply with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan as well as well as regional safety needs within the county. Transportation improvement projects that specifically address safety for all types of transportation modes are included in the project list tables in this chapter. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-3 Program-Level Performance Measures In 2015 the Rural County Task Force (RCTF) completed a study on the use of performance measure indicators for the 26 Regional Transportation Planning Agencies in California. This study evaluated the current statewide performance monitoring metrics applicability to rural and small urban areas. In addition, the study identified and recommended performance measures more appropriate for the unique conditions and resources of rural and small urban places, like Alpine County. These performance measures are used to help select RTP project priorities and to monitor how well the transportation system is functioning, both now and in the future. The identified metrics appropriate for rural and small urban areas through the study were incorporated into the California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The following criteria was used in selecting performance measures for this Regional Transportation Plan, ensuring it is feasible to collect data and monitor performance of the transportation investments: 1. Performance Measures align with California State transportation goals and objectives. 2. Performance Measures continue to inform current goals and objectives of Alpine County. 3. Performance Measures are applicable to Alpine County as a rural area. 4. Performance Measures are capable of being linked to specific decisions on transportation investments. 5. Performance Measures do not impose substantial resource requirements on Alpine County. 6. Performance Measures can be normalized to provide equitable comparisons to urban regions. Application of Performance Measures The program-level performance measures are used to help select RTP project priorities and to monitor how well the transportation system is functioning, both now and in the future. The intent of each performance measure and their location within the RTP are identified below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-4 Performance Measure 2 – Mode Share/ Split This performance measure monitors transportation mode and mode share to understand how State and County roads function based on modes used. The data is reported as a trend over time from 2000 and does not require a high level of additional resource requirements. Although the data is less accurate for smaller counties, the data is reasonably accurate at the County level. This performance measure cannot be used as a benefit/cost analysis. Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: • Multimodal. • GHG reduction. • Efficiency. • (RTP Goals 5,9,10). Performance Measure 3 - Safety This performance measure monitors safety through the total accident cost, and should be monitored annually. To access this data, staff may be required to access secondary data sources. The data is reasonably accurate and can be used directly for benefit/cost analysis. Alpine County does not track VMT on its County roads, therefore a comparison with the collision rate (collisions per 1,000,000 VMT) for Caltrans District 10 and the State on similar facilities does not exist. However, the County does track the number of collisions on local roads and these will be monitored to identify locations that are in need of safety improvements. The Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), a database that collects and processes data gathered from collision scenes, can be used to monitor the number of fatal and injury collisions by location to see if added improvements are needed. Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: • Measure of overall vehicle activity and use of the roadway network. • Input maintenance and system preservation. • Input to safety. • Input health based pollutant reduction, input GHG reduction. • (RTP Goals Performance Measure 1 – Congestion/ Delay/ Vehicle Miles Traveled This performance measure monitors how well State and County Roads are functioning based on peak volume/ capacity and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The data is reported annually and as a trend over time from the year 2000. Monitoring this performance measure requires minimal resources as data regarding the State Highway system is readily available; however, broader coverage may require effort by County and localities to conduct periodic traffic counts. Not all locations are reported annually in Caltrans Vehicle Reports; thus, there is the chance that individual locations may have out-of-date data. This performance measure is reasonably accurate for most locations and may be used in a cost/benefit analysis with additional calculations (travel time/delay as functions of V/C). ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-5 Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: • Establish baseline values for the number of fatal collisions and injuries per ADT on select roadways over the past three years. • Monitor the number, location and severity of collisions. Recommend improvements to reduce incidence and severity. • Work with Caltrans to reduce the number of collisions on Alpine County State highways. • Completion of project identified in TCRs and RTP. • (RTP Goals Performance Measure 4 - Transit This performance measure monitors the cost-effectiveness of transit in Alpine County. This performance measure should be monitored annually. The RTP will emphasize projects and programs that maintain the TDA required fare box ratio of 10 percent or higher. Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: • Increase productivity. • Reduce the cost of operation per passenger. • Increase efficiency. • (RTP Goals 5,7, 10, 11). Performance Measure 5 - Transportation System Investment This performance measure monitors the condition of the roadway in Alpine County, which can be used in deciding transportation system investment. Distressed lane miles should be monitored tri-annually. This performance measure should have a high level of accuracy and can be used indirectly for benefit/cost analysis by estimating the costs of bringing all roadways up to a minimum acceptable condition. • Safety. • Productivity. • Reliability. • System Preservation. • Return on Investment. • (RTP Goals: 1,5). • Accessibility. Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: Performance Measure 6 - Preservation Service/ Fuel Use/ Travel In addition to performance measure 5, performance measure 6 also monitors the condition of the roadway in Alpine County through pavement condition, which should be monitored every two years. This performance measure should have a high level of accuracy which can be indirectly used in estimating the costs of bringing all roadways up to a minimum acceptable condition. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-6 Transportation System Improvements As a method of developing responses to the transportation needs and issues discussed in the earlier portions of this document, this RTP includes a list of transportation system improvements for each mode of transportation applicable to Alpine County. Projects for each type of transportation facility are divided into financially constrained and financially unconstrained improvements. Financially constrained projects are funded over the short- range periods (0-10 yrs) as demonstrated in the Financial Element. The unconstrained project list is considered a “wish list” of projects that would provide benefit to the region, but will unlikely receive funding over the next 20 years. This performance measure monitors the efficiency of land use and is reported over time since 2000. Tourism is very important to the County in order to maintain and improve economic conditions, which is why monitoring of land use efficiency is important. Accessing this data requires minimal resource requirements, should be monitored every 2 years, and has a high level of accuracy. This kind of data is not usable for benefit/cost analysis. Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: • Land use efficiency. • Coordinate with Caltrans on State highway projects to maintain State highways at acceptable maintenance levels and reduce lane miles needing rehabilitation, or • Recommend RTP projects to maintain roads at or above the minimum acceptable condition as set by the Cities or County. • (RTP Goals: 3,6,11). Performance Measure 7 - Land Use Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: • Safety. • Reliability. • System Preservation. • Productivity. • Accessibility. • Return on Investment. • Coordinate with Caltrans on State highway projects to maintain State highways at acceptable maintenance levels and reduce lane miles needing rehabilitation or resurfacing. • Recommend RTP projects to maintain roads at or above the minimum acceptable condition as set by the Cities or County. • (RTP Goals:1, 5 ) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-7 Project Lists Proposed transportation improvement projects and implementation status are listed in Tables 4.1 through 4.6. Projects are categorized by transportation type and funding status. Determining exact construction costs of transportation projects is difficult, especially for projects in the long- range horizon. Therefore, many of the projects in the long range (11-20 yrs) project list do not have construction years or total costs specified. Estimated project costs cited in this document represent construction year costs, unbless otherwise noted. Roadway and Bridge Improvement Projects Two large projects are planned over the next 10 years are listed in Table 4.1. The two road rehabilitation projects total $2,620,000 in cost, in 2015 dollars. Alpine County’s Financially Constrained Roadway Improvement Projects (Appendix E) Table 4.2 includes two bridge improvement projects, which will be funded with federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds. The Wolf Creek Bridge is classified as functionally obsolete while the Hot Springs Bridge is structurally deficient. Both bridges are eligible for toll credits while STIP funds will be included in the funding package for the Hot Springs Creek Bridge project. The two bridge improvement projects are estimated to cost approximately $3 million. Alpine County’s Financially Unconstrained Bridge Improvement Projects (Appendix F) Funding Source Lead Agency Route/PM Description Total Cost ($1,000) Construction Year HBP Alpine County Hot Springs Road-over Hot Springs Creek Replace bridge $ 2,295 2018 HBP Alpine County Dixon Mine Road-over Wolf Creek Replace bridge $ 733 2017 Table 4.2 Bridge Improvement Projects (Constrained, 1-10 years) Funding Source Lead Agency Route/PM Description Total Cost ($1,000) Construction Year STIP Alpine County Hot Springs Road Phase 1- Between Markleeville and State Park Rehabilitate roadway and widen shoulders 3,580 $ 2020 STIP Alpine County Diamond Valley Road Rehabilitate Roadway 3,960 $ 2025 Table 4.1 Roadway Improvement Projects (Constrained, 1-10 years) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-8 Bridge projects without available funding are shown in Table 4.4. Alpine County’s Financially Unconstrained Bridge Improvement Projects (Appendix H) Funding Source Location/Bridge Description Total Cost (1,000's) Const. Year Corres. Goals HBP, Toll credits Springs Camp- West Fork of Carson River Bridge Rehabilitate bridge TBD TBA 1,2,10 HBP, Toll credits Wolf Creek Road - Silver Creek Bridge Rehabilitate bridge TBD TBA 1,2,10 Bridge Improvement Projects (Unconstrained, 11-20 years) Table 4.4 Roadway projects without available funding are shown in table 4.3. These projects are needed in Alpine County, but do not currently have funding estimates or construction dates. Alpine County’s Financially Unconstrained Roadway Improvement Projects (Appendix G) Route Specific Location Proposed Project Description 2015 Dollars Const Year Funding Source Corres. Goals SR 88/89 Woodfords Westbound left turn pocket NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Carson Pass from Kirkwood to Red Lake Roadway Rehabilitation NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 89 North of Pickett's Junction Truck climbing lanes NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Near Woodfords Visitor Information and Interpretive Kiosk NA TBD TE 1,10 SR 88 Intersection with Diamond Valley Rd/ Foothill Rd Left turn pockets NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Woodfords near Caltrans maintenance station Warning signs regarding Markleeville turnoff NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Intersection with Blue Lakes Rd Turn pockets NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Intersection with Emigrant Trail Turn pockets NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 *Intersection with Kirkwood Meadows Drive Northbound to westbound left-turn acceleration lane NA TBD STIP 1,10 Local Roads In Bear Valley Avalanche Road Rehabilitate Roadway NA TBD STIP 2 HS Road Hot Springs Road Hot Springs Road Phase 2- Between Markleeville and State Park $10,490 TBD STIP, FLAP 2 Local Roads Various Rehabilitate roadways as prioritized by Pavement Management Plan in order to achieve overall PCI rating of 50 NA TBD STIP 2 Total Estimated Cost NA Table 4.3 Alpine County Roadway Improvement Projects (Unconstrained, 11-20 Years) *Source: Alpine County. Kirkwood Specific Plan EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-9 Unconstrained Bikeway/ Pedestrian Improvement Projects (Appendix I) Proposed bikeway and pedestrian improvement projects are listed in Table 4.5. Alpine County’s unconstrained projects include a wide variety of improvements including construction of multi-use paths (class shoulder widening for class II bike lanes, signage for class III bike routes, crosswalks, sidewalks, way- finding signage and “share the road” signage. Location Project Type Project Name Con. Year 2015 Dollars Funding Source Corres. Goals Weber Street - SR 89 Sign Additional SR 89 Bikeway Signage- Identify segments for shoulder widening TBD $ 670 TBD 6, 9, 10 Program Countywide SR2S Program TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 4 - Markleeville Shoulder SR 89 Shoulder and Pavement Improvements TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Laramie Street - County Building Driveway Class I Markleeville Class I Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Hot Springs Road/ Pleasant Valley Road Intersection - Grover Hot Springs SP Class II Grover Hot Springs State Park Multi- Use Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Diamond Valley Road - Barber Road Trail Alpine Village Trail TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Sierra Pines Trailer Park - Manzanita Drive Class I Sierra Pines Class I Multi-Use Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 East end of Manzanita Lane - Diamond Valley School Trail Manzanita Drive/Diamond Valley Trail TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 89 - Luther Pass Road Class II SR 88 Bicycle Lanes and Shoulder Widening TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 89 - County Line Class III Luther Pass Road Class III Bicycle Route TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 89 - Nevada State Line Class III SR 88 Bicycle Route TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Kirkwood Meadows Road - Luther Pass Road Class II SR 88 Bike Lanes and Shoulder Widening TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 on SR 88 - Visitor Center Crosswalk Carson Pass Pedestrian Overhead Flashing Beacons TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Loop Road - Kirkwood Meadows Drive Crosswalk Loop Road Crosswalks TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Kirkwood Meadows Drive - At Main Lodge Crosswalk Kirkwood Meadows Road - Main Lodge Crossing TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Kirkwood Meadows Drive - At Main Lodge Striping Pedestrian Access on Kirkwood Meadows Bridge TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 88/ Emigrant Trail Road Intersection - Kirkwood Meadows Drive Bridge Class II Kirkwood Meadow Road Bike Lanes TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Bear Valley Road - Creekside Drive Class I Bear Valley Loop Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Mosquito Lakes Campground Entrance Crosswalk Mosquito Lakes Pedestrians Crossing TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 4 Entrance to Lake Alpine - SR 4 Exit from Lake Alpine Sign Lake Alpine Speed Reduction TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Health Center - Diamond Valley Road Class I Hung-A-Lel-Ti Class I Multi-Use Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Source: Alpine County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2010 Table 4.5 Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects (Financially Unconstrained 11-20 yrs) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-10 Constrained Airport Improvement Projects (Appendix J) The primary aviation goal of the County is to provide safe airports for general aviation users. As the Alpine County Airport is not eligible for FAA funding, Alpine County must rely on the $10,000 per year California Aid to Airports Program (CAAP) grant from the state. This level of funding does not allow for large scale projects and will be used to simply maintain the airport to state safety standards. The public input and regional transportation needs assessment showed that there is not a great need to expand the airport in the short term. Necessary airport improvement projects are estimated at $500,000 (see Table 4.6). By implementing these projects, Alpine County would improve the airport to standards that make it eligible for federal funding resources. Constrained Transit Improvement Projects (Appendix K) As noted in Chapter 2, transit services are very limited in Alpine County. Given the rural nature of the region, developing an intercity bus service to serve all Alpine County residents is not feasible without a significant funding increase. However, existing public transit could be improved to enhance the