Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_d0edd4d298

2020 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan March 2021 Alpine County Local Transportation Commission ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2020 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Report Prepared For: Report Prepared By: Alpine County Local Transportation Commission 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan i. Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 About the Alpine County Transportation Commission 1 1.2 About the Regional Transportation Plan 1 1.3 Planning Requirements 2 1.4 Planning Process 3 1.5 COVID-19 Statement 6 2 Existing Conditions 7 2.1 Setting 7 2.2 Population Trends 7 2.3 Demographics 10 2.4 Socioeconomic Conditions 11 2.5 Housing 16 2.6 Transportation 16 2.7 Streets and Roads 18 2.8 Public Transit 30 2.9 Active Transportation 32 2.10 Aviation 32 2.11 Goods and Freight Movement 34 2.12 Railroads 35 2.13 Interconnectivity Issues 35 3 Policy Element 36 3.1 Transportation Issues 36 3.2 Regional Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 39 3.3 Regional Goals 40 3.4 State Highways and Regional Roadways 40 3.5 Local Roads 42 3.6 Public Transit 43 3.7 Non-motorized Transportation 44 3.8 Parking 46 3.9 Aviation 46 3.10 Goods Movement 44 3.11 Transportation Systems Management 47 3.12 Air Quality and Environment 50 4 Action Element 51 4.1 Plan Assumptions 51 4.2 Project Purpose and Need 51 4.3 Regional Priorities 52 4.4 Transportation Safety 52 4.5 Transportation Security/Emergency Preparedness 53 4.6 Goods Movement 53 4.7 Intelligent Transportation Systems 54 4.8 Transportation Systems Management 54 4.9 Environmental Mitigation 54 4.10 Alpine County Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii. Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Table of Contents 4.11 Transportation System Improvements 55 4.12 Performance Measures 60 5 Financial Element 65 5.1 Projected Revenues 65 5.2 Cost Summary 67 5.3 Revenue vs. Cost by Mode 67 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan iii. List of Tables Table 1.1: Native American Tribal Government Contact List 6 Table 2.1: Existing Population 7 Table 2.2: Existing and Forecasted Age of the Alpine County Population 10 Table 2.3: Household Income 11 Table 2.4: Poverty 11 Table 2.5: Major Employers 12 Table 2.6: Unemployment 13 Table 2.7: Educational Attainment, 25 Years and Older 13 Table 2.8: Disadvantaged Communities by Median Household Income 14 Table 2.9: Disadvantaged Communities by Free/Reduced Lunch 14 Table 2.10: Housing Characteristics 16 Table 2.11: Home Value vs. Median Household Income 16 Table 2.12: Vehicle Ownership by Household 17 Table 2.13: Commuting Patterns 18 Table 2.14: Roadway Mileage and Jurisdiction 18 Table 2.15: Pavement Condition Index (PCI) 23 Table 2.16: Historic Average Annual Daily Traffic 24 Table 2.17: Forecasted Average Annual Daily Traffic 25 Table 2.18: Historic Vehicle Miles Traveled 26 Table 2.19: Forecasted Vehicle Miles Traveled 26 Table 2.20: Truck Traffic 27 Table 2.21: Collision History 28 Table 2.22: Bridge Sufficiency 30 Table 2.23: Dial-A-Ride Ridership 31 Table 4.1: Roadway Projects 55 Table 4.2: Bridge Projects 57 Table 4.3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 58 Table 4.4: Transit Projects 59 Table 4.5: Aviation Projects 60 Table 4.6: Tribal Projects 60 Table 4.7 Alpine County RTP Program Level Performance Measures 64 Table 5.1: Revenue from Federal, State, and Local Sources for Alpine County 66 Table 5.2: Revenue vs. Cost by Mode 67 Table 5.3: Comparison of Roadway Costs to Expected Revenues 67 Table 5.4: Comparison of Bridge Costs to Expected Revenues 68 Table 5.5: Comparison of Bicycle and Pedestrian Costs to Expected Revenues 68 Table 5.6: Comparison of Transit Costs to Expected Revenues 69 Table 5.7: Comparison of Aviation Costs to Expected Revenues 69 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan iv. List of Attachments Attachment A – Stakeholder List Attachment B – Outreach Materials Attachment C – Coordination with the State Wildlife Action Plan Attachment D – Native American Tribal Consultation and Coordination Attachment E – Project Lists List of Figures Figure 2.1: Location Map 8 Figure 2.2: Historic Alpine County Population 9 Figure 2.3: Forecasted Alpine County Population 9 Figure 2.4: Alpine County Demographic Information 10 Figure 2.5: Disadvantaged Communities 15 Figure 2.6: Mode Share 17 Figure 2.7: Roadway Classifications 20 Figure 2.8: State Highways 22 Figure 2.9: Collisions 29 Figure 2.10: Active Transportation Facilities 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 1 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 1. Introduction The 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 four or five years. The last update to the Alpine County RTP was adopted in 2015. 1.1 About the Alpine County Transportation Commission ™ Assessing the current modes of transportation and the potential of new travel options within the region. ™ Prioritizing actions that both build climate preparedness and reduce GHG emissions. ™ 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. 1.2.1 Purpose of the RTP The purpose of the Regional Transportation Plan is to provide a vision for the transportation network in the region, supported by transportation goals, for ten-year (2020-2030) and twenty-year (2031-2040) 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: 1.2 About the Regional Transportation Plan Over the past decade, combatting climate change has emerged as a primary goal for the State of California. Executive Order B-30-15 directs State agencies to take climate change into account in planning and investment decisions and employ full life-cycle cost accounting to evaluate and compare infrastructure investments and alternatives. As stated in the 2017 RTP Guidelines, planning and investment shall be guided by the following principles: ™ Priority should be given to actions that both build climate preparedness and reduce GHG emissions; ™ Where possible, flexible and adaptive approaches should be taken to prepare for uncertain climate impacts; ™ Actions should protect the state’s most vulnerable populations; and, ™ Natural infrastructure solutions, as defined in Public resources code 71154(c)(3) flood plain and wetlands restoration or preservation, combining levees with restored natural systems to reduce flood risk, and urban tree planning to reduce high heat days), should be prioritized. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2 1.2.2 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 short and long-range planning horizons, and maintains internal consistency 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 projects that address the needs and issues for each transportation mode in accordance with the policy element. ™ The Financial Element (Chapter 5) summarizes the costs to operate and maintain the current transportation system, estimates the costs and revenues to implement the projects identified in the Action Plan, and outlines inventories of existing and potential transportation funding sources. Candidate projects are listed if funding becomes available and potential funding shortfalls are laid out. Lastly, alternative policy directions that affect the funding of projects are identified. 1.3.1 New Planning Requirements Since the adoption of the most recent Alpine County RTP in 2015, there has been an update to the RTP Guidelines. The 2017 RTP Guidelines, adopted January 18, 2017, incorporated several key changes to the RTP process resulting from MAP-21/FAST Act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), Assembly Bill 1482 (AB 1482), SB 246, SB 350, and Executive Orders B-16-12 and B-32-15. SB 32, signed into law on September 8, 2016, extends Assembly Bill (AB) 32’s required reductions of GHG emissions by requiring a GHG reduction of at least 40 percent of 1990 levels no later than December 31, 2030. Furthermore, SB 32 authorizes the California Air and Resources Board (ARB) to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. AB 1482 and SB 246 implement new climate change adaptation methods such as increasing the availability of affordable housing and improving infrastructure to be climate resilient and encourage local and regional coordination in such efforts. SB 350 outlines strategies for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and RTPAs to implement widespread transportation electrification to meet climate goals and federal air quality standards. Executive Orders B-16-12 and B-32-15 set additional GHG reduction targets and methods of implementation. 1.3 Planning Requirements 1.3.2 Climate Change and Environmental Quality 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 the local environment, environmental documentation may be a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or a full environmental ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 3 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 1.4.1 Inter-Agency Coordination The ACLTC coordinates with many other groups during the RTP development process. The Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) advises the 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, which has 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: 1.4 Planning Process ™ Caltrans ™ Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California ™ Bureau of Land Management ™ Alpine County Supervisors ™ Adjacent County RTPAs and MPOs (Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mono and Tuolumne Counties and Tahoe MPO) ™ Bear Valley Business Association ™ Scenic Byway Association ™ Alpine Trails ™ Woodfords Store ™ General Public For a comprehensive listing of entities and persons contacted, see Attachment A. 1.4.2 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 General Plan (2009). ™ Alpine County Short Range Transit Plan (2016). ™ Alpine County Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan (2015). ™ Alpine County Active Transportation Plan (2018). ™ Alpine County Wayfinding Plan (2014). ™ Alpine County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2010). ™ Alpine County Fleet Analysis for Zero Emissions Vehicles (2019). ™ Tribal Transit Planning Survey (2009). ™ Tribal Transportation Plan (1995). ™ Alpine Airport Layout Plan (1995). ™ General Plan Circulation Element, adopted by Alpine County in 2011. ™ RTPs of El Dorado, Calaveras, Amador, Tuolumne and Mono Counties in California, and Tahoe MPO/RTPA in Nevada and California. impact report (EIR). The ACLTC has preliminarily determined that the Alpine County 2020 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 4 1.4.3 Public Participation Although the Alpine region was impacted by the global COVID pandemic during the development of the 2020 RTP update, a creative and inclusive public participation campaign was executed to inform the public about the RTP and include the Alpine County community in the planning process. The community was notified about the RTP and invited to community workshops through a project website and email blasts to stakeholders, a social media campaign through Facebook, and physical flyers posted at various locations throughout the County. To accommodate social distancing recommendations, community meetings were held on the digital platform Zoom. In addition, community members were notified of the option to provide feedback online through various channels, including the RTP project website, via a questionnaire promoted through various social media channels, and directly to the project team via email or phone. The Alpine County Local Transportation Commission does not have an official Public Participation Plan, however the ACLTC supports an equitable public participation campaign. During the development of this RTP, inclusion of Tribal members was emphasized. Both hard copies and links to the digital RTP questionnaire were distributed through Tribal leadership directly to Hung a Lel Ti members. Self-addressed, stamped envelopes were included with hard copy questionnaires to encourage participation and in order to make the process convenient. Infographics and flyers inviting the public to community meetings were also posted in the Hung A Lel Ti community and placed in the Tribal community building. Several goals included in this RTP (Chapter 3, Policy Element), center around equitable planning and creating and equitable transportation network in the region. Tribal coordination and inclusion is both a goal identified in this RTP as well as strategy to build a more equitable transportation system. Tribal projects have been identified in Table 4.6. Other projects that will benefit disadvantaged populations in Alpine County include transit projects and bicycle/pedestrian safety projects that will help mobilize low-income, youth, and senior populations, and people with a disability. Community Workshops The first community workshop, held on October 7th, 2020, introduced the Regional Transportation Plan and presented background information and the plan development process. Community members who attended were solicited for feedback and were given the opportunity to provide input on project lists, recommend new transportation projects, identify transportation issues, and voice their concerns. The meeting included a presentation on the benefits of regional transportation planning, existing conditions and barriers to mobility, and solutions for improving transportation throughout the County. After the presentation, the project team was available to interact with community members and provide more in- depth discussion on transportation issues in the region. The questionnaire was promoted during meetings. For a full list of outreach methods and materials, see Attachment B. The Draft RTP Presentation, held on January 5th, 2020 at a regularly scheduled Alpine County Local Transportation Commission meeting, included a draft presentation of the RTP to the Commission, stakeholders and public attendees. The presentation served as an opportunity to show the developments that were made to the plan since the introductory workshop. After the presentation, meeting attendees were given the opportunity to submit questions to the Commission, public or stakeholders. Any comments received were addressed by the project team. The Final RTP was presented at the Local Transportation Commission meeting on March 16th, 2021. The project team presented the final report and the comments that had been addressed since the draft presentation. The Commission voted and passed a resolution adopting the Final Regional Transportation Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 5 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 1.4.4 Coordination with the California State Wildlife Action Plan Long-term goals identified in the Policy Element of this plan consider many of the stressors defined in the State Wildlife Action Plan. Alpine County is located in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada conservation management ecoregion, as identified by the California State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). The SWAP identifies sensitive species, habitat stressors and suggested conservation goals and actions for each of the ecoregions. According to the SWAP, some major stressors within Alpine County’s conservation units are as follows: ™ Forest management conflicts. ™ Fire and fire suppression ™ Invasive plants/animals ™ Recreational Pressures. ™ Climate change. ™ Introduced non-native fish. For a complete list of species of special concern, key stressors and actions suggested for wildlife management in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada Province, see Attachment C. Community Feedback Much of the community feedback received during the public outreach process centered on the need for safety and bicycle/pedestrian improvements in the region. Alpine County is a popular destination for hiking, bicycling, and other recreational activities, and many residents partake in these activities. Consistent with findings from the Alpine Active Transportation Plan (2018), input from the RTP process identified a need for bicycle and pedestrian safety for drivers and active transportation users, shoulder widening improvements, bicycle/pedestrian signage, and other safety improvements. For all identified project needs, see Chapter 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian improvement projects are detailed in Table 4.3. 