mobility of residents and visitors. The projects identified are shown in Table 4.7. Proposed Project Description Total Cost (1,000's) Funding Source Construct Year Corres. Goal Install safety related signage $ 18 CAAP TBD 4 Chip seal and restripe runway $ 140 CAAP TBD 4 Install 2 windsocks $ 20 CAAP TBD 4 Fence and gate airport property $ 275 CAAP TBD 4 Total Estimated Cost $ 453 Source: California Systems Aviation Plan - Region 7, Alpine County ACIP Table 4.6 Aviation Improvement Projects (Constrained 0-10 years) Proposed Project Description Total Cost (1,000's) Funding Source Construct Year Install security cameras in minivan $ 5 LTF, STA, FTA 2016 Bus replacement (9-passenger) $ 150 LTF, STA, FTA TBD Passenger amenities - shelter and bench at Sierra Pines $ 8 LTF, STA, FTA TBD Minivan Replacement County Surplus Vehicle LTF, STA, FTA TBD Total Estimated Cost $ 163 Table 4.7 Transit Projects (Constrained 1-10 years) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-11 Roadway Maintenance Needs (Appendix L) In addition to the roadway projects identified in Tables 4.1 and 4.3, there is an estimated $13 million need for short-range roadway maintenance projects in order to keep PCI ratings above 50 (see Table 4.8). Total Cost (1,000's) Construct Year 3,166 $ 2015 330 $ 2017 2,807 $ 2018 1,697 $ 2020 120 $ 2021 304 $ 2022 637 $ 2023 1,409 $ 2024 2,709 $ 2025 Total Cost $13,179 Table 4.8 Short-Range Roadway Maintenance Needs Washoe Tribe Project List (Appendix M) The Hung A Lel Ti Community Council of the Washoe Tribe is in need of safety improvements to Diamond Valley Road, an important route for the community. This project is consistent with the Tribe’s Long Range Transportation Plan. Route Location/Description Total Cost Diamond Valley Road Widen the pavement along Diamond Valley Road to provide paved shoulders in areas with poor sight distance. - Table 4.9 Washoe Tribe Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-12 State Project List (Appendix N) Table 4.8 identifies the list of state projects to be constructed in Alpine County during the lifetime of the RTP. The total cost is estimated at $26.5 million. Location Project Description Est. Cost (1000's) Funding Source Const. Year In Alpine County on SR 4 from Carson Pass to Red Lake Road Roadway Rehabilitation N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County on SR 4 from Calaveras County line to 0.5 km east of SR 207 Bear Valley CAPM $ 1,250 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County on SR 4 at Silver Creek Br, on SR 88 at West Fork Carson River Br & on SR 89 at Markleeville Creek Br Bridge Rail Upgrade $ 2,300 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 near Woodfords Visitor Information and Interpretive Kiosk N/A TBA N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 near Woodlake Road Modify Slope $ 3,017 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County on SR 4 at Silver Creek Br, on SR 88 at West Fork Carson River Br & on SR 89 at Markleeville Creek Br Bridge Rail Upgrade $ 2,300 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County from Amador County Line to 0.7 mi east of the Carson Pass Summit Caples Lake Rehab $ 12,600 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County near Caples Lake on SR 88 from 0.3 mi east of Amador Coutny Line to 0.4 mi east of Schneider Road S/ALP SR 88 Drainage System $ 2,002 SHOPP 2018 In Alpine County near Sorensens on SR 88 at West Fork Carson River Br Carson River Bridge Scour Mitigation $ 3,000 SHOPP, Scour N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 at Diamond Valley and Foothill Road intersections Left Turn Pockets N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 on westbound approach to SR 89 South intersection near Woodfords Left Turn Pockets N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 at Blue Lakes Road Left Turn Pockets N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 at Emigrant Trail Left Turn Pockets N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County northbound on SR 88 at Kirkwood Meadows Drive Northbound to west bound left-turn acceleration lane N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County northbound on SR 88 approaching Markleeville turn off near the Woodfords Maintenance Station Install signs warning of approach to Markleeville turn off N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County northbound on SR 89 at North Pickett's Junction Truck climbing lane between Pickett's Junction and 3.5 miles north of Luther Pass N/A STIP N/A Total Cost: 26,469 $ State Project List Table 4.10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-13 Environmental Impact As Alpine County is quite sparsely populated, there have been very few transportation improvement projects undertaken in recent years. Therefore, there are no adopted/standard environmental mitigation measures in place for transportation projects other than the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stream protection, erosion, and sedimentation control. All RTP projects that will have a potential impact on natural resources in the region will undergo individual, project level CEQA and NEPA (if applicable) environmental review. When considering a transportation improvement project, the Alpine County Local Transportation Commission, County of Alpine, and any designated project lead agency will follow guidelines established by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration, including the Standard Environmental Reference, Local Assistance Procedures Manual, Project Development Procedures Manual, and other accepted protocols. Projects will be originally developed to limit environmental impact as much as possible. Additionally, BMPs at the project level will be followed and mitigation measures employed to reduce project impacts. Alpine County Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions and Prepare for Climate Change RTPAs which are not located within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization (which ACLTC is not) are not subject to the provisions of SB 375 which require addressing regional greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) targets in the RTP and preparation of a sustainable community strategy. However, the county has recently been identifying projects to increase bicycle and pedestrian use in the region. In 2013, the county adopted a bicycle transportation plan and is currently developing an active transportation plan. The goal is to provide bicycling and walking as a mode choice for commuters and thereby removing automobile trips from the equation. Additionally, future improvements to the transit system and a commitment to a future rideshare program could provide residents another alternative to driving a car. The 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines require Regional Agencies to address the impact of climate change on transportation assets and ensure the wisest future investments are made. While the Alpine County Local Transportation Commission is not subject to a Sustainable Communities Strategy, it is still responsible for Goods Movement Freight transportation is a crucial function of the Alpine County transportation system. Trucking generates a significant proportion of traffic volumes on the state highway system in the County. The predominant generator of freight movements is through traffic transporting agricultural products between Nevada and California’s central valley, particularly on the SR 88 and 89 corridors. Local freight generators in Alpine County consist of the transportation of fuel and supplies for Kirkwood Ski Resort, timber harvesting, and delivery trucks. All the financially unconstrained roadway improvement projects on SR 88 and 89 will improve the safety and reliability of goods movement through Alpine County. For example, the addition of truck climbing lanes would improve level of service and increase safety as would the left turn pockets at the intersection of SR 88 and Diamond Valley Road. Intelligent Transportation Systems The ITS category includes technology improvements which will enhance the safety and reliability of roadways. Common examples include Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) and Changeable Message Signs (CMS) which provide travelers roadway information on detours, winter road closures and weather conditions. CMS notify travelers of seasonal roadway closures at various county border locations. The addition of HAR to the Alpine County regional transportation system would increase traveler reliability. Currently, there are CMS signs in adjoining counties, but none within Alpine County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /4-14 making efforts to protect public infrastructure. Due to the geographic nature of Alpine County, common measures for combating climate change do not apply such as congestion mitigation. However, with the predicted increase in precipitation frequency and intensity, Alpine County is certainly susceptible to flooding and landslides. In an effort to plan for this, projects proposed in the RTP will be developed and designed to reduce the impacts of climate