1.4.5 Coordination with Native American Tribal Governments 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 2017 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 2020 RTP update process actively encouraged the participation of the Hung A Lel Ti Community Council. The contact information for the Tribe is listed in Table 1.1. Tribal feedback focused on the need for safety improvements to Diamond Valley Road. The highest-priority Tribal project is a shoulder widening project along Diamond Valley Road at the entrance to the Hung A Lel Ti community. This project would provide paved shoulders in areas with poor sight distance, and has been listed in the Chapter 4 of this Plan, which summarizes regional project needs (see Table 4.6 -Tribal Projects). ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 6 Blank Page Tribal Government Contact Address Phone Email Hung a Lel Ti Community Council of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California Irvin Jim, Jr., Chairperson 96A Washoe Blvd. Woodfords, CA 96120 (530) 694-2170 [EMAIL REDACTED] Table 1.1 Native American Tribal Government Contact List The Alpine Regional Transportation Plan development process began shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic and was quickly impacted by the pandemic and pandemic response. An amended public outreach campaign was conducted to be consistent with social distancing guidelines, but other more far-reaching impacts of the pandemic have arisen and will continue to arise in the following years. Funding is sources based on State sales tax and the State and Federal gas tax have experienced a decrease due to the pandemic and pandemic response as more people remain at home to socially distance, and faces uncertainty moving forward. 1.5 COVID-19 Statement ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 7 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2 Existing Conditions Alpine 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 1,142 people as of the 2020 Department of Finance estimates. 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 publicly owned and includes portions of the Mokelumne and Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Areas and Humboldt-Toiyabe, Stanislaus and Eldorado National Forests. Grover Hot Springs State Park is also located in Alpine County, near Markleeville. 2.1 Setting 2.2.1 Existing Population According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the total population in Alpine County in 2015 was 1,162. By 2020, the DOF estimated the population to be 1,142, which calculates to an approximate -0.35 percent annual change on average (see Table 2.1). Countywide population density in 2020 was estimated to equal 1.5 persons per square mile. The forecasted population of Alpine is expected to decrease an average 2.8 percent every 5 years from 2020 to 2040. 2.2 Population Trends 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total County Population 1,162 1,162 1,161 1,159 1,149 1,142 Table 2.1 Existing Population Source: California DOF Table E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and State ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 8 Paynesville Hung A Lel Ti Markleeville Kirkwood Bear Valley Calaveras Mono Tuolumne El Dorado Amador NEVADA ALPINE 0 4 8 2 Miles Alpine County Figure 2.1 Regional Location Map Regional Transportation Plan Local Roads Regional County Roads Major Roads Counties Alpine County Communities ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 9 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2.2.1 Historic Population Historically, the population in Alpine County steadily increased from 1960 until the year 2000, when it peaked and started to slowly decline. Since 2000, when the estimated Alpine County population was at a peak of 1,208, population dropped to about 1,175 in 2010. See Figure 2.2 for details. 397 484 1,097 1,113 1,208 1,175 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 2.2 Historic Alpine County Population 2.2.2 Forecasted Population The DOF population forecasts for Alpine County report a steady decrease over the next 20 years. Population is expected to decrease at an approximate rate of 14.2 percent, or 0.71 percent annually, dropping down to an estimated population of 958 by the year 2040. The specific forecast can be seen in Figure 2.3. Alpine County is expected to lose approximately 160 people during the planning horizon of this document. 1,117 1,080 1,060 1,022 958 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Figure 2.3 Forecasted Alpine County Population ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 10 2.3.1 Age of Population Alpine County’s 65+ age demographic is generally increasing and is expected to reach approximately 32.6% of the total population by 2040 (Table 2.2). Alpine County’s 36-64 demographic is expected to decrease 6.2% by 2040. The aging Alpine County population may put strain on the County’s dial-a-ride transit system in the coming decades. 2.3 Demographics Ages Ages Ages Ages Ages 0-4 5-17 18-35 36-64 65+ Number 1117 28 135 263 376 315 Percent 100% 2.5% 12.1% 23.5% 33.7% 28.2% Number 1080 45 88 305 297 345 Percent 100% 4.2% 8.1% 28.2% 27.5% 31.9% Number 1060 59 91 291 257 362 Percent 100% 5.6% 8.6% 27.5% 24.2% 34.2% Number 1022 55 117 253 237 360 Percent 100% 5.4% 11.4% 24.8% 23.2% 35.2% Number 958 47 140 196 263 312 Percent 100% 4.9% 14.6% 20.5% 27.5% 32.6% Source: California Department of Finance Report P:2 County Population Projections by Age 2040 Table 2.2 Existing and Forecasted Age of the Alpine County Population 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total 2.3.2 Demographics Alpine County residents are predominately white however, there are substantial percentages of Native American (27.1%) and Hispanic populations. The demographics of Alpine County are detailed below in Figure 2.4. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 11 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2.4.1 Income The 2018 American Community Survey states that the median household income in Alpine County was $64,688 in 2018, which is less than the state average of $71,228. The two most common income brackets in Alpine County are in the $50,000-$74,999 and $100,000-$149,999 ranges, each accounting for 17.1% of the population. This information is detailed in Table 2.3. 2.4 Socioeconomic Conditions Alpine County California United States Less than $10,000 3.7% 5.1% 6.3% $10,000 to $14,999 6.7% 4.4% 4.6% $15,000 to $24,999 7.4% 8.0% 9.3% $25,000 to $34,999 10.7% 7.9% 9.3% $35,000 to $49,999 12.4% 10.9% 12.6% $50,000 to $74,999 17.1% 15.9% 17.5% $75,000 to $99,999 9.0% 12.3% 12.5% $100,000 to $149,999 17.1% 16.2% 14.6% $150,000 to $199,999 8.7% 8.3% 6.3% $200,000 or more 7.4% 11.0% 7.0% Source: 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table 2.3 Household Income 2.4.2 Poverty In Alpine County, 22.5% of the population is below the poverty line. This is a significantly greater percentage than either the State or Country average, which are 14.3% and 14.1% respectively (Table 2.4). Data Source Data Source Alpine County 22.5% California 14.3% United States 14.1% Table 2.4 Poverty Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 12 2.4.3 Major Employers Government entities and the recreation and tourism industry account for a large portion of employment in Alpine County. Major employers, location and industry are detailed in Table 2.5. Most major employers in Alpine County are located in Markleeville, the County seat, with some located in Kirkwood. This list only includes employers based in Alpine County; numerous major employment centers for Alpine residents are located in Carson City, Nevada and surrounding Counties. Employer Name Location Industry Alpine County Markleeville Government Offices - County Alpine Learning Center Markleeville Schools Bear Valley Mountain Resort Bear Valley Resorts Calaveras Healthy Impact Product Solutions (CHIP) - Forestry Child Protective Services Markleeville Social Services & Welfare Organization Cutthroat Brewing Company Markleeville Brewery/Restaurant Department of Social Welfare Markleeville Social Services & Welfare Organization Diamond Valley Elementary School Markleeville Schools Grover Hot Springs State Park Markleeville State Parks Grover Pool Markleeville Swimming Pools - Public Intero Real Estate Services Markleeville Real Estate Kirkwood Meadows Utility Kirkwood Water & Sewage Companies - Utility Kirkwood Mountain Resort Kirkwood Resorts Kirkwood Real Estate Kirkwood Real Estate Live Violence Free Markleeville Marriage & Family Counselors Morton Golf LLC Kirkwood Golf Courses Pacific Utility Markleeville Utility Contractors Pacific Utility Audit Inc Markleeville Utility Contractors Tahoe Youth & Family Services Markleeville Home Health Service Transportation Department Markleeville Government Offices - State Woodfords Community Markleeville Social Services & Welfare Organization Woodfords Fire Department Markleeville Fire Departments Wylder (formerly Sorensen's Resort) Markleeville Resorts Source: California EDD Labor Market Information Table 2.5 Major Employers ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 13 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2.4.4 Unemployment The total rate of unemployment in Alpine County according to the 2018 American Community Survey was 17.8%, which is significantly higher than the rates of California and the United States, which were at 5.5% and 4.9% respectively. See Table 2.6 for details. Total Labor Force Participation Rate Employment/ Participation Ratio Unemployment Rate Alpine County 934 47.6% 39.2% 17.8% California 31,575,203 63.9% 60.0% 5.5% United States 262,185,951 63.3% 59.8% 4.9% Table 2.6 Unemployment Source: 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2.4.5 Educational Attainment Table 2.7 highlights the significant differences between educational attainment between Alpine County, California, and the United States. Alpine County has a lower rate of higher education attainment than California and the United States. Only 12.9% of people 25 and over in Alpine County have a bachelor’s degree or higher, while the state and national rates are 33.3% and 27.6%, respectively. Less Than High School High School Graduate Some College, No Degree Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate or Professional Degree Alpine County 19.2% 32.3% 24.4% 7.5% 7.5% 5.4% California 16.4% 21.8% 21.3% 7.8% 20.8% 12.5% United States 12.4% 27.6% 18.1% 7.4% 17.0% 10.6% Source: 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table 2.7 Educational Attainment 2.4.6 Disadvantaged Communities Identifying project locations as disadvantaged communities is important when applying for competitive funding such as through the California Transportation Commission’s Active Transportation Program. According to the Active Transportation Program Cycle 5 guidelines, a disadvantaged community can be defined through the following categories: ™ Median Household Income - The Median Household Income is less than 80% of the statewide median based on the most current Census Tract level data from the American Community Survey (ACS). One of Alpine County’s two census tracts qualifies as a disadvantaged community by this measure, as shown in Table 2.8 and in Figure 2.5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 14 ™ CalEnviroScreen – An area identified as among the most disadvantaged 25% in the state according to the CalEPA and based on the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool 3.0. Alpine County does not have any disadvantaged communities based on this metric. ™ Free or Reduced Price School Meals - At least 75% of public school students in the project area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals (FRPM) under the National School Lunch Program. Applicants using this measure must demonstrate how the project benefits the school students in the project area. No Alpine County schools can be determined as disadvantaged communities using this metric (see Table 2.9). ™ Other - Projects located within Federally Recognized Tribal Lands (typically within the boundaries of a Reservation or Rancheria), projects located in areas that lack accurate Census or CalEnviroScreen data such as in a small neighborhood or unincorporated area, or regional definition. Block Group Median Household Income % CA MHI Census Tract 100, Block Group1 $56,250 74.7% Census Tract 100, Block Group 2 $65,208 86.6% Source: 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table 2.8 Disadvantaged Communities by Median Household Income As stated in Table 2.9, at least 61% of public school students in Alpine County are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals (FRPM) under the National School Lunch Program. School Name Enrollment Free/Reduced Meal Eligibility % Eligible Bear Valley Elementary 4 1 25.0% Diamond Valley Elementary 66 42 63.6% Total 70 43 61.4% Table 2.9 Disadvantaged Communities by Free/Reduced Lunch Source: California Department of Education, Student Poverty Data ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 15 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Paynesville Hung A Lel Ti Markleeville Bear Valley Kirkwood Alpine NEVADA Alpine County Figure 2.5 Disadvantaged Communities Regional Transportation Plan 0 4 8 2 Miles Layer3 Disadvantaged Communities MHI < $60,222 MHI > $60,222 Communities Major Roads ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 16 2.6.1 Vehicle Ownership According to the 2018 American Community Survey, out of the approximate 1,733 housing units in Alpine County, only an estimated 299 units were occupied. Of the occupied units, approximately 14.5% are owner- occupied and 2.8% are renter-occupied. Alpine County’s vacancy rate of 82.7% is significantly higher than the state or country (Table 2.10); the vacancy rate in Alpine County is approximately 10.5 times higher than the State average and 6.8 times higher than the national average. 2.5 Housing Count % Count % Count % Alpine 1,733 251 14.5% 48 2.8% 1,434 82.7% California 14,084,824 7,085,434 50.3% 5,880,000 41.7% 1,119,389 7.9% United States 136,384,292 76,444,810 63.8% 43,285,318 36.2% 16,654,164 12.2% Source: 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table 2.10 Housing Characteristics Place Total Housing Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Vacant Units The 2018 median household income in Alpine County of $66,888 is below the state average of $71,228 (Table 2.11). However, the median home value of Alpine County was $349,000 according to the 2018 American Community Survey, which is substantially lower than the California median home value of $475,900. The median household income relative to median home value is greater in Alpine County than the California average. Area Median Home Value Median Household Income Median Household Income as % Home Value Alpine County $349,000 $64,688 18.5% California $475,900 $71,228 15.0% United States $204,900 $60,293 29.4% Table 2.11 Median Home Value vs. Median Household Income Source: 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2.6 Transportation In Alpine County, 94% of residents have access to one or more vehicles. This is similar to the rates both in California and the U.S. (Table 2.12). ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 17 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Vehicles Available Alpine County California United States 0 6.0% 7.2% 8.7% 1 30.8% 30.8% 33.0% 2 30.8% 37.3% 37.3% 3+ 32.4% 24.6% 21.0% Table 2.12 Vehicle Ownership Source: 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2.6.2 Mode Share Figure 2.6 below illustrates how Alpine County residents commute to work. Single-occupant vehicles are the primary mode of transportation in Alpine County A heavy reliance on automobiles may be accredited to the rural nature of the County, low development densities, severe winter weather, and limited options for non-auto modes of travel. Alpine County commuter trips are categorized by the following modes of transportation: driving alone carpooling walking public transportation bicycle and taxicab, or other means An approximate 11.8% of Alpine County residents work from home. Public Transit 0.3% Walked 7.0% Biked 0.0% Worked from Home 13.8% Taxi, Other 1.4% Drove Alone 66.0% Carpooled 11.5% Figure 2.6 Mode Share ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 18 2.6.3 Commute Patterns As shown in Table 2.13, 98 of the 903 employed Alpine County residents work within Alpine County. The remaining work in other counties including El Dorado County and Douglas and Washoe Counties in Nevada. 