change on our valuable resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /5-1 T he Financial Element is fundamental to the development and implementation of the RTP. This chapter identifies the current and anticipated revenue resources available to fund the planned transportation investments described in the Action Element. The projects in the action element will in turn address the goals, policies and objectives presented in the Policy Element. The intent is to define realistic funding constraints and opportunities. The following provides a summary of the Federal, State, and local funding sources and programs available to the Alpine County region for transportation projects. This chapter also presents a discussion of future regional transportation revenues and a comparison of anticipated revenues with proposed projects. It is important to note that there are different funding sources for different types of projects. The County is bound by strict rules in obtaining and using transportation funds. Some funding sources are “discretionary,” meaning they can be used for general operations and maintenance, not tied to a specific project or type of project. However, even these discretionary funds must be used to directly benefit the transportation system for which they are collected. For example, funds derived from gasoline taxes can only be spent on roads, and aviation fuel taxes must be spent on airports. State and federal grant funding is even more specific. There are several sources of grant funds, each designated to a specific type of facility (e.g. bridges, pedestrian), and/or for a specific type of project (e.g. safety or storm damage). This system of funding programs make it critical for ACLTC and the County to pursue from various sources of funds and for a variety of projects simultaneously. Additionally, it is important to be ready for additional funding, should it become available and to have the flexibility to implement projects as funding becomes available. The majority of RTP Action Element programs will be funded by recurring or non-competitive Federal or State grants. In addition to recurring money, many competitive grants are available for transportation projects but success in obtaining these types of funds extremely challenging for rural counties like Alpine. The funding sources which will be used to complete projects identified in the Action Element are listed in the following sections. financially constrained and unconstrained projects are listed below. 5 Financial Element Projected Revenues Projecting revenues and expenditures over a 20-year horizon is difficult. The 20-year period covered by this document is broken up into a short-term vision (0-10 years) and a long-term vision (11-20 years). The ten- year planning blocks allow for consistency with the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which operates in 5-year cycles. Funding levels fluctuate based on sales and gas tax revenue and by legislation and policy changes. Despite these variables, roadway, aviation, and transit revenues were forecasted over the next 20 years by using a variety of methods (listed in the footnotes of Table 5.1). Table 5.1 presents projected transportation revenues over the next 20 years. Long-range revenue projections take into account estimated inflation based on historical growth of the Consumer Price Index. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /5-2 Table 5.2 contains a summary of the RTP improvement costs identified for each modal category in the RTP. As can be seen in Table 5.2, there are many holes in both the short-term and long-term planning and programming of projects in Alpine County. A total of approximately $11.2 million has been proposed for roadway, bridge, bike/ pedestrian and aviation projects in the short range and $59.2 million in the long range. The minimal figure for unfunded projects is misleading as there is a long list of projects, especially roadway and bike/pedestrian, which do not have estimated construction dates or costs associated with them. Cost Summary Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Roadway Projects 12,190 $ 14,283 $ 7,540 $ 58,490 $ 4,650 $ (44,207) $ Bridge Projects 2,978 $ N/A 3,028 $ N/A (50) $ N/A Bicycle and Pedestrian - $ - $ - $ 670 $ - $ (670) $ Transit 990 $ 1,140 $ 163 $ - $ 827 $ 1,140 $ Airport Projects 400 $ 461 $ 453 $ - $ (53) $ 461 $ Total 16,558 $ 15,884 $ 11,184 $ 59,160 $ 5,374 $ (43,276) $ Table 5.2 Cost Summary by Mode (thousands) Projected Revenue by Projected Costs by Mode Summary Revenue Category Short-Range (1-10 yr) Long-Range (11-20 yr) Total Short-Range (1-10 yr) Long-Range (11-20 yr) Total State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 $5,000 $6,780 $9,040 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) $2,190 $2,523 $4,713 $1,231 $4,389 $5,620 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) $550 $634 $1,184 $325 $975 $1,300 State Transit Assistance (STA) $40 $46 $86 $29 $435 $464 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) $400 $461 $861 $125 $375 $500 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) $100 $115 $215 $25 $75 $100 Highway Users Tax $5,000 $5,760 $10,760 $2,843 $8,531 $11,374 Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $2,978 $0 $2,978 $2,245 $2,245 Total Transportation Revenue $16,258 $15,539 $31,797 $11,293 $28,048 $39,341 STIP=Based on average of last 2 STIP FE New Capacity RSTP=Office of Federal Transportation Management Program (OFTMP) Apportionments 14-18 LTF=Based on numbers from previous RTP STA -State Controller Allocations AIP=Based on numbers from previous RTP Expected Revenue Table 5.1 $ in thousands 2015 RTP $ in thousands 2010 RTP ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /5-3 Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded 1 STIP, SHOPP 26,469 $ 26,469 $ - $ 1 STIP, SHOPP N/A N/A - $ State Highways Summary Table 5.3 Short Range Long Range Revenue vs. Cost by Mode State Highways Summary The summary of revenue vs. costs for State highways in the short-range and long-range can be seen in Table 5.3. The costs identified for the long-range State Highway projects, about $26.5 million, does not include a number of projects that currently have no cost estimates. Funding sources for State projects do not have an impact on the Alpine County revenues. County Roads Summary Table 5.4 shows the summary of revenue vs. costs for County roads in the long-range and short-range. Over the lifetime of this RTP, project costs amount to approximately $66 million, while revenue estimates are only around $26.5 million, resulting in $38.5 million in unmet needs. Bridges Summary Table 5.5 shows the summary of revenue vs. costs for bridges in the long-range and short-range. Over the lifetime of this RTP, project costs amount to approximately $3 million, while revenue estimates are around $2.9 million, resulting in $0.5 million in unmet needs. As seen in Chapter 4, there are several long-term bridge needs for Alpine County; however, no cost estimates exist for these projects. Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded 1, 2, 10 HBP, STIP 3,028 $ 2,978 $ (50) $ 1, 2, 10 HBP, STIP N/A N/A N/A Table 5.5 Bridges Summary Short Range Long Range Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded 1, 2 STIP, FLAP 7,540 $ 12,190 $ 4,650 $ 1, 2 STIP, FLAP 58,490 $ 14,283 $ (44,207) $ Table 5.4 County Roads Summary Short Range Long Range ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan /5-4 Bicycle/Pedestrian Summary The summary of revenue vs. costs for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the short-range and long-range can be seen in Table 5.6. The costs identified for the long-range bicycle and pedestrian projects, about $0.7 million, does not include a number of projects that currently have no cost estimates. Funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects in Alpine County are uncertain, and may only be awarded on a competitive basis throughout the life of this RTP. Transit Summary Table 5.7 shows the summary of revenue vs. costs for transit in the long-range and short-range. Over the lifetime of this RTP, project costs amount to approximately 200 thousand, while revenue estimates are around $1.3 million, resulting in an excess of funds. Aviation Summary Table 5.8 shows the summary of revenue vs. costs for aviation projects in the long-range and short-range. Short- term project costs amount to approximately 450 thousand, while revenue estimates are 100 thousand, resulting in 350 thousand in unmet needs. Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded 4 CAAP 453 $ 100 $ (353) $ 4 CAAP - $ 115 $ - $ Table 5.8 Short Range Long Range Aviation Summary Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded 3, 9 LTF, STA, FTA 163 $ 990 $ - $ 3, 9 LTF, STA, FTA - $ 1,140 $ - $ Long Range Table 5.7 Transit Summary Short Range Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded Corres. Goals Fund. Source Est. Cost (1000's) Est. Revenue Total Unfunded 6, 9, 10 TBA N/A N/A N/A 6, 9, 10 TBA 670 $ N/A (670) $ Table 5.6 Bicycle/Pedestrian Summary Short Range Long Range ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix A Stakeholders List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Organization Contact Person Email Green DOT Transportation Solutions Jeff Schwein ([PHONE REDACTED]) [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County Community Development Brian Peters ([PHONE REDACTED]) [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County Community Development Debbie Burkett ([PHONE REDACTED]) [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County Community Development Scott Maas ([PHONE REDACTED]) [EMAIL REDACTED] Scenic Byway Association Michelle Plotnik [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County Dan Jardine [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County Terry Woodrow [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County HHS Rich Harvey [EMAIL REDACTED] ACCC Teresa Burkhausse [EMAIL REDACTED] Caltrans Carl Baker [EMAIL REDACTED] BVSA/ CSA #1 Mark Phillips [EMAIL REDACTED] BVSA/ CSA #1 Paul Peterson Citizen John Cressaty [EMAIL REDACTED] Citizen/ County Librarian Rita Lovell [EMAIL REDACTED] Disc Golf/ Alpine Trails Andy Lovell [EMAIL REDACTED] Woodfords Store Sandy Jonkey [EMAIL REDACTED] Washoe Tribe Kenneth Cruz ([PHONE REDACTED]) [EMAIL REDACTED] Hung-A-Lel-Ti Community Council Bureau of Land Management Caltrans 96 Washoe Blvd. Carson City District Office MaryAnn Avalos Markleeville, CA 96120 5665 Morgan Mill Rd 1976 E. Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd. Carson City, NV 89701 P.O. Box 2048 Bear Valley Business Association Stockton, CA 95201 PO Box 5400 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Bear Valley, CA 95223 1200 Franklin Way Grover Hot Springs State Park Sparks, NV 89431 3215 Hot Springs Rd Markleeville, CA 96120 PROJECT TEAM STAKEHOLDERS ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix B Public Outreach Documents ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2015 MEETING AGENDA DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2015 TIME: 8:30 AM LOCATION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. COMMUNITY OUTREACH • MEETING DATES • STAKEHOLDERS B. AVAILABLE INFORMATION • OLD RTP FILES • GIS C. FUTURE PROJECTS • RECENT PROJECTS NOT IN 2010 RTP D. PERFORMANCE MEASURES E. DISCUSS NEXT STEPS F. ADJOURN For information regarding this meeting, please contact Project Manager Jeff Schwein at: [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 1 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2015 STAKEHOLDER MEETING AGENDA DATE: MARCH 19, 2015 TIME: 9:00 AM LOCATION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN a. GOALS/SCOPE OF RTP b. PROJECTS c. FINANCIAL ELEMENT 2. 2015 RTP PROCESS a. STAKEHOLDER ROLES b. PROJECT SCHEDULE 3. CONSIDERATIONS a. WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU AS A STAKEHOLDER? 4. 2015 RTP BRAINSTORMING a. POLICIES/GOALS/OBJECTIVES b. PROJECTS c. FUNDING 5. CONCLUSION For information regarding this meeting, please contact Project Manager Jeff Schwein at: [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 1 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2015 STAKEHOLDER MEETING AGENDA DATE: MARCH 31, 2015 TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: BEAR VALLEY LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN a. GOALS/SCOPE OF RTP b. PROJECTS c. FINANCIAL ELEMENT 2. 2015 RTP PROCESS a. STAKEHOLDER ROLES b. PROJECT SCHEDULE 3. CONSIDERATIONS a. WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU AS A STAKEHOLDER? 4. 2015 RTP BRAINSTORMING a. POLICIES/GOALS/OBJECTIVES b. PROJECTS c. FUNDING 5. CONCLUSION For information regarding this meeting, please contact Project Manager Jeff Schwein at: [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 1 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2015 STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARY DATE: MARCH 31, 2015 TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: BEAR VALLEY LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM Attendees: Jeff Schwein, Mark Phillips, Terry Woodrow, and Paul Petersen The group toured the county maintained roadways within the Bear Valley village and trails up to Lake Alpine. Pavement Observations included pavement with decent condition on the majority of roadways within the village except in a few spots. Possible crack sealing on Creekside Drive, Quaking Aspen, and Bloods Ridge. Spot maintenance needed at @ Creekside intersection (water damage) and Avalanche appears to need rehabilitation. Jeff will check the pavement management system to identify priority roadways for rehab to be included in the action element of the RTP. State Highway The group discussed a few locations on State Route 4 that concern pedestrian and bicycle safety and appear dangerous or make the users uncomfortable. These are primarily areas with high activity, including the parking area along the highway at Lake Alpine, Mosquito Lake and the trail crossings at BV2LA and in the village crossing to the meadow. It is understood that a formal pedestrian crossing is not warranted and may cause the pedestrian to feel a false sense of security. However, some visual clues for the driver to let them know there will be pedestrians and bicyclists would be helpful. Also, clear direction for the pedestrian and bicyclist may help errant movements and improve safety. Trails Trails are important to Bear Valley for connectivity between the village and Lake Alpine and other recreation areas like the meadow. The Bear Valley to Lake Alpine Trail (BV2LA) is an established natural surface trail but is in disrepair and needs heavy maintenance. Part of this trail is contiguous with the Coast to Crest Trail. There are two parts to the lower end of this trail, formerly identified as the winter and summer trails leaving the village. Both trails need trees and boulders moved and some minor grading work (hand and equipment) or whatever is deemed necessary at design phase. The annual maintenance is taken care of by local volunteers. Figure 1-Pavement problems @ Creekside 1 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2015 The paved trail between the campground at the Snowpark near Lake Alpine and the lake is in disrepair and needs maintenance. Observations include soil sluff encroaching on the pavement and some potholes. This is supposed to be an ADA accessible path and it may not be accessible at this point. Project Lists The group went over the projects in the 2010 RTP. B6, Bear Valley Bicycle Parking project. The group didn’t know about this project and the school is currently shut down. Plans to reopen the school in the future are developing. At this point, the group would like to leave this project on the unconstrained list as part of more comprehensive safe routes to school encouragement project to be further developed. B3, Bear Valley Road Lake Alpine Trail Crossing project. It was recommended that this project be grouped with three crossing locations; Bear Valley Road @ SR 4 to the meadow, BV2LA trail and BV2LA winter trail crossing. It is recommended that the driver awareness signs be evaluated, pedestrian/bicyclist/snowmobiler guidance be improved at crossing locations and incorporation of some trail user guidance that is also a visual clue to drivers to understand there is a crossing there. B1, Bear Valley Loop Path project. The group didn’t know what this project meant. Clarification from County is sought. B2, Ebbett’s Pass Share the Road Sign project. Has this been completed? More info needed. B4, Mosquito Lakes Pedestrian Crossing project. This project needs further definition and was involved in a larger discussion with the Lake Alpine speed reduction project. These areas have heavy parking, pedestrian and bicyclist activity in the shoulders and crossing the state highway. It is recommended that a driver and user awareness project be further developed for these locations and combined as one project for efficiency and funding competitiveness. Figure 2-Campground to Lake Alpine Trail Figure 3-Paved path potholes 2 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2015 B5, Lake Alpine Speed Reduction project. See B4. Bear Valley is considering a few improvements in the future that should be acknowledged in the RTP. A transit shuttle is envisioned between the village and the ski area in the winter and to Lake Alpine in the summer. Also, the ski area is considering lift access directly to the village which would need access from the parking areas in the village. 3 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Jeff Schwein <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Washoe Tribe ­ Woodfords Community Road Safety Assessment 1 message Scott Maas <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:44 PM To: Brian Peters <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Jeff Schwein <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Debbie Burkett <[EMAIL REDACTED]> I attended the Washoe Tribe – Woodfords Community Road Safety Assessment on Tuesday, April 21st at 1PM and at 9PM. In attendance were: Jeffrey Foltz (Parsons) Irvin Jim (Washoe Tribe Woodfords Community Tribal Chair) Kenneth Cruz (Washoe Tribe Roads Program Manager) Tippy Smokey (Washoe Tribe) Rob Beltramo (Washoe Tribe) Jeff Morales (Washoe Tribe) Kent Steele (NDOT) Jaime Tuddao (NDOT) Scott Maas (Alpine County) No one from Caltrans though they were invited Summary: Curves Improve the safety of curves on Diamond Valley Road Signage Improve safety on Diamond Valley Road with speed signs and other signage Bicyclists Need for public outreach to this group through meetings and brochures to improve vehicle and bicyclists safety Woodfords Community Improve EMS Response Improve safety lighting in the community Need sidewalks Need pedestrian safety signage Need 15mph speed signs Need fog line, crosswalk and stop bars striping (NDOT was glad to hear that Alpine County is working with Tribe on this) Improvements to Diamond Valley Road was discussed during day and night time field reviews with the following discussions: Speed limit signs need to be posted, probably at 40 or 45mph Possible request for speed study (I told them to use caution when requesting the study and how 85th ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan percentile can cause a higher speed limit then desired, but if no speed limit posted it would be 55mph anyway) Curve at Hung‐A‐Lel‐Ti between Washoe Blvd and Washoe Blvd: Warning speed sign, probably 35mph for curve at Hung‐A‐Ll‐Ti between Washoe Chevron type arrows at curve between Washoe Need to cut back the brush and possible the bank to improve sight distance on curve between Washoe Possible need for high friction pavement on curve between Washoe Chevron type arrows at a couple of curves between Washoe Blvd and SR 88 SR 88 and Diamond Valley Road intersection Improving the recognition of seeing the Diamond Valley Rd intersection at 88, especially at night Concern of the new intersection lighting at DV Rd and Carson River Rd giving false impression of where DV Rd intersection is actually located Concern that the bridge over West Fork of the Carson River may not have adequate height and the structure may be getting old Raise all of the newly installed bike route and bicycle warning signs higher level Concern that the reflectivity of the new bicycle route and bicycle warning signs are too bright Jeffrey Foltz of Parsons is going to sort through all of the discussions and make recommendations for specific improvements for safety. The final report will be finished sometime in June. Scott Maas Maas & Associates 10 Renae Drive Susanville, CA 96130 530­260­0991 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan SUBJECT Item # 2015 Regional Transportation Plan Update The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is the guiding document for transportation investments in the near term (1-5 years) and the long term (6-20 years) for Alpine County. The Alpine County Local Transportation Commission (Commission) is responsible for the development of this important planning document. The 2010 RTP identified approximately $154 million available for transportation projects in the County over the 20 year planning horizon. This RTP update project will be identifying funding resources and projects to cover the next 20 year planning period. The Commission has been working with our consultant Green DOT Transportation Solutions since March and is expected to have a completed regional transportation plan in July. County Staff and stakeholders are working with the project consultant to develop projects to be included in the RTP. Additionally, stakeholder meetings have been held throughout the County and with the Hung A Lel Ti Community to solicit input on policies and projects for the RTP. The purpose of the community meeting at the Alpine County Planning Commission meeting is to provide information to the public as well as solicit comments on the document. STAFF REPORT Background The California Transportation Commission (Commission) states that “since the mid-1970s, with the passage of Assembly Bill 69 (AB 69, Chapter 1253, statutes of 1972) California state law has required the preparation of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) to address transportation issues and assist local and state decision –makers in shaping California’s transportation infrastructure and programs. In 2006, the legislature passed Senate Bill 45 which provided regional and local agencies the authority to decide what projects should receive funding. On July 1, 2009, the Commission, upon consultation with the California Air Resources Board and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), formed an Advisory Committee to prepare new Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines in response to the requirements of Senate Bill 375 (SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008). As required by Government Code Section 14522.1(a)(2), the Commission’s Advisory Committee included representatives of regional transportation planning agencies, Caltrans, organizations knowledgeable in the creation and use of travel demand models, local governments, and organizations concerned with the impacts of transportation investments on communities and the environment. The 2010 RTP Guidelines adopted by the Commission in April 2010 , incorporated new planning requirements as a result of SB 375 and incorporated the addendum to the previous 2007 RTP Guidelines. 2015 RTP UPDATE RTP Update Staff Report ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan As few changes in population, development and roadway capacity needs have occurred since the last RTP update in 2010, the 2015 RTP update is less complex than a comprehensive update would be. There are some key areas that are required by statute to be reviewed and updated that will be addressed in this process. These areas include:  Language consistency with the latest Federal Highway Bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).  Compliance with Senate Bill 375 (for rural areas).  Compliance with the 2010 RTP Guidelines.  Updated RTP elements including; Policy Element, Action Element, and Financial Element.  Develop baseline performance measures.  Integration with local planning efforts (i.e. blueprint, land use, transit, etc.).  Integration with the California Transportation Plan.  Integration with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.  Update CEQA compliance. SUMMARY This RTP update will guide the future investment of transportation financial resources through the year 2035. Projects identified in the RTP will be eligible for Federal and State funding through regular distribution programs and grant programs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Bus...Bike...Car...Truck...Feet...Plane ALPINE COUNTY Community Transportation Meeting Come join us to learn about and discuss the 2015 Regional Transportation Plan! In conjunction with the Alpine County Planning Commission Questions? Contacts: Brian Peters Alpine County Department of Community Development (530) 694-2140 Project Consultant Jeff Schwein, AICP [EMAIL REDACTED] (530) 895-1109 [EMAIL REDACTED] May 28, 2015 @ 6:00 PM Board Chambers Administrative Office Building 99 Water Street Markleeville, CA 96120 Visit our table in the Chambers Hallway before & after the meeting ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan C A L A V E R A S C A L A V E R A S T U O L U M N E T U O L U M N E M O N O M O N O A L P I N E A L P I N E A M A D O R A M A D O R E L D O R A D O E L D O R A D O P1 - Hot Springs Road between Markleeville and State Park - Rehabilitate Roadway and Widen Shoulders P2 - Hot Springs Road at Hot Springs Creek Bridge - Replace Bridge P3 - Dixon Mine Road at Wolf Creek Bridge - Replace Bridge P4 - Springs Camp at West Fork of Carson River Bridge - Rehabilitate Bridge P5 - SR 88/89 at Woodfords - Westbounds Left Turn Pocket P6 - SR 88 at Carson Pass from Kirkwood to Red Lake - Roadway Rehabilitation P7 - SR 89 at Pickett's Junction - Truck Climbing Lanes P8 - SR 88 near Woodfords - Visitor Information and Interpretive Kiosk and Warning Signs Regarding Markleeville Turnoff P9 - SR 88 at Intersection with Diamond Valley Road - Left Turn Pockets P10 - SR 88 at Intersection with Blue Lakes Road - Turn Pockets P11 - SR 88 at Intersection with Emigrant Trail - Turn Pockets P12 - SR 88 at Intersection with Kirkwood Meadows Drive - Left-Turn Acceleration Lane P13 - Avalanche Road in Bear Valley - Rehabilitate Roadway P14 - Diamond Springs Road - Rehabilitate Roadway P4 P3 P2 P14 P1 P9 P11 P10 P12 Sorensens Woodfords Bear Valley Lake Alpine Paynesville Markleeville C a r s o n - I c e b e r g W i l d e r n e s s C a r s o n - I c e b e r g W i l d e r n e s s C a r s o n - I c e b e r g W i l d e r n e s s C a r s o n - I c e b e r g W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s D e s o l a t i o n W i l d e r n e s s D e s o l a t i o n W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s E m i g r a n t W i l d e r n e s s E m i g r a n t W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s M o k e l u m n e W i l d e r n e s s N e v a d a N e v a d a Loope Cape Horn The Elbow Cedar Camp Camp Irene Liahona Camp Vaquero Camp Stevenot Camp Dangberg Camp Frederickburg Peaceful Pines Alpine Station Grays