2.7.1 Current System 2.7 Streets and Roads As shown in Table 2.14, there are a total of 252.46 miles of maintained roads in Alpine County. All maintained roads within the County are classified as rural roads. The County of Alpine owns and operates a total of 147.15 miles of roadway, while the State and U.S. Forest Service own and maintain 89.18 and 16.14 total miles, respectively. Many unmaintained miles of U.S. Forest Service roads exist in Alpine County as well. Jurisdiction Rural Road Miles Total Miles Alpine County 147.15 147.15 State Highways 89.18 89.18 U.S. Forest Service 16.14 16.14 Total Maintained Miles 252.46 252.46 Source: California Public Road Data 2018 Table 2.14 Roadway Mileage and Jurisdiction Alpine County Douglas County, NV El Dorado County Washoe County, NV Alpine County 98 89 71 47 Douglas County, NV 107 8,312 1,000 3,378 El Dorado County 25 2,512 27,825 x Washoe County, NV 18 1,996 664 175,234 Source: 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Table 2.13 Commuting Patterns Destination Origin ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 19 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2.7.2 Roadway Classification Figure 2.7 displays the major roadways in Alpine County along with their functional classification, as designated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Roadway classifications are characterized in the following manner: Arterials 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 SR 89\Luther Pass are classified as other principal arterials. Collectors 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 Local roads provide access to adjoining properties and primary residences. There is virtually no through traffic. Most maintained miles in Alpine County are classified as local roads. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 20 Paynesville Hung A Lel Ti Markleeville Kirkwood Bear Valley Calaveras Mono Tuolumne El Dorado Amador NEVADA Alpine B lu e L a ke s R d Pack Trl W olf C r ee k Rd P a ck Trl Pac i fic Vall e y Rd P o o r B o y B ig Spr i n g s Rd P a c k T r l Le viath a n M ine R d Fore s t Rte 7 N 0 1 Fo res t Rt e 7 N 1 7 P a ck T r l H i g h l a n d L a k e s R d Su n s e t L a k e R d M ud Lake R d Emigrant Trl H o t S p ri n g s Rd F o ot hill R d B a r n e y R i ley Pac k T rl B u r n side La ke Rd D iam o n d V alle y R d L p C a n y o n R d A i r p o r t R d P a c k Tr l B l u e L a k es R d St a t e R te 8 8 S t ate R te 8 9 S t ate R te 4 0 4 8 2 Miles Alpine County Figure 2.7 Roadway Classifications Regional Transportation Plan Communities Local Roads Regional County Roads Major Roads Minor Collectors Major Collector Minor Arterial Other Principal Arterial ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 21 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2.7.3 State Highways The four State highways in Alpine County are shown in Figure 2.8. A small 300-foot long portion of SR 108 crosses the southern tip of Alpine County but is left to Mono and Tuolumne for transportation planning. A summary description is provided below: State Route 4 SR 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 SR 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 SR 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 closes from Monitor Pass to US 395 during severe winter weather events, and rarely closes over Luther Pass. Closures at Luther Pass due to winter weather interfere with efficient goods movement to, within, and through Alpine County, as Luther Pass at the junction SR 88/El Dorado County Line has the heaviest truck volumes in the region (see Table 2.20 on page 27). A new National Scenic Byway Segment is currently proposed on SR 89. The proposal to seek a National Scenic Byway designation for Hwy 89 would begin from Highway 395 at the south end to Luther Pass at the north end. State Route 207 SR 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. 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 at Turtle Rock Park. 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 of Hung A Lel Ti. Additionally, Blue Lakes Road provides access to recreational destinations and serves as a snowmobile route during winter road closures. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 22 Alpine County Figure 2.8 State Highways Regional Transportation Plan Paynesville Hung A Lel Ti Markleeville Kirkwood Bear Valley Calaveras Mono Tuolumne El Dorado Amador NEVADA Alpine 0 4 8 2 Miles Major Roads Alpine State Highways Communities National Scenic Byway Proposed National Scenic Byway ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 23 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2.7.4 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 41 (California Local Streets & Roads Needs Assessment 2018 Update). PCI values range from 0-100, and optimally, pavement improvements will occur when PCI levels are at 66 or above. As PCI ratings lower, preventative pavement repair costs increase exponentially. With a PCI of 70 or above, preventative maintenance is relatively inexpensive at about $4.60-$4.85/square yard. For PCI between 50 and 70, repair costs go up to about $18.05-$18.80/square yard. Once PCI goes below 50, repair costs rise to $28.45-$29.73/ square yard and can go up to almost $70/ square yard for roads that deteriorate to the point of needing a total reconstruction. The PCI in Alpine County is at the high end of the PCI scores deemed “Poor” (PCI of 0-49). As seen in Table 2.15, Alpine County’s average PCI rating has consistently dropped since 2012. Once pavement reaches this condition, it tends to deteriorate at a much faster rate and should be addressed as quickly as possible. Many of the projects listed in Chapter 4 are roadway rehabilitation projects and directly address pavement deterioration in the region. 2012 PCI 2014 PCI 2016 PCI 2018 PCI Alpine County 45 44 44 41 Legend: Good (71-100) Lower Risk (61-70) Higher Risk (50-60) Poor (0-49) Table 2.15 Pavement Conditions Source: California Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018 2.7.5 Historic Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes provide an indication of the daily or hourly utilization of a given roadway facility. This level of utilization can then be evaluated relative to the ability of the roadway to accommodate the traffic to yield an assessment of the quality of service experienced by the motoring public who use the facility. Average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes for Alpine County state highways can be seen in Table 2.16. The source of the existing condition roadway volumes in Alpine County are from the most recently published Caltrans traffic volumes for state highways (2017). As seen in Table 2.20, State Route 88 experiences the highest Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in Alpine County. State Route 88 and State Route 89 are the main routes for goods movement, tourism, and local travel in the county. Many sections of State highways experienced no changes in traffic between 2013 and 2017. 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. Many Forest Service roads, such as Burnside Lake Road, Blue Lakes Road, and Poor Boy Road, are maintained by the County through cooperative agreements and are included in the County’s mileage. A small number of roads, 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 24 Segment 2013 AADT 2014 AADT 2015 AADT 2016 AADT 2017 AADT Avg. Annual Change, 2013- 2017 Alpine/Calaveras County Line 1,150 1,150 1,200 1,200 1,200 1.1% SR 207 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 0.0% Lake Alpine 950 950 950 950 950 0.0% Ebbetts Pass Summit, Bulloin, Jct. Rte. 89 490 490 490 490 490 0.0% Almador/Alpine County Line 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 0.0% Caples Lake 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 0.0% Carson Pass Summit (Elev 8573 ft) 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 0.0% Picketts, West Jct. Rte. 89 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 0.0% East Jct. Rte. 89, Nevada State Line 3,300 3,300 3,550 3,550 3,550 1.9% Mono/Alpine County Line 390 390 430 430 430 2.6% Monitor Junction 780 780 890 890 890 3.5% Laramie St 800 800 910 910 910 3.4% Markleeville, Webster St 1,300 1,300 1,700 1,700 1,700 7.7% Jct. Rte. 88, Alp/Ed Co Line; Luther Pass 2,450 2,450 3,200 3,200 3,200 7.7% Bear Valley Ski Resort 750 750 750 750 750 0.0% **Each AADT is an average of traffic counts within 5 locations State Route 207 Table 2.16 Historic Average Annual Daily Traffic State Route 4 State Route 88 State Route 89 2.7.6 Forecasted Traffic Volumes Traffic volume forecasts can be seen in Table 2.17. A variable formula was used to forecast average traffic based on the average annual change from 2013-2017. Roadway segments with minor increases or decreases in this time period were projected at a matching constant rate of increase or decrease. Roadways with significant average traffic increases were projected at a higher rate of increase in proportion to traffic increases experienced between 2013 and 2018. Road segments that experienced no change between 2013 and 2017 have been projected to remain constant. ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 25 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Segment 2020 AADT 2025 AADT 2030 AADT 2035 AADT 2040 AADT Alpine/Calaveras County Line 1204 1211 1217 1224 1231 SR 207 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 Lake Alpine 950 950 950 950 950 Ebbetts Pass Summit, Bulloin, Jct. Rte. 89 490 490 490 490 490 Almador/Alpine County Line 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 Caples Lake 2450 2450 2450 2450 2450 Carson Pass Summit (Elev 8573 ft) 2450 2450 2450 2450 2450 Picketts, West Jct. Rte. 89 2950 2950 2950 2950 2950 East Jct. Rte. 89, Nevada State Line 3570 3604 3639 3673 3708 Mono/Alpine County Line 430 430 430 430 430 Monitor Junction 899 915 931 948 964 Laramie St 919 935 951 967 984 Markleeville, Webster St 1740 1808 1878 1952 2028 Jct. Rte. 88, Alp/Ed Co Line; Luther Pass 3274 3403 3536 3674 3817 Bear Valley Ski Resort 750 750 750 750 750 State Route 207 State Route 4 Forecasted Average Annual Daily Traffic Table 2.17 State Route 88 State Route 89 2.7.7 Historic and Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is a general but robust measure of vehicle activity. It measures the extent of utilization a transportation network experiences by motorists. Although it is not a good indicator of congestion, it is a great indicator of overall vehicle activity and identifies bottlenecks or high delay “hotspot” locations. VMT is commonly applied on a per-household or per-capita basis and is a primary input for regional air quality analyses and for developing VMT rates for safety analysis. Per Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), VMT is now the basis for transportation impact identification and mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, jurisdictions must also ensure consistency with current land use plans, some of which still utilize Level of Service as a primary metric. Future Regional Transportation Plan updates will be consistent with the County General Plan and will promote new developments adjacent to existing developments in order to reduce VMT and travel times. VMT data is annually reported as part of the Federal Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) program. The HPMS program uses a sample-based method that combines traffic counts stratified by functional classification of roadways by volume groups to produce sample based geographic estimates of VMT. HPMS VMT estimates are considered “ground truth” by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (November 15, 1990). HPMS VMT estimates are used to validate baseline travel demand models and to track modeled VMT forecasts over time. HPMS VMT estimates are reported for each county by local jurisdiction, state highway use, and other state/federal land roadways, e.g. State Parks, US Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service. HPMS VMT estimates are sample based. Due to smaller sampling requirements at the sub-county level of geography and in federal air quality attainment ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 26 Jurisdiction 2014 Daily VMT 2015 Daily VMT 2016 Daily VMT 2017 Daily VMT 2018 Daily VMT Change, 2010-2017 Average Annual Change, 2010-2017 Bureau of Indian Affairs 0.11 x x x x - - County 35.7 34.91 42.23 42.24 42.34 18.6% 4.6% State Highways 120.52 128.94 129.94 129.94 126.78 5.2% 1.3% State Park Service 0.36 0.17 x x x - - US Forest Service 1.35 1.71 2.54 2.54 2.32 71.9% 18.0% Total 158.04 165.73 174.72 174.73 171.45 8.5% 2.1% Table 2.18 Historic Vehicle Miles Traveled Source: 2010 - 2018 California Public Road Data 2.7.8 Forecasted Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled have been projected over the lifetime of the RTP in Table 2.19. A variable formula was used to forecast VMT based on the average annual change from 2014-2017. Overall, VMT on roadways in Alpine County is not expected to change drastically between 2020 and 2040. Jurisdiction 2020 Daily VMT 2025 Daily VMT 2030 Daily VMT 2035 Daily VMT 2040 Daily VMT County 42.9 43.9 44.9 46.0 47.1 State Highways 127.3 128.1 128.9 129.8 130.6 US Forest Service 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.5 Total 172.5 174.4 176.2 178.0 179.9 Table 2.19 Forecasted Vehicle Miles Traveled Source: 2010 - 2018 California Public Road Data areas, desired 90/10 confidence level estimates of VMT are typically not attained in more rural areas of the state. Estimates of countywide VMT for Alpine County from 2014 to 2018 are provided in Table 2.18. As shown, some roadway jurisdictions such as State Highways and County roadways have minor changes between 2014 and 2018. However, other jurisdictions such as the State Parks Service roads and Bureau of Indian Affairs have had much more significant changes. Dramatic changes in VMT within the unincorporated County and on State/Federal/Tribal owned roadways can be attributed to roadway mile inventory changes new or abandoned roadways). ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 27 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2.7.9 Truck Traffic Table 2.20 displays truck Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes within Alpine County, as well as the percentage of total traffic is comprised of truck traffic. State Route 88 and 89 experience the highest truck AADT in Alpine County. In the segments of State Route 89 that experiences the most truck traffic, trucks make up approximately 13.3% of the total vehicles on the road. From 2014 to 2018, State Routes 4, 88 and 207 have not significantly changed in total truck AADT levels; State Route 89 is the only highway with significant increase in truck traffic. # % # % # % # % # % Calaveras/Alpine County Line 23 2.0% 24 2.0% 24 2.0% 24 2.0% 24 2.0% Bullion, Jct. Rte. 89 23 4.1% 23 4.1% 23 4.1% 23 4.1% x x Picketts, West Jct. Rte. 89 198 7.7% 198 7.8% 198 7.8% 198 7.7% 198 7.8% Nevada State Line 252 7.4% 273 7.4% 273 7.4% 273 7.4% 274 7.4% Mono/Alpine County Line 19 4.8% 21 4.8% 21 4.8% 21 4.8% 21 4.8% Bullion, Jct. Rte. 4 West 34 5.4% 40 5.4% 40 5.4% 40 5.4% 40 5.4% Picketts, Jct. Rte. 88 320 13.3% 417 13.3% 417 13.3% 417 13.3% 417 13.3% Jct. Rte. 4 45 6.0% 45 6.0% 45 6.0% 45 6.0% 45 6.0% Mt. Reba Ski Resort 24 3.2% 24 3.2% 24 3.2% 24 3.2% 24 3.2% State Route 4 State Route 88 State Route 89 State Route 207 Source: Caltrans Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic Table 2.20 Truck Traffic 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Segment 2.7.10 Collisions Table 2.21 details a five-year collision history in the County of Alpine. The majority of collisions (approximately 64%) occurred on State Route 88. From 2015 to 2019, 12 of the total 117 collisions were fatal. For more detailed location data, please refer to the most current Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System managed by the California Highway Patrol (http://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/userLogin.jsp). See Figure 2.9 for a map of collisions in Alpine County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 28 Route Total Collisions Fatal Collisions Highway Collisions Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions SR 4 5 0 5 0 1 SR 88 10 1 10 0 0 SR 89 3 0 3 0 0 SR 207 x x x x x 2015 Total 18 1 18 0 1 SR 4 6 1 6 0 0 SR 88 15 1 15 0 0 SR 89 3 3 3 0 0 SR 207 x x x x x 2016 Total 24 5 24 0 0 SR 4 4 0 4 0 0 SR 88 20 3 20 0 0 SR 89 4 0 4 0 1 SR 207 x x x x x 2017 Total 28 3 28 0 1 SR 4 5 1 5 0 0 SR 88 15 1 15 0 0 SR 89 x x x x x SR 207 x x x x x 2018 Total 20 2 20 0 0 SR 4 9 1 9 0 0 SR 88 15 0 15 0 0 SR 89 3 0 3 0 0 SR 207 x x x x x 2019 Total 27 1 27 0 0 Total 117 12 117 0 2 Source: SWITRS 2018 2019 Table 2.21 Collision History 2015 2016 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 29 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Calaveras Mono Tuolumne El Dorado Amador Alpine NEVADA 0 4 8 2 Miles Alpine County Figure 2.9 Collisions Regional Transportation Plan Bike Collisions Collisions Truck Collisions Vehicle Collisions Alpine County State Highways California Major Roads Regional County Roads Local Roads ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 30 2.7.11 Bridges 2.8 Public Transit According to the 2018 California Streets & Roads Needs Assessment, there are 11 County-maintained bridges within Alpine County (Table 2.22). The Needs Assessment reports a Sufficiency Rating (SR) value for each bridge; bridges with values under 80 and above 50 are considered eligible for rehabilitation and bridges with a rating under 50 are considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and are eligible for replacement. Of the 11 bridges in Alpine County, 6 have a sufficiency rating below 80 but above 50 and are eligible for rehabilitation and 1 has a sufficiency rating under 50 and is eligible for replacement. The average SR rating for Alpine County bridges has dropped since 2012, and the estimated cost for bridge needs is currently estimated at $2 million. Bridges on rural roads are essential to the transportation network. Maintaining bridges so that the most direct route can be used to transport goods to the market is essential to being competitive in the current economy. 2012 2014 2016 2018 Number of Bridges 11 11 11 11 Average SR 75 75 74 74 Structures with SR < 80 5 5 6 6 Structures with SR < 50 1 1 1 1 Total Bridge Need (Millions) $1.0 $1.0 $2.0 $2.0 Table 2.22 Bridge Sufficiency Source: California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 2.8.1 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, Kirkwood, South Lake Tahoe, and the Carson City Area. The Alpine Dial-A-Ride program does not service the Bear Valley area. This service operates Monday through Friday 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. Special needs services should be reserved at least 7 days in advance. Passengers requesting Dial-A-Ride service should book appointments 24 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 Alpine County Transit Financial Transaction Reports, Dial-A- Ride ridership has increased from 2016-2018, detailed in Table 2.23. ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 31 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2016 2017 2018 Total Passengers 479 454 601 Passenger Fare $8,770 $6,405 $5,370 Table 2.23 Transit Ridership Source: Alpine Transit Financial Transaction Reports 2016, 2017, and 2018 2.8.2 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, people with a disability, 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. Dial-A- Ride ridership count has increased from 2016-2018, and the elderly population, 65+, of Alpine County (approximately 28%) 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. 2.8.3 Inter-Agency Connections with Other Providers Foothill Rideshare Program 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. Greyhound 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. Carson Valley Airporter Service Although the Carson Valley Airporter 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 32 2.9 Active Transportation 2.9.1 Bicycle Alpine County State highways are extremely 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 2,160 registered bikers in 2019, 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. 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 Mountain 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. For a map of active transportation facilities in Alpine County, see Figure 10. 2.9.2 Pedestrian 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. In addition, signs warning motorized traffic of pedestrians exist in Kirkwood and Bear Valley. Kirkwood Mountain Resort creates temporary pedestrian aisles with cones and traffic sticks during winter conditions. These temporary aisles connect parking, roads, and resort access points. 2.9.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations The Alpine County Local Transportation Commission is committed to expanding bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the region where feasible. Projects including sidewalks and curb ramps in population centers such as Markleeville, Woodfords, and Bear Valley will be prioritized, and grant funding will be pursued when possible. In addition, the ACLTC will look for opportunities to coordinate bicycle and pedestrian safety and training. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Activities will include safety seminars for motorists and non-motorists, bicycle training education programs that teach students and residents bicycle safety, basic bicycle maintenance, and rules of the road are recommended. Bike rodeos are bicycle skill events where bicyclists, particularly children, are provided the opportunity to practice and develop skills to ride a bicycle safely. The rodeos include skills activities, exhibits, games, and an evaluation and feedback component. Interactive events engage children in a controlled environment and make them more confident bicyclists/ pedestrians. Educational programs encourage children to safely use active transportation on their own. 2.10 Aviation 2.10.1 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 33 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Paynesville Hung A Lel Ti Markleeville Bear Valley Kirkwood Alpine NEVADA Alpine County Figure 2.10 Active Transportation Facilities Regional Transportation Plan 0 4 8 2 Miles Communities Major Roads Lake Alpine Class I Path Bear Valley to Alpine Trail Death Ride Route Class II Bike Lane Class III Bike Route ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 34 2.11 Goods and Freight Movement The main routes for truck traffic and goods movement in Alpine County are SR 89 and SR 88, respectively. 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. Issues The following issues relating to goods and freight movement in Alpine County have been identified: ™ Winter closures – State Route 89 closes from Monitor Pass to US 395 during severe winter weather events, and occasionally closes over Luther Pass. Closures at Luther Pass due to winter weather interfere with efficient goods movement to, within, and through Alpine County, as Luther Pass at the junction SR 88/El Dorado County Line has the heaviest truck volumes in the region (see Table 2.20 on page 27). ™ Pavement condition – Large trucks have a proportionately greater impact on pavement condition due to heavier weights. ™ Conservation - The key pressures on conservation targets for all freight generators within the region include mining and quarrying facilities, livestock ranching, farming, and logging. Recommendations In order to adequately prepare for future goods and freight movement in the region, additional studies and strategies are recommended to ensure that Alpine regional roadways have the capacity to efficiently and safely support goods movement. The following recommendations have been identified: ™ Currently, the Alpine region utilized data collected by and presented in the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report to monitor pavement conditions, prepared every 2 years. The California Freight Mobility Plan (CFMP) 2020 recommends the collection and utilization of Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) data to identify appropriate pavement strength to accommodate trucking over the duration of anticipated useful life of the pavement improvements. WIM devices capture and record axel and gross vehicle weights of moving vehicles, as well as other data including vehicle classification, speed, and overall length. This data is subsequently used to inform pavement studies, highway monitoring and capacity studies, accident rate calculations, and load factor calculations for structures. ™ The Alpine County region will rapidly need to prepare for vehicle electrification. In addition to personal vehicles and the transit fleet, Alpine County will need to prepare roadways to address sustainable freight transition. It is recommended that further planning efforts are needed to prepare for and implement Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure readiness, electric vehicle plug-in stations, and other planned improvements that would benefit economic outcomes while reducing the impacts of climate change on the region. 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 aircraft operations annually. ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 35 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2.12 Railroads 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. 2.13 Interconnectivity Issues 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 provide County residents with reliable, interconnected travel options. ™ It is recommended that a separate regional agricultural study and other planned studies that could assist in the public decision-making process are prepared. These studies for improving regional goods resiliency, preservation, and conservation on key natural resources would provide an explanation for how the region plans to address and manage future growth. ™ It is recommended that an additional study to describe how the impacts of tourism and recreation affect freight demand for further regional economic/environmental studies is prepared by the region. ™ Other recommendations to support goods and freight movement in the region include expanding the truck parking network and coordination of roadway planning relative to future planned developments and areas of natural resource development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 36 3 Policy Element The purpose of the Policy Element is to identify legislative, planning, financial and institutional issues and requirements within Alpine County. Consistent with the 2017 RTP Guidelines, the Policy Element is intended to: 3.1 Transportation Issues ™ Describe the most important transportation issues in Alpine County as a region. ™ Identify and quantify regional needs expressed within both short-term (0-10 years) and long-term (11-20 years) planning horizons (Government code Section 65080 ™ Maintain internal consistency with the Financial Element, STIP fund estimates, and RTIP. The Policy Element describes transportation issues in Alpine County, California, and the United States and provides goals, objectives, and policies to assist in setting transportation priorities. The Policy Element from the 2015 Alpine County RTP was used as the baseline for the Policy Element and policies and objectives have been updated to align with new legislation and planning strategies. The 2020 Policy Element supports the transition from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a metric for roadway effectiveness and emphasizes methods to reduce vehicle use and increase active transportation and transit use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the development of Goals, Policies, and Objectives the Alpine County Transportation Commission can utilize to implement and track progress. 3.1.1 Federal Issues Federal transportation policy direction and programming provides the direction through which transportation planning decisions are made at the State, regional and local levels. FAST Act On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. No. 114-94) into law—the first federal law in over a decade to provide long-term funding certainty for surface transportation infrastructure planning and investment. The FAST Act authorized $305 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 for highway improvements, highway and motor vehicle safety, public transportation, motor carrier safety, hazardous materials safety, rail, and research, technology, and statistics programs. The FAST Act expired on September 30, 2020. 3.1.2 Statewide Issues California is dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through sustainable land use and transportation planning. In 2016, California Senate Bill 32 was passed, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The transportation sector accounts for 37% of California’s carbon emissions, prompting policy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Subsequent legislation has been passed to support California’s goals of GHG emissions reductions, such as Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), described in the following section, which has an impact on the RTP guidelines and the RTP development process. In 2017, transportation funding in California was changed with California Senate Bill 1 (SB which is a $52 billion transportation program funded by increased state gas taxes and vehicle license fees. ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 37 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Senate Bill 743 Former Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, SB 743 requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to Level of Service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. In 2018 the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include those alternative criteria, and auto delay (slowed traffic congestion) is no longer to be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Transportation impacts related to air quality, noise and safety must still be analyzed under CEQA where appropriate. SB 743 also amended congestion management law to allow cities and counties to opt out of LOS standards within certain infill areas. The updated 2017 RTP Guidelines have established vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to replace LOS. Goals, Policies and Objectives related to VMT guidance in Alpine County can be viewed in Section 3.12. Senate Bill 1 and the Impact on the Transportation Funding In 2016, several bills that would drastically change the financial outlook for transportation funding for the next decade were debated within the State Legislature. The results of those legislative efforts culminated in the Governor’s signing of Senate Bill 1 (SB1) on April 28, 2017. In November of 2018, California Proposition 8 (Prop 8) was defeated, which proposed a repeal of SB 1. SB 1 is a $52 billion transportation plan funded by increased taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and vehicle license fees, including a new fee for vehicles that do not utilize fossil fuels, but do use the public roads. That new funding source will be used exclusively for transportation purposes, including maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of roads and bridges, new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, public transportation, and planning grants. SB 1 created the following new and augmented programs that fall under California Transportation Commission (CTC) purview: ™ Active Transportation Program (ATP) - $100 million (80%) added annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects. ™ Local Streets and Roads - $1.5 billion added annually for road maintenance and rehabilitation. ™ State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) - $1.9 billion added annually for projects on State Highways. ™ State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – Funding source stabilized. California Electric Vehicle Mandate On September 23, 2020, Governor Newson signed Executive Order N-79-20 establishing a State goal that 100% of in-state sales of new passenger vehicles and trucks will be zero-emissions by 2035. The Executive Order establishes a further goal that 100% of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the State be zero- emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks. Finally, the order sets a goal of the State of California to transition to 100% zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible. Regional and local transit fleets are expected to adhere to the State goal of transitioning to zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. The ACLTC will need to prepare for electric vehicle transition for transit, personal vehicles, and freight in coming years. It is recommended that the Alpine region prepares an electrical vehicle analysis plan which will identify and plan for future locations for charging facilities and the associated infrastructure, designs, and local energy providers coordination efforts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 38 1. Prioritization of and funding for road and highway projects. 