Crossing Hangmans Bridge Wolf Creek Bridge Connells Cow Camp Shingle Mill Flat Damsite Campground Toiyabe Campground Overflow Campground Barney Riley (Site) Silvertip Campground Bloomfield Campground Kit Carson Campground Pine Marten Campground Silver Mountain (Site) Hope Valley Campground Indian Creek Campground Silver Creek Campground Middle Creek Campground Hot Springs Creek Bridge Quaking Aspen Campground Highland Lakes Campground Soda Springs Guard Station Springs Campground Snowshoe Springs Campground West Fork of Carson River Bridge Bloods Toll Station Historical Site Pacific Crest Trail Silver King Trail Tahoe Rim Trail High Trail Wolf Creek Trail East Carson River Trail Charity Valley Trail Corral Valley Trail White Canyon Route Barney Riley Trail Burt Canyon Trail Noble Canyon Trail Wheeler Creek Trail Silver Creek Trail Poison Lake Trail Mill Canyon Trail Whitecliff Lake Bull Canyon Trial Snodgrass Trail Asa Lake Trail Long Valley Creek Route Poore Lake Trail Secret Lake Trail Murray Canyon Trail Burnside Lake Trail Tamarack Lake Trail Caples Lake n/a Upper Blue Lake Lake Alpine Union Reservior Utica Reservior Twin Lake Lower Blue Lake Heenan Lake Red Lake n/a Indian Creek Reservoir Harvey Place Reservoir n/a Winnemucca Lake Highland Lakes Kinney Reservoir n/a Lower Kinney Lake n/a Lower Sunset Lake Emigrant Lake Lost Lakes Bear Lake Stevens Lake Wet Meadows Reservoir n/a Summit Lake Lost Lakes n/a Tamarack Lake Meiss Lake Woods Lake Crater Lake Rock Lake Fourth of July Lake n/a n/a n/a Summit Lake Curtz Lake Wheeler Lake n/a Summit Lake Highland Lakes Duck Lake Mud Lake Sword Lake Frog Lake Granite Lake n/a Bull Lake n/a n/a Round Top Lake n/a Bull Run Lake Elephant Rock Lake Upper Sunset Lake Raymond Lake Lost Lake Whitecliff Lake Beebe Lake Noble Lake Tamarack Lake Lower Beebe Lake n/a Heiser Lake Boulder Lake Utica Reservior Misquito Lake Wolf Creek Lake Hellhole Lake n/a Lilly Pad Lake Union Reservior n/a Union Reservior Sherrold Lake Mud Lake Summit Meadow Lake Half Moon Lake Scout Carson Lake Union Reservior Golden Lake Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan U V 108 U V 207 U V 4 U V 4 U V 4 U V 4 U V 89 U V 89 U V 89 U V 89 U V 88 U V 88 U V 88 Locations ÆQ Campgrounds ! @ Stations / Historic Sites Crossings Projects Towns Highways Local Roads Trails Major Streams Lakes and Ponds Wilderness Areas Counties ¯ 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 1.25 Miles Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan WHAT IS A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN? A Regional Transportation Plan provides a long-term plan defining goals, policies, and strategies to acheive a vision for a county-wide, integrated multimodal transportation system. Regional Transportation Plans are updated every 5 years and define projects for automobile, freight, train, boat, transit, airplane, bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel for the next 20 years. Regional Transportation Plan Process OUTREACH Community Meetings Community Surveys Web Portal PRODUCTS RTP Draft RTP Final Environmental Document CONSULTATION Policy and Technical Committees Tribal Governments Regional Agencies State Agencies Alpine RTP Meeting #1 May 28, 2015 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM Board Chambers Administrative Office Building Markleeville, CA 96130 Comment Form ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix C Recommended Conservation Actions for the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan a. The state should provide scientific and planning assistance and financial incentives to local governments to develop and implement regional multispecies conservation plans for all of the rapidly developing areas of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades. b. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy should develop a program, closely coordinated with federal, state, and local wildlife conservation planning efforts, that prioritizes areas for acquisition and easements based on the needs of wildlife. c. In areas where substantial development is projected, the state and federal land management and wildlife agencies should identify and protect from development those critical wildlife migration or dispersal corridors that cross ownership boundaries and county jurisdictions. d. Public forest lands should be managed to maintain healthy ecosystems and wildlife diversity, including thinning to restore diverse habitats and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. State and federal forest managers and wildlife agencies should work cooperatively to develop a vision for the future forest condition. e. On public lands, post-fire and post-harvest treatments and forest management should be designed to achieve the principles listed in Action d. f. State and federal forest managers and state and federal wildlife managers should cooperatively develop timber- harvest cumulative-impact standards for each watershed or group of adjacent watersheds of the Sierra, Cascades, and Modoc regions to protect aquatic ecosystems and conserve wildlife habitat. g. The California Resources Agency should coordinate the development of a model ordinance and building codes for new or expanding communities in fire-adapted landscapes to make those communities more fire compatible and reduce the state’s liability for fire suppression. h. Federal, state, and local agencies and fire-safe councils should work cooperatively to expand the use of prescribed fire and natural-burn programs. i. State and federal wildlife agencies and federal land managers should jointly develop and implement grazing strategies for the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region to reduce or eliminate livestock grazing on sensitive habitats to restore the condition of meadow, riparian, aspen, and aquatic habitats. j. Federal, state, and local agencies should provide greater resources and coordinate efforts to eradicate or control existing occurrences of invasive species and to prevent new introductions. k. In their conservation planning and ecosystem restoration work, state and federal wildlife agencies and land managers should consider the most current projections regarding the effects of global warming. l. Fish and Game should be allocated the resources to monitor and enforce the distribution of sensitive fish and other aquatic species populations and to engage effectively in water-rights decision processes, water diversion issues, land-management planning, and conservation planning actions to restore and enhance aquatic systems. m. Through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing process, the state should pursue changes in operations of hydropower projects that will provide more water for wildlife, mandate that water flows be managed as close to natural flow regimes as possible, and ensure that the new license agreements provide the best possible conditions for ecosystems and wildlife. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan p. Fish and Game should establish trout-free sub-basins and lakes across the high Sierra and Cascades to restore amphibians and other native species while concurrently improving trout fisheries in other lakes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix D SHSP Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan California is updating our Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The state has had great success over the last five years developing and implementing the SHSP, but now it is time to pause, evaluate, and chart a course to continue reducing traffic related fatalities and serious injuries. Your support as leaders is critical to this process. With your insight, commitment, and support we will be able develop a second‐generation plan that will keep us focused on the right strategies, continue our safety progress, and ensure that our work covers all roads within California. Some of our activities over the next several months include: California Strategic Highway Safety Plan Updating the SHSP ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix E Constrained Roadway Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Funding Source Lead Agency Route/PM Description Total Cost ($1,000) Construction Year STIP Alpine County Hot Springs Road Phase 1- Between Markleeville and State Park Rehabilitate roadway and widen shoulders 3,580 $ 2020 STIP Alpine County Diamond Valley Road Rehabilitate Roadway 3,960 $ 2025 Table 4.1 Roadway Improvement Projects (Constrained, 1-10 years) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix F Constrained Bridge Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Funding Source Lead Agency Route/PM Description Total Cost ($1,000) Construction Year HBP Alpine County Hot Springs Road-over Hot Springs Creek Replace bridge $ 2,295 2018 HBP Alpine County Dixon Mine Road-over Wolf Creek Replace bridge $ 733 2017 Table 4.2 Bridge Improvement Projects (Constrained, 1-10 years) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix G Unconstrained Roadway Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Route Specific Location Proposed Project Description 2015 