2. Maintenance and improvement of the existing road system. 3. Improvement of non-auto transportation modes and programs. 4. Promotion of economic development within the County, especially related to recreational tourism. Economic development efforts should include Transportation Planning agencies in their planning decisions to ensure transportation infrastructure and programs adequately account for the demand on the system. The ACLTC will maintain roadways to enable recreational tourism and commercial activity. Alpine County will continue efforts to increase participation in recreational activities such as fishing, camping, bicycling, and general tourism. Elements of the transportation system related to commercial activity include the following: ™ Road systems with adequate structural strength to support large truck movements on a regular basis. ™ Airport facilities to support fire suppression. 3.1.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The bill establishes a cap on statewide greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and sets forth the regulatory framework to achieve the corresponding reduction in statewide emissions levels. The updated 2017 RTP Guidelines document provides several recommendations for consideration by rural RTPAs to address GHG. The following strategies from the guidelines have been applied towards small Counties, including Alpine County: ™ Emphasize transportation investments in areas where desired land uses as indicated in a city or County general plan result in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction or other lower impact use. ™ Recognize the rural contribution towards GHG reduction for counties that have policies that support development within their cities, and protect agricultural and resource lands. ™ Prioritize transportation projects that increase connectivity or provide other means to reduce VMT. The effectiveness of efforts by the RTPA to provide transportation alternatives and to implement policies and strategies consistent with State and national goals of reducing GHG emissions can be measured in terms of reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or expected growth in VMT. VMT reductions correlate directly with reductions in GHG emissions. Caltrans reports VMT by County on an annual basis. Alpine County has experienced a slight decrease in population and employment over the past two decades and is forecast to continue this trend into the future. As seen previously in Section 2.7.7 Historic and Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled, in recent years the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has increased on all roadways managed in Alpine County. The VMT on County roadways increased from 35.7 in 2014 to 42.3 in 2018, with an average annual increase of 4.6%. The State highway VMT increased from 120.5 in 2014 to 126.8 in 2018, 3.1.3 Regional and Local Issues Even with new funding guaranteed by Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, the primary local and regional issues involve maintaining the integrity of existing facilities. Additional issues at the local and regional level include the need for transportation modes other than the automobile, that provide access and connectivity between communities, health services, shopping, recreational destinations and employment centers. The following general categories of transportation issues have been identified: ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 39 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan with an average annual increase of 1.3%. Overall, VMT on all roadways in Alpine County has increased by an average annual rate of 2.1% between 2014 and 2018. The County will continue to monitor population and employment and VMT growth consistent with the RTP, RTP performance measures, and the County’s General Plan policies to track changes in travel demand. However, with Alpine County having a small and decreasing population, no major changes are foreseen. 3.2 Regional Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 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, which set the framework for carrying out the roles and responsibilities of the ACLTC and assists them in their decision- making process for transportation investment. 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 in Alpine County. The goals, objectives, and policies for each component of the Alpine County transportation system are discussed below. ™ A goal is the end toward which effort is directed; it is general and timeless. ™ An objective is a direction statement that guides actions for use in determining present and future decisions, often used to help reach goals. ™ A policy is a specific means to accomplish the intent of the goal and direction of the policy. The goals, objectives and policies set forth in this Plan are consistent with the policy direction of the ACLTC, the Alpine County General Plan Circulation Element, the 2018 Active Transportation Plan, the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), and the updated California Transportation Plan (CTP 2050). The CTP 2050 includes goals to improve travel times and ease traffic congestion; increase safety and security on bridges, highways, and roads; foster healthy lifestyles through active transportation; expand economic opportunities through the movement of people, freight, services, and information; and create a low-carbon transportation system that protects human and environmental health. The current Alpine County General Plan contains the following overall goals for Alpine County: ™ Maintain the existing scenic 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). ™ 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). ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 40 Goal 3.3 Regional Goals Provide a well-balanced regional transportation system that meets the needs of all users. Objective: Include regional entities in the transportation planning process (short/long term). Policy 1.1: 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 (short/long term). 3.4 State Highways and Regional Roadways 3.4.1 Issues: 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 Provide and maintain a safe, efficient, and convenient countywide roadway system that meets the travel needs of people and goods through and within the region (short/long term). Objective: Identify and prioritize improvements to the roadway system (short/long term). Policy 2.1: Support Tri-County (Amador County Transportation Commission, Alpine County Local Transportation Commission and Calaveras 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. Objective: Maintain roadways at acceptable safety standards (short/long term). The current Goals, Objectives and Policies recommended for the County of Alpine in this RTP are as follows. ™ Develop pedestrian circulation for the betterment of local commerce as well as the safety and convenience 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--- 41 41 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Policy 2.2: Identify and eliminate unsafe conditions on state highways and intersections, in coordination with Caltrans. Policy 2.3: Prioritize roadway projects according to safety standards, including required maintenance and repair, in the most cost-effective manner given available resources. Objective: Employ Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies when feasible and cost effective. ITS includes technology improvements which will enhance the safety and reliability of roadways such as Changeable Message Signs (CMS) which provide travelers roadway information on detours, winter road closures and weather conditions (short term). Policy 2.4: The ACLTC will consider implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies for individual modes based on availability, feasibility, and funding. 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 (short/long term). Policy 2.5: Developers shall be responsible for constructing or improving intersections at new developments, including resort communities and ski areas, to maintain acceptable VMT on roadways that provide access or are affected by the development during the implementation of planned or phased development in these areas. Goal Support recreational travel by making it safe, easy and inviting (short/long term). 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 (short/long term). Policy: 3.1: The County will pursue traffic calming and streetscape projects in the downtown Markleeville area in coordination with stakeholders that will avoid significant loss of parking. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 42 3.5 Local Roads 3.5.1 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 Upgrade and maintain roadways in order to preserve the County roadway system (short/long term). 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 (long term). Policy: 4.1: 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 and impacts. Objective: Improve overall pavement condition ratings to a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 50 or better to reduce the need for expensive roadway reconstruction projects over the long-term. (long term). Policy: 4.2: Develop a Pavement Management System (PMS) and roadway inspection schedule as recommended in the Pavement Management System Report, and update the PMS report every few years as needed. Policy: 4.3: 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. Policy: 4.4: Consider imposing traffic impact fees on any industrial, commercial, residential, or other development permit for the purpose of improving affected local roads. Objective: Prioritize projects that will ensure that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) levels remain at the predetermined threshold. New development must encourage further connectivity, allowing shorter driving time and making other non-vehicular modes of transportation a viable option (short/long term). ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 43 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 3.6 Public Transit 3.6.1 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 6 percent of residents in Alpine County had no vehicle available to them in 2018 (latest data available). 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 Provide for the mobility needs of county residents, visitors, and employees within the financial constraints of state and federal transit funding (short/long term). Objective: Tailor public transportation and transit service provisions to the area’s population characteristics (long term). Policy 5.1: 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 5.2: Consider transit services first in areas where the greatest operational efficiencies exist dependent needs, recreational areas). Policy 5.3: Include the Hung A Lel Ti Tribe in the transit planning process. Objective: Provide life-line transportation for transit-dependent residents (short/long term). Policy 5.4: 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 5.5: Coordinate annual grant programs, such as FTA Section 5310, programs and assist agencies in preparing applications when applicable. Policy 5.6: Ensure that public transit services are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 44 Policy 5.7: Expand transit service to meet the needs of employees commuting between Douglas County and Alpine County as warranted and financially feasible. Policy 5.8: Support transit projects that serve recreation and commuter purposes. Policy 5.9: Encourage coordination of inter- and intra-county transit service. Objective: Promote the use of renewable and alternative fuels for transit where feasible (short/long term). Policy 5.10: Purchase renewable and alternative fuel transit vehicles where feasible. Actively seek funding that would allow the purchase of fleet vehicles that use renewable and clean alternatives. Policy 5.11: Promote the use of renewable and alternative fueled transportation. Policy 5.12: Develop partnerships with other departments and entities to expand the availability and use of alternative and renewable fuels. 3.7 Non-motorized Transportation 3.7.1 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 Promote a safe, convenient, and efficient non-motorized transportation system that is part of a balanced overall transportation system (short/long term). Objective: Integrate pedestrian and bikeway facilities into a multimodal transportation system (long term). Objective: As funding permits, develop transit service as an effective alternative transportation mode choice (long term). ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 45 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Policy 6.1: 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 6.2: Incorporate non-motorized facilities where feasible when implementing improvements or new developments to the existing roadway network. Policy 6.3: Prioritize roadway and street designs that avoid conflicts between automobiles and non-motorized users. Policy 6.4: Require bikeway and pedestrian facilities in all appropriate future and development projects when feasible, to facilitate onsite circulation for pedestrian and bicycle travel and connections to the proposed system. Policy 6.5: Pursue alternative funding mechanisms for the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as look for potential partnerships or interagency agreements. Policy 6.6: 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 (short/long term). Policy 6.7: Prioritize improvement projects which will increase bicycle safety along corridors and intersections frequently used by school children, recreational cyclists, and visitors. Objective: Prioritize active transportation projects that enhance the connectivity of the existing non-motorized system (short/long term). Policy 6.8: Coordinate with funding programs to provide multiple components of an infrastructure project when appropriate. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 46 Goal Promote alternative transportation to support the recreational tourism industry and economy of the region (short/long term). Objective: Promote equitable and sustainable use of resources (short/long term). Policy 7.1: Actively seek funding sources for multi-modal transportation development. Policy 7.2: Promote equity, cost effectiveness, and modal balance in planning, and allocate funds to regionally significant roadway and trail projects. 3.8 Parking Goal Fulfill the parking needs of local citizens, travelers, and tourists (short/long term). Objective: Promote off-street parking to reduce congestion, to accommodate snow removal, and to ensure safety and mobility (short/long term). Policy 8.1: 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. 3.9 Aviation 3.9.1 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 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 (long term) 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 (long term). ---PAGE BREAK--- 47 47 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Policy 9.1: Support land use decisions that discourage or prevent development in the vicinity of the airport that may present significant public safety issues. Policy 9.2: Implement Airport Capital Improvement Projects as funding allows with priority for projects which are required to improve the safety of the airport. 3.10 Goods Movement 3.10.1 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 #10: Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods within Alpine County and connecting to points beyond (short/long term). Objective: Mitigate conditions that transporters of goods deem dangerous or unacceptable (long term). Policy 10.1: Place a high level of importance on maintenance projects which will assist goods movement. Policy 10.3: Support projects that improve safety for all users on goods movement routes. Policy 10.2: Provide proper road geometry and consider passing lanes on roadways intended to accommodate truck traffic such as SR 88 and 89. 3.11 Transportation Systems Management 3.11.1 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. Ridesharing will improve mobility for Washoe Tribe members. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 48 Goal #11: Promote the use of alternative transportation to reduce the negative impacts of single-occupant vehicle travel and to increase mobility for Alpine County residents (short/long term). Objective: Employ ITS strategies when feasible and cost effective (short term). Policy 11.1: Support the use of public transportation as a transportation control measure to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions. Objective: Advance the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) in a thorough, cost effective manner that is feasible and appropriate in a rural context. Transportation demand management is the application of strategies and policies to reduce travel demand, such as by encouraging telecommuting and carpooling (long term). Policy 11.2: Work with Caltrans and other agencies to locate and develop park-and-ride lots. Policy 11.3: Provide outreach to media, employers, and the general public to promote awareness of alternative transportation. Designate a rideshare coordinator as necessary. Policy 11.4: Encourage special event organizers to promote carpooling among event attendees. 3.12 Air Quality and Environment 3.12.1 Issues: In California, transportation accounts for 37 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Transportation strategies include: reducing, managing, and eliminating non-essential trips, GHG emissions 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 #12: Enhance sensitivity to the environment in all transportation decisions (short/long term). Objective: Promote transportation policies and projects that support a healthy environment (short/long term). ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 49 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Policy 12.1: Conduct environmental review consistent with CEQA for individual projects as they advance to the implementation stage of development. Policy 12.2: Avoid sensitive wildlife habitat 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. Goal #13: Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (short/long term). Objective: Ensure that transportation projects contribute to the goal of lowering emissions (short term). Policy 13.1: Comply with state and federal climate change regulations and standards. Policy 13.2: Prioritize and recommend transportation projects that minimize vehicle emissions while providing cost effective movement of people and goods. Policy 13.3: Promote projects that can be demonstrated to reduce air pollution, such as alternative fuel programs. Policy 13.4: 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. Policy 13.5: Consider GHG emissions as part of every transportation capital improvement project decision. Policy 13.6: 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 50 Objective: Ensure consistency with Senate Bill 743 to actively support greenhouse gas reduction targets (short term). Policy 13.7: Replace Level of Service (LOS) analysis with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis as required statewide under CEQA and to support state and national goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Policy 13.8: Prioritize projects that will actively reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled such as transit projects, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, ride share programs and other measures that will incentivize other modes of transportation over single-occupancy vehicles. Policy 13.9: Implement compact pedestrian-oriented development that provides a mix of land uses within walking or biking distance that meet the daily needs of residents and visitors: • Encourage clustered and infill development; • Encourage and develop land use policies that focus development potential in locations best served by transit and other alternative transportation; and • Implement parking strategies that encourage the “park-once” concept. ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 51 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 4 Action Element This chapter presents a plan to address 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. 4.1 Plan Assumptions ™ 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, SR 89 from El Dorado County, and SR 88 from Amador County and the state of Nevada 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 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 scale of potential growth within the region will be minimal within the foreseeable future. ™ 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. It is necessary to base the Action Element on a series of planning assumptions, as presented below: 4.2 Project Purpose and Need The RTP guidelines require that an RTP “provide a clearly defined justification for its transportation projects and programs”. This requirement is often referred to as the Project Intent Statement or the Project Purpose and Need. Caltrans’ Deputy Directive No. DD 83 describes a project’s “Need” as an identified transportation deficiency or problem, and its “Purpose” is the set of objectives that will be met to address the transportation deficiency. Projects for each type of transportation mode are divided into financially constrained and financially unconstrained improvements. Financially constrained projects are ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 52 4.3.1 Maintenance Emphasis In Alpine County, the limited available funding is focused on maintaining existing roadway, transit, non- motorized, and airport facilities and programs. Capacity increasing projects 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. Maintenance projects will focus on pavement maintenance and improvements and snow plowing during inclement weather. 4.3 Regional Priorities 4.4 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. In addition to the identified challenge areas in the SHSP, agencies and tribal governments are eligible to apply for safety grants through the FHWA and Bureau of Indian Affairs. funded over the short range periods (0-10 years) as demonstrated in the Financial Element. The financial constraint is defined as revenues that can reasonably be assumed to be available for identified projects. The unconstrained project list (11-20 years) is considered a longer term list of projects that would provide benefit to the region without a clearly identified and available funding source. It is prudent to develop projects in the long-range project lists in the event funding should become available. For Alpine County, each project listed in the RTP project lists contributes to system preservation, safety, and/or multimodal enhancements. These broad categories capture the intended outcome for projects during the life of the RTP and serve to enhance and protect the “livability” of residents in the County. 4.3.2 Regionally Significant Projects In addition to maintenance projects, a few regionally significant projects have been identified. The following projects have been identified through the community and stakeholder outreach process as being the most highly desired and/or needed projects in the region: ™ Diamond Valley Road - Widen the pavement along Diamond Valley Road to provide paved shoulders in areas with poor sight distance. ™ Hot Springs Road – Rehabilitate roadway and widen shoulders on Hot Springs Rd. Between Markleeville and State Park. ™ Hot Springs Road-Hot Springs Creek Bridge replacement. ™ Safe Crossing at State Highways Projects ---PAGE BREAK--- 53 53 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 4.5 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. The Alpine region currently does not have an evacuation plan, and it is recommended that Alpine County of the ACLTC prepares one when feasible. 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, Woodfords, Markleeville, Shay Creek subdivision, Mesa Vista, and Bear Valley depend on local roadways such as Emigrant Trail, Diamond Valley Road, and Foothill Road for access to the State highways. The policy element of this RTP includes safety goals and objectives that comply with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan 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. 4.6 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 resorts 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 54 ™ Signing and striping modifications. ™ Parking restrictions. ™ Installing or modifying signals to provide alternate circulation routes for residents. ™ Re-examining speed zones on certain streets. 4.9 Environmental Mitigation As Alpine County is quite sparsely populated, there have been very few transportation improvement projects undertaken within Alpine County 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 CEQA and NEPA (if applicable) environmental review. When considering a transportation improvement project, the first course of action will be to consult with natural resource agencies to determine the potential impact of the project. Any changes or reconfiguration to the project which will limit environmental impact will be pursued. BMPs will be followed and mitigation measures employed to reduce project impacts. 4.10 Alpine County Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions 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. Future improvements to the transit system and a commitment to a future rideshare program could provide residents another alternative to driving a car. 4.7 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 is one CMS sign in Alpine County, on SR 88 near the Nevada border. 4.8 Transportation Systems Management Transportation systems management (TSM) is a term used to describe low-cost actions that maximize the efficiency of existing transportation facilities and systems. Urbanized areas can implement strategies using various combinations of techniques. However, in rural areas such as Alpine County, many measures that would apply in metropolitan areas are not practical. With limited funding, Alpine County must look for the least capital-intensive solutions. On a project basis, TSM measures are good engineering and management practices. Many are already in use to increase the efficiency of traffic flow and movement through intersections and along the interstate. Long-range TSM considerations can include: ---PAGE BREAK--- 55 55 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 4.11 Transportation System Improvements 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. Projects categorized as “constrained” have an identified funding source and construction year and will be completed within the short term planning horizon of this plan (2020-2030). Projects categorized as “unconstrained” do not have an identified funding source and are not expected to be completed within the short term planning horizon. Some unconstrained projects will be completed within the long term planning horizon of the RTP (2031-2040), and some will be constructed beyond that, based on available funding. Many projects on the unconstrained list do not have an associated cost estimate. Determining exact construction costs of transportation projects is difficult, especially for long- range projects. However, many of the projects in the long range (11-20 years) project list do not have construction years or total costs specified. Estimated project costs cited in this document represent “adjusted for inflation” costs. 4.11.1 Roadway Projects Roadway projects are separated into two categories – one for roadways managed by Alpine County, and one for roadways managed by Caltrans (state highways, including State Routes 4, 88 and 89). Two large County projects are planned over the next 10 years are listed in Table 4.1. The two road rehabilitation projects total $11,920,000 in cost. The Office of State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Management has primary responsibility for planning, developing, managing and reporting SHOPP projects. SHOPP projects are identified through periodic condition assessments and field reviews, through the biennial State Highway System Management Plan, are guided by the developing Transportation Asset Management Plan, and constrained to the funding in the adopted Fund Estimate. Funding for SHOPP projects is a mixture of Federal and State funds, including the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account created by SB 1. Projects included in the program shall be limited to capital improvements relative to the maintenance, safety, operation, and rehabilitation of the state highway system that do not add new capacity to the system. Six projects from the 2020 SHOPP have been identified for the Alpine region, totaling $122.4 million in project costs. Project Source Funding Source Route/PM Description Total Cost Const. Year 2015 RTP STIP Hot Springs Rd. Between Markleeville and State Park Rehabilitate roadway and widen shoulders $ 10,500,000 2022 2015 RTP STIP Diamond Valley Rd. Rehabilitate Roadway $ 1,420,000 2025 $ 11,920,000 2015 RTP STIP Westbound left turn pocket TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Carson Pass from Kirkwood to Red Lake Roadway Rehabilitation TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 89, North of Pickett's Junction Truck climbing lanes TBD TBD Table 4.1 Roadway Projects Alpine County Constrained Constrained Total Unconstrained ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 56 2020 SHOPP SHOPP Near Bear Valley, at 2.0 miles east of Route 207 (PM 4.96); also on Route 207 north of Route 4. Environmental mitigation for drainage rehabilitation project EA 0S750. Culverts TBD TBD 2020 SHOPP SHOPP In Alpine County, on Routes 4, 88, and 89 at various locations. Environmental mitigation for drainage rehabilitation project EA 0S680. Culverts TBD TBD $ 122,357,000 Caltrans SHOPP Total Project Source Funding Source Route/PM Description Total Cost Const. Year Table 4.1 Roadway Projects 2015 RTP TE SR 88, Near Woodfords Visitor Information and Interpretive Kiosk TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88 at Diamond Valley Rd/ Foothill Rd Left turn pockets TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Woodfords near Caltrans maintenance station Warning signs regarding Markleeville turnoff TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Intersection with Blue Lakes Rd Turn pockets TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Intersection with Emigrant Trail Turn pockets TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Intersection with Kirkwood Meadows Dr. Northbound/westbound left-turn acceleration lane TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP Local Roads in Bear Valley Avalanche Road Rehabilitate Roadway TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP Various Local Roads Rehabilitate roadways as prioritized by Pavement Management Plan in order to achieve overall PCI rating of 50 TBD TBD ACTC TBD SR 4 Bear Valley, SR 88 Kirkwood, and SR 89 east slope Corridor planning approach to recognize seasonal closures TBD TBD TBD 2020 SHOPP SHOPP SR 88, 4, and 89 near Kirkwood Install new Transportation Management System (TMS) elements and construct Maintenance Vehicle Pullouts (MPVs). $ 33,608,000 2024 2020 SHOPP SHOPP SR 88 near Kirkwood, at the Caples Lake Maintenance Station. Reconstruct a dormitory and sand shed structures, and rehabilitate a generator building. $ 32,551,000 2024 Unconstrained Total Caltrans ---PAGE BREAK--- 57 57 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 4.11.2 Bridge Projects Table 4.2 includes two constrained and two unconstrained bridge improvement projects, which will be funded with federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds. Both constrained bridges are eligible for toll credits while STIP funds will be included in the funding package for the Hot Springs Creek Bridge project. The bridge improvement project is estimated to cost approximately $4.3 million. Project Source Funding Source Route Cost Const. Year 2015 RTP HBD, STIP, Toll Credit Hot Springs Road-Hot Springs Creek Bridge Replace bridge $ 4,304,250 2021 4,304,250 $ 2015 RTP HBD, Toll Credit Springs Camp- West Fork of Carson River Bridge Rehabilitate Bridge TBD TBD 2015 RTP HBD, Toll Credit Wolf Creek Road - Silver Creek Bridge Rehabilitate Bridge TBD TBD TBD Constrained Total Table 4.2 Bridge Projects Alpine County Constrained Unconstrained Unconstrained Total 4.11.