Dollars Const Year Funding Source Corres. Goals SR 88/89 Woodfords Westbound left turn pocket NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Carson Pass from Kirkwood to Red Lake Roadway Rehabilitation NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 89 North of Pickett's Junction Truck climbing lanes NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Near Woodfords Visitor Information and Interpretive Kiosk NA TBD TE 1,10 SR 88 Intersection with Diamond Valley Rd/ Foothill Rd Left turn pockets NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Woodfords near Caltrans maintenance station Warning signs regarding Markleeville turnoff NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Intersection with Blue Lakes Rd Turn pockets NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 Intersection with Emigrant Trail Turn pockets NA TBD STIP 1,10 SR 88 *Intersection with Kirkwood Meadows Drive Northbound to westbound left-turn acceleration lane NA TBD STIP 1,10 Local Roads In Bear Valley Avalanche Road Rehabilitate Roadway NA TBD STIP 2 HS Road Hot Springs Road Hot Springs Road Phase 2- Between Markleeville and State Park $10,490 TBD STIP, FLAP 2 Local Roads Various Rehabilitate roadways as prioritized by Pavement Management Plan in order to achieve overall PCI rating of 50 NA TBD STIP 2 Total Estimated Cost NA Table 4.3 Alpine County Roadway Improvement Projects (Unconstrained, 11-20 Years) *Source: Alpine County. Kirkwood Specific Plan EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix H Unconstrained Bridge Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Funding Source Location/Bridge Description Total Cost (1,000's) Const. Year Corres. Goals HBP, Toll credits Springs Camp- West Fork of Carson River Bridge Rehabilitate bridge TBD TBA 1,2,10 HBP, Toll credits Wolf Creek Road - Silver Creek Bridge Rehabilitate bridge TBD TBA 1,2,10 Bridge Improvement Projects (Unconstrained, 11-20 years) Table 4.4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix I Unconstrained Bike/Pedestrian Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Location Project Type Project Name Con. Year 2015 Dollars Funding Source Corres. Goals Weber Street - SR 89 Sign Additional SR 89 Bikeway Signage- Identify segments for shoulder widening TBD $ 670 TBD 6, 9, 10 Program Countywide SR2S Program TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 4 - Markleeville Shoulder SR 89 Shoulder and Pavement Improvements TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Laramie Street - County Building Driveway Class I Markleeville Class I Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Hot Springs Road/ Pleasant Valley Road Intersection - Grover Hot Springs SP Class II Grover Hot Springs State Park Multi- Use Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Diamond Valley Road - Barber Road Trail Alpine Village Trail TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Sierra Pines Trailer Park - Manzanita Drive Class I Sierra Pines Class I Multi-Use Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 East end of Manzanita Lane - Diamond Valley School Trail Manzanita Drive/Diamond Valley Trail TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 89 - Luther Pass Road Class II SR 88 Bicycle Lanes and Shoulder Widening TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 89 - County Line Class III Luther Pass Road Class III Bicycle Route TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 89 - Nevada State Line Class III SR 88 Bicycle Route TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Kirkwood Meadows Road - Luther Pass Road Class II SR 88 Bike Lanes and Shoulder Widening TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 on SR 88 - Visitor Center Crosswalk Carson Pass Pedestrian Overhead Flashing Beacons TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Loop Road - Kirkwood Meadows Drive Crosswalk Loop Road Crosswalks TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Kirkwood Meadows Drive - At Main Lodge Crosswalk Kirkwood Meadows Road - Main Lodge Crossing TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Kirkwood Meadows Drive - At Main Lodge Striping Pedestrian Access on Kirkwood Meadows Bridge TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 88/ Emigrant Trail Road Intersection - Kirkwood Meadows Drive Bridge Class II Kirkwood Meadow Road Bike Lanes TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Bear Valley Road - Creekside Drive Class I Bear Valley Loop Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Mosquito Lakes Campground Entrance Crosswalk Mosquito Lakes Pedestrians Crossing TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 SR 4 Entrance to Lake Alpine - SR 4 Exit from Lake Alpine Sign Lake Alpine Speed Reduction TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Health Center - Diamond Valley Road Class I Hung-A-Lel-Ti Class I Multi-Use Path TBD TBD 6, 9, 10 Source: Alpine County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2010 Table 4.5 Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects (Financially Unconstrained 11-20 yrs) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix J Constrained Aviation Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Proposed Project Description Total Cost (1,000's) Funding Source Construct Year Corres. Goal Install safety related signage $ 18 CAAP TBD 4 Chip seal and restripe runway $ 140 CAAP TBD 4 Install 2 windsocks $ 20 CAAP TBD 4 Fence and gate airport property $ 275 CAAP TBD 4 Total Estimated Cost $ 453 Source: California Systems Aviation Plan - Region 7, Alpine County ACIP Table 4.6 Aviation Improvement Projects (Constrained 0-10 years) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix K Constrained Transit Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Proposed Project Description Total Cost (1,000's) Funding Source Construct Year Install security cameras in minivan $ 5 LTF, STA, FTA 2016 Bus replacement (9-passenger) $ 150 LTF, STA, FTA TBD Passenger amenities - shelter and bench at Sierra Pines $ 8 LTF, STA, FTA TBD Minivan Replacement County Surplus Vehicle LTF, STA, FTA TBD Total Estimated Cost $ 163 Table 4.7 Transit Projects (Constrained 1-10 years) ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix L Roadway Maintenance Needs ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix M Washoe Tribe Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Route Location/Description Total Cost Diamond Valley Road Widen the pavement along Diamond Valley Road to provide paved shoulders in areas with poor sight distance. - Table 4.9 Washoe Tribe Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix N State Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- Draft 2015 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Location Project Description Est. Cost (1000's) Funding Source Const. Year In Alpine County on SR 4 from Carson Pass to Red Lake Road Roadway Rehabilitation N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County on SR 4 from Calaveras County line to 0.5 km east of SR 207 Bear Valley CAPM $ 1,250 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County on SR 4 at Silver Creek Br, on SR 88 at West Fork Carson River Br & on SR 89 at Markleeville Creek Br Bridge Rail Upgrade $ 2,300 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 near Woodfords Visitor Information and Interpretive Kiosk N/A TBA N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 near Woodlake Road Modify Slope $ 3,017 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County on SR 4 at Silver Creek Br, on SR 88 at West Fork Carson River Br & on SR 89 at Markleeville Creek Br Bridge Rail Upgrade $ 2,300 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County from Amador County Line to 0.7 mi east of the Carson Pass Summit Caples Lake Rehab $ 12,600 SHOPP N/A In Alpine County near Caples Lake on SR 88 from 0.3 mi east of Amador Coutny Line to 0.4 mi east of Schneider Road S/ALP SR 88 Drainage System $ 2,002 SHOPP 2018 In Alpine County near Sorensens on SR 88 at West Fork Carson River Br Carson River Bridge Scour Mitigation $ 3,000 SHOPP, Scour N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 at Diamond Valley and Foothill Road intersections Left Turn Pockets N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 on westbound approach to SR 89 South intersection near Woodfords Left Turn Pockets N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 at Blue Lakes Road Left Turn Pockets N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County on SR 88 at Emigrant Trail Left Turn Pockets N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County northbound on SR 88 at Kirkwood Meadows Drive Northbound to west bound left-turn acceleration lane N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County northbound on SR 88 approaching Markleeville turn off near the Woodfords Maintenance Station Install signs warning of approach to Markleeville turn off N/A STIP N/A In Alpine County northbound on SR 89 at North Pickett's Junction Truck climbing lane between Pickett's Junction and 3.5 miles north of Luther Pass N/A STIP N/A Total Cost: 26,469 $ State Project List Table 4.10