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Proposed bikeway and pedestrian improvement projects are listed in Table 4.3. 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 58 Project Source Location Project Name/Description Const. Year Cost 2018 ATP SR 89 at Turtle Rock Park Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 88 - Pacific Crest Trail at Kit Carson Pass Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 88 0 Kirkwood Trail Crossing Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 4 at Bear Valley Road Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 4 at Bear Valley - Lake Alpine Trail Crossing Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP Highway Guide Sign Replacement Countywide Wayfinding Implementation TBD TBD 2018 ATP Natural Features, Portals and Places Signage Countywide Wayfinding Implementation TBD TBD 2018 ATP Visitor Kiosks Countywide Wayfinding Implementation TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 89 at Montgomery Street Crosswalks and pedestrian warning signage TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 89 - Markleeville to Woodfords Class II - Bike signage and shoulder widening to accommodate Class II Bicycle Lanes TBD TBD 2015 RTP SR 4 - Markleeville SR 89 Shoulder and Pavement Improvements TBD TBD 2015 RTP Laramie Street - County Building Driveway Markleeville Class I Path TBD TBD 2018 ATP East side of SR 89 from Diamond Valley Rd. to Barber Rd. Alpine Village Trail TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 89/Luther Pass Road from County Line to SR 88/99 Luther Pass Road Class III Bicycle Route TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 88 from the SR 89 junction in Woodfords to the Nevada State Line SR 88 Class III Bicycle Route TBD TBD 2015 RTP Diamond Valley Road - Barber Road Alpine Village Trail TBD TBD 2015 RTP East end of Manzanita Lane - Diamond Valley School Manzanita Drive/Diamond Valley Trail TBD TBD 2015 RTP Kirkwood Meadows Road - Luther Pass Road Class II - SR 88 Bike Lanes and Shoulder Widening TBD TBD 2015 RTP Loop Road - Kirkwood Meadows Drive Loop Road Crosswalks TBD TBD 2015 RTP Kirkwood Meadows Drive - At Main Lodge Kirkwood Meadows Road - Main Lodge Crossing TBD TBD 2015 RTP Kirkwood Meadows Drive - At Main Lodge Pedestrian Access on Kirkwood Meadows Bridge Striping TBD TBD 2015 RTP SR 88/ Emigrant Trail Road Intersection - Kirkwood Meadows Drive Bridge Class II - Kirkwood Meadow Road Bike Lanes TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 4 in the Lake Alpine area Lake Alpine Speed Feedback Signs TBD TBD 2018 ATP Bear Valley - elementary school, library, Bear Valley Lodge, gas station Bicycle Parking TBD TBD 2015 RTP Bear Valley Road - Creekside Drive Class I Bear Valley Loop Path TBD TBD Table 4.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Unconstrained Community Projects - Markleeville Community Projects - Woodfords and Alpine Village Community Projects - Kirkwood Community Projects - Bear Valley Countywide / State Highway Projects ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 59 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 4.11.4 Transit Projects 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 4.4. 4.11.5 Aviation Projects The primary aviation goal of the County is to provide safe airports for general aviation users. Improving goods movements is also a minor goal for the Alpine region. 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 $453,000 (see Table 4.5). By implementing these projects, Alpine County would improve the airport to standards that make it eligible for federal funding resources. Project Source Location Project Name/Description Const. Year Cost Table 4.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 2015 RTP Health Center - Diamond Valley Road Hung-A-Lel-Ti Class I Multi-Use Path TBD TBD 2015 RTP Weber Street - SR 89 Additional SR 89 Bikeway Signage- Identify segments for shoulder widening TBD $ 670,200 2015 RTP Various Countywide SR2S Program TBD TBD 2015 RTP Sierra Pines Trailer Park - Manzanita Drive Sierra Pines Class I Multi-Use Path TBD TBD 2015 RTP on SR 88 - Visitor Center Carson Pass Pedestrian Crossing Overhead Flashing Beacons TBD TBD 2015 RTP Mosquito Lakes Campground Entrance Mosquito Lakes Pedestrians Crossing TBD TBD 2015 RTP SR 4 Entrance to Lake Alpine - SR 4 Exit from Lake Alpine Lake Alpine Speed Reduction Signage TBD TBD $ 670,200 Total Community Projects Community Projects - Hung-A-Lel-Ti Other Unconstrained Project Source Funding Source Project Description Cost Const. Year 2015 SRTP PTMISEA, FTA Install security cameras in minivam 5,000 $ TBD 2015 SRTP PTMISEA, FTA Passenger amenities - shelter and bench at Sierra Pines 10,000 $ TBD 2015 SRTP TBD Minivan Replacement TBD TBD 15,000 $ Table 4.4 Transit Projects Unconstrained Unconstrained Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 60 4.11.6 Tribal Projects 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. In addition, Tribal trust lands outside of Hung A Lel Ti are connected to proposed improvements on Diamond Valley Rd and the ongoing maintenance of Barber Road, Carson River Road, and Emigrant Trail. 4.12 Performance Measures 4.12.1 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 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: Project Source Funding Source Project Description Cost Const. Year CSAP CAAP AC Overlay and restripe runway 300,000 $ 2050 CSAP CAAP Chip seal and restripe runway 140,000 $ 2050 CSAP CAAP Install safety related signage 18,000 $ TBD CSAP CAAP Install 2 windsocks 20,000 $ TBD CSAP CAAP Fence and gate airport property 275,000 $ TBD CALTRANS TBD Air Cargo Operations and Goods Movement Study TBD TBD 753,000 $ Table 4.5 Aviation Projects Unconstrained Unconstrained Total Route Project Description Cost Const. Year Diamond Valley Road Widen the pavement along Diamond Valley Road to provide paved shoulders in areas with poor sight distance. TBD TBD TBD Table 4.6 Tribal Projects Unconstrained Washoe Tribe Unconstrained Total ---PAGE BREAK--- 61 61 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 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. 4.12.2 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. Performance Measure 1 – Congestion/ Delay/ Vehicle Miles Traveled Performance measure 1 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 location and may be used in a cost/benefit analysis with additional calculations (travel time/delay as functions of V/C). 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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10). 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. ™ Efficiency. ™ GHG reduction. ™ (RTP Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10). ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 62 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 by comparing County roads to similar facilities throughout the State. 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: ™ 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 1, 2, 3, 4, 10). Performance Measure 4 - Transit This performance measure monitors the cost-effectiveness of transit in Alpine County. This performance measure should be monitored annually. Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: ™ Increase productivity. ™ Increase efficiency. ™ Reduce the cost per passenger. ™ (RTP Goals: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13). 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. Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: ™ Safety. ™ System Preservation. ™ Accessibility. ™ Reliability. ™ Productivity. ™ Return on Investment. ™ (RTP Goals: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13). ---PAGE BREAK--- 63 63 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 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. Desired outcome and RTP/State Goals: ™ Safety. ™ System Preservation. ™ Accessibility. ™ Reliability. ™ Productivity. ™ 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, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10) Performance Measure 7 – Land Use 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 maintain its economic status, 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. ™ Recommend RTP projects to maintain roads at or above the minimum acceptable condition as set by the Cities or County. ™ (RTP Goals: 7, 11, 12, 13). ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 64 Performance Measure Monitoring Frequency RTP Goals 1. Transportation System Investment Distressed Lane Miles • Total and percent • By jurisdiction Triannual 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 2. Preservation/ Service Fuel Use/ Travel Distance/ Time/ Cost Pavement Condition Index • Local Roads 2 years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 3. Safety Total Accident Cost • Per capita • Per VMT Annual 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 4. Mode Share/Split Journey to work • Work trips/commute (Peak Periods) • Drive alone, carpool, transit, walk, bike Triannual 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 5. Transit Total Operating Cost • Per revenue mile Annual 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) • Per Capita • Area (County, jurisdiction, sub-region) • By Facility Ownership (State hwy; local, state, federal roads) • Local vs Tourist Annual 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 Congestion/ Delay/ Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) • Peak Hour Directional/ Bi-Directional Volume • Average Weekday Peak Hour Directional/ Bi- Directional Volume • Peak Month Peak our Directional/Bi Directional Volume • K of peak hour to ADT) • D (peak direction • Threshold volumes based on HCM 2010 Annual 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 7.Land Use Land use efficiency • Building density • Walkability 2 years 7, 11, 12, 13 Table 4.7 Alpine County RTP Program Level Performance Measures Performance Measure Indicator 6. Congestion/ Delay/ VMT ---PAGE BREAK--- 65 65 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 5 Financial Element The 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 that are described in the Action Element, as needed to address the goals, policies and objectives presented in the Policy Element. The intent is to define realistic funding constraints and opportunities. This chapter 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 or State Highways), and/or for a specific type of project (e.g. reconstruction or storm damage). This system makes it critical for eligible entities in the region to pursue various funding sources for projects simultaneously and to have the flexibility to implement projects as funding becomes available. 5.1 Projected Revenues Projecting revenues and expenditures over a 20-year horizon is difficult because funding levels can dramatically fluctuate or be eliminated by legislation and policy changes. In addition, many projects are eligible for discretionary funds, which are nearly impossible to forecast, because they are allocated on a recurring competitive basis. Despite these variables, roadway, bridge, bicycle and pedestrian, aviation and transit revenues were forecasted over the next 20 years by using a variety of methods defined in the footnotes of Table 5.1. Table 5.1 provides a summary of the projected federal, state, and local transportation funding sources and programs available to the Alpine region for transportation facility improvements over the next 20 years. To project funding for the long range (11-20 years) we use the following assumptions: ™ Revenues that have been historically constant and reliable are reflected through 2040 for all modes. ™ State revenues are expected to be available at historical funding levels. ™ Non-auto revenues are estimated based on historical levels. Funding sources for roadway projects includes the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which allocates funds for regional and local capital projects. The STIP is a five year funding program that is developed in two year cycles. The Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) is also a potential funding source for preserving and enhancing eligible facilities, including roadway, bridge and tunnel projects. RSTP is allocated to counties based on a population formula. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Federal Forest Reserves are other funding sources for roadway projects. HSIP is a federal aid program aimed to improve highway safety. Federal Forest Reserve funding comes from a 25% tax on logging revenues that is given back to the county in which the logging occurs. The following Table 5.1 identifies projected revenues for Alpine County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 66 Short-Range (1-10 yr) Long-Range (11-20 yr) Total Active Transportation Program (ATP)(1) TBD TBD TBD Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)(2) TBD TBD TBD Grant Programs Total TBD TBD TBD Highway Bridge Program (HBP)(1) 4,304,250 $ 7,170,000 $ 11,474,250 $ Bridge Programs Total 4,304,250 $ 7,170,000 $ 11,474,250 $ Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) 5,622,030 $ 5,559,424 $ 11,181,454 $ SB1 Roadway Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) 3,332,805 $ 3,327,585 $ 6,660,390 $ Roadway SB1 Loan Repayment 220,639 $ 220,639 $ 441,278 $ Receipts from Federal Lands 3,401,951 $ 3,401,951 $ 6,803,903 $ State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)(8) 6,159,333 $ 2,876,667 $ 9,036,000 $ Roadway Programs - Local Total 18,736,758 $ 15,386,266 $ 34,123,024 $ State Transit Assistance (STA) State of Good Repair- (11) 85,001 $ 81,490 $ 166,491 $ Transit Programs - Total 85,001 $ 81,490 $ 166,491 $ Annual Distribution for Aviation (12) 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ Aviation Programs - Total 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ Total Transportation Revenue 23,226,009 $ 22,737,756 $ 45,963,765 $ State Highway Operations and Protection Program 244,714,000 $ 244,714,000 $ 489,428,000 $ Roadway Programs - State Total 244,714,000 $ 244,714,000 $ 489,428,000 $ (10) Derived from Caltrans supplied project list (11) State Controller Source: (12) Based on $10K/airport. Based on 50% of total estimated apportionments from USDA. Source Estimate based on 2020 Report of STIP balances for FY 20/21 through 24/25 D 11-12, 15-16 source: Roadway Programs - Local Transit Programs Aviation Programs Based on assumption of 100% bridge toll matching funds. State Controller Source: E 11-16, F 11-16 source: http://californiacityfinance.com/LSR2005.pdf Roadway Programs - State Bridge Programs Table 5.1 Projected Revenues from Federal, State, and Local Sources* for Alpine County Revenue Category Revenue Grant Programs ---PAGE BREAK--- 67 67 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 5.2 Cost Summary Table 5.2 contains a summary of the RTP improvement costs identified for each modal category in the RTP. All cost estimates have been projected in year-of-construction dollars. The numbers in red represent areas where project costs are greater than expected revenue. As can be seen in Table 5.2, funding shortfalls occur a number of times in the long-range planning and programming of projects in Alpine County. A total of approximately $395.7 million has been proposed for roadway, bridge, bike/pedestrian, transit and aviation projects for the next 20 year RTP period. This only includes projects with cost estimates. Many projects, specifically in the long-range project lists, do not have associated estimates. The identified funding shortfalls do not include projects that have been identified but lack cost estimate detail. Additional funding sources, like grants and appropriations, may be awarded to the region to decrease this funding shortfall. Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Roadway HUTA, RMRA, TCRF, RSTP, STIP 18,736,758 $ 15,386,266 $ 11,920,000 $ TBD 6,816,758 $ 15,386,266 $ Roadway - State SHOPP 244,714,000 $ 244,714,000 $ 122,357,000 $ TBD 122,357,000 $ 244,714,000 $ Bridge HBP 4,304,250 $ 7,170,000 $ 4,304,250 $ TBD - $ 7,170,000 $ Bicycle and Pedestrian ATP TBD TBD TBD 670,200 $ TBD (670,200) $ Transit STA 85,001 $ 81,490 $ TBD 15,000 $ 85,001 $ 66,490 $ Airport Capital Annual Distribution for Aviation, AIP 100,000 $ 100,000 $ TBD 313,000 $ 100,000 $ (213,000) $ 267,940,009 $ 267,451,756 $ 138,581,250 $ 998,200 $ 129,358,759 $ 266,453,556 $ Total Table 5.2 Revenue vs Costs by Mode Projected Revenue by Mode Projected Costs by Mode Difference Project Type Funding Source 5.3.1 Roadway Table 5.3 compares the expected revenue for roadway projects to expected costs for the next 20 years. There is an estimated $11.9 million of identified project needs in Alpine County. Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Estimated Roadway Costs 18,736,758 $ 15,386,266 $ 11,920,000 $ TBD 6,816,758 $ 15,386,266 $ Estimated Roadway Costs - State 244,714,000 $ 244,714,000 $ 122,357,000 $ TBD 122,357,000 $ TBD Comparison of Roadway Costs to Expected Revenue Projected Revenue by Mode Projected Costs by Mode Difference Table 5.3 5.3 Revenue vs. Cost by Mode ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 68 Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Estimated Bridge Costs 4,304,250 $ 7,170,000 $ 4,304,250 $ TBD - $ TBD Projected Revenue by Mode Projected Costs by Mode Difference Table 5.4 Comparison of Bridge Costs to Expected Revenue Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Estimated Bicycle and Pedestrian Costs TBD TBD TBD 670,200 $ TBD (670,200) $ Table 5.5 Comparison of Bikeway and Pedestrian Costs to Expected Revenue Projected Revenue by Mode Projected Costs by Mode Difference 5.3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bicycle and pedestrian project funding will come primarily from the Active Transportation Program (ATP) which is a highly competitive grant program which supports multi-modal, active transportation. 5.3.4 Transit There is a need for capital improvement projects in Alpine County, including benches, covered shelters, security cameras, and the acquisition of new fleet vehicles. Transit improvement projects are expected to be limited in both the short- and long-range. Transit projects are funded under the Transit Development Act (TDA) which provides Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) for supporting public transportation. Funds are allocated based on population and transit performance. 5.3.2 Bridge Table 5.4 compares the expected revenue for bridge projects to expected costs for the next 20 years. The Highway Bridge Program will cover the cost of replacing or rehabilitating public highway bridges. Bridge conditions are checked regularly and conditions are reported. Bridges that are structurally deficient are eligible for HBP funding for rehabilitation or replacement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 69 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Estimated Transit Costs 85,001 $ 81,490 $ TBD 15,000 $ 85,001 $ $66,490 Table 5.6 Comparison of Transit Costs to Expected Revenue Projected Revenue by Mode Projected Costs by Mode Difference 5.3.5 Aviation 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. Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Short Range Long Range Estimated Aviation Costs 100,000 $ 100,000 $ TBD 753,000 $ 100,000 $ (653,000) $ Table 5.7 Comparison of Aviation Costs to Expected Revenue Projected Revenue by Mode Projected Costs by Mode Difference ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 70 End of Report ---PAGE BREAK--- March 2021 Attachments for the 2020 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Alpine County Local Transportation Commission ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A Attachment A - Stakeholder List ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A Organization Contact Person Phone Email Green DOT Transportation Solutions Jeff Schwein [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Green DOT Transportation Solutions Stephanie Alward [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County Community Development Debbie Burkett [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County Community Development Zach Wood [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Scenic Byway Association Michelle Plotnik [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County, Supervisor District 1 January Riddle [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County, Supervisor District 2 Ron Hames [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County, Supervisor District 3 Irvin Jim [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County, Supervisor District 4 Terry Woodrow [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County, Supervisor District 5 David Griffith [EMAIL REDACTED] Alpine County HHS Rich Harvey [EMAIL REDACTED] ACCC Teresa Burkhausse [EMAIL REDACTED] Caltrans Lloyd Clark [EMAIL REDACTED] BVSA/ CSA #1 Mark Phillips [EMAIL REDACTED] BVSA/ CSA #1 Paul Peterson Citizen/CA Alps Cycling Mark Schwartz (530) 694-1652 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] Washoe Tribe Irvin Jim [EMAIL REDACTED] Amador CTC John Gedney [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 117 Valley View Way Executive Director Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Tahoe MPO Joanne Marchetta [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] PO Box 5310 Executive Director Stateline, NV 89449 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Woodrow Delorio [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 2828 Easy Street, Suite 1 Executive Director Placerville, CA 95667 Mono County LTC Gerry Le Francois [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] PO Box 347 Executive Director Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Tuolumne CTC Darin Grossi [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 2 S. Green Street Executive Director Sonora, CA 93570 Calaveras COG Amber Collins [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] PO Box 280 Executive Director San Andreas, CA 95249 Hung a Lel Ti Irvin Jim, Jr. [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 96A Washoe Blvd. Chairman Woodfords, CA 96120 PROJECT TEAM STAKEHOLDERS Neighboring Counties ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Attachment B - Outreach Materials ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Outreach Strategy ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B 1 Outreach Meetings Public & Stakeholder Participation A variety of tools will be used to comprise a comprehensive community outreach campaign for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These include community workshops, individual stakeholder communication, a project specific website and many methods of comment/ input. The consultant Project Manager will facilitate project team meetings and prepare and distribute agendas as well as meeting minutes. Community Workshops There will be two community workshops held in Markleeville for the Alpine RTP. The first workshop will be an introduction of the RTP to the community and will provide interactive exercises with the public to develop priority projects to include in the RTP. The meetings will narrow down the most important topics and issues the community feels are pertinent, prioritize the projects and provide any recommendations they may have. The project team will emphasize social equity with input from the community. The second meeting will act as an update to present progress made since the first meeting back to the public. The meeting will be used at the draft phase of the project to present the draft RTP to the community. By this point, previous outreach effort will have contributed to a more polished priority project list and a more well-defined set of needs the community and stakeholders have identified. We will have large format displays of the RTP assumptions, Policy Element, Action Element, and Financial Element. An information packet with the “meat” of the RTP will be distributed prior to the meeting so community members can provide us with comments and discussion at the meeting. This meeting is intended to give the community a chance to review the plan and discuss it with project managers and other members of the public. Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 2 Pop-up Events The project team will visit popular locations or set up an informational table heavily-traveled locations within Alpine County, such as grocery stores and post offices, to gather input. The project team will set up a table with educational materials, comment cards, and questionnaires. This approach has been successful in other rural counties including Tehama, as it reaches the average citizen instead of only those already aware of transportation planning efforts. During the pop-out process, the project team will visit Bear Valley, Woodfords County, and other communities as deemed appropriate. During the pop-up events, the project team will employ social distancing and proper personal protective equipment protocols. As social distancing and shelter-in-place guidelines begin to lift, it is expected that community events will begin to proceed as normal. If this happens during the period planned for outreach for the Alpine RTP, pop- ups may be scheduled to coincide with these existing events. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B 3 Public Engagement Website A website has been developed by Green DOT under the URL alpineregionalplan.com and will contain community workshop notifications, project information, agency information, documents, a feedback form, and an online questionnaire. The project website is available to advertise for meetings and disseminate other project information, but also acts as a tool to promote community involvement and encourage public feedback. The website contains a direct feedback form as well as links to project information and other means of submitting feedback, including social media handles and meeting information. Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Questionnaire To facilitate participation, an online questionnaire has been created via Survey Monkey. The online questionnaire has been administered with questions that the Alpine County Transportation Commission and the project team agreed upon in order to gauge the community needs and wants. Data will be presented in the final draft of the RTP. The questionnaire will also be distributed at community workshops in hard- copy format. Comments and questionnaire results can also be collected from previous RTP outreach efforts. Advertising Advertising for public workshops will be done through email blasts to stakeholders. Upcoming community workshops will also be advertised through flyers that are posted to the project website and in key locations around the County, such as grocery stores. A Facebook event page will also be created to promote outreach events and livestream community meetings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan 1. Which general area do you live in or travel from most often? Markleeville Woodfords Community Mesa Vista Kirkwood Alpine Village Bear Valley Other: c c c c c c c 2. How often do you drive a vehicle, on average? 7 days a week 5-6 days a week 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week A few times a month A few times a year I do not drive c c c c c c c 3. Approximately how often do you use public transit in Alpine County? 7 days a week 5-6 days a week 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week A few times a month A few times a year I do not take public transit in Alpine County c c c c c c c 4. Approximately how often do you ride a bicycle in Alpine County (including recreational or utilitarian)? 7 days a week 5-6 days a week 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week A few times a month A few times a year I do not ride a bicycle c c c c c c c 5. Approximately how often do you walk in Alpine County (including recreational or utilitarian)? 7 days a week 5-6 days a week 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week A few times a month A few times a year I do not go for walks c c c c c c c 6. How far do you commute to work, school, or other frequent destinations? Less than 1 mile 1-2 miles 2-5 miles 6-15 miles 16-30 miles 31-50 miles 51-99 miles 100+ miles c c c c c c c c 7. If you have school-aged children, how far do they commute to school? Less than 1 mile 1-2 miles 2-5 miles 6-15 miles 16-30 miles 31-50 miles 51-99 miles 100+ miles c c c c c c c c 8. Which general area do you work in or travel to most often? Markleeville Woodfords Community Mesa Vista Kirkwood Alpine Village Bear Valley South Lake Tahoe/Tahoe area Carson City, NV Other: c c c c c c c c c ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B 9. What are your most frequent out-of-county destinations? South Lake Tahoe/Tahoe area Carson City, NV Reno, NV Sacramento Stockton Other: c c c c c c 13. What areas need more bicycle and pedestrian facilities? 10. How frequently do you travel out-of-county? 7 days a week 5-6 days a week 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week A few times a month A few times a year Never c c c c c c c 11. What concerns do you have with the transportation network in Alpine County? Check all that apply. Potholes/road condition Lack of transit service Lack of access to areas outside of Alpine County Reckless/inattentive drivers Speeding drivers Lack of warning signs, guardrails, etc. Lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities Other: c c c c c c c c 12. Would you like to see more of the following? Check all that apply. Bike lanes Bike racks Crosswalks Passing lanes Bicycle/pedestrian paths More walking and biking connections Sidewalks and curb ramps Transit stops Transit service/frequency Wide shoulders Other: c c c c c c c c c c c 14. What areas need better transit service or facilities? 15. Please rank the following transportation needs in order of priority (1 is your highest priority and 5 is Invest in road maintenance Invest in transit options Invest in walking and biking options Improve roadway safety Increase recreational opportunities 16. Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding the transportation network in Alpine County? Questionnaire - Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7 FROM 4PM-5PM FOR MORE INFORMATION AND MEETING ACCESS, VISIT Join us to help identify transportation projects in the region that will improve mobility for residents and visitors. Improvements may include roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and safety enhancements. VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING REGARDING VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING REGARDING THE ALPINE COUNTY THE ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Can't attend but have feedback? Take our survey at: ***If you have language needs, accessibility needs or general questions, contact Stephanie Alward at: [EMAIL REDACTED] I [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B 2020 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Page 1 of 1 AGENDA – COMMUNITY MEETING Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 Time: 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM Location: Zoom Webinar WmIvd1g5Mk0vQT09 Call-in: +1 [PHONE REDACTED] US (San Jose) Webinar ID: 820 2070 0058 Passcode: 374354 AGENDA: 1. Introductions 2. Presentation – a. Introduction to the Regional Transportation Plan b. Elements of a Regional Transportation Plan 3. Open Discussion and Community Feedback 4. Adjourn ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Alpine County 2020 Regional Transportation Plan – October 7, 2020 Meeting Notes Presentation • What is an RTP? o Long range, 20-year Plan but is updated every 5 years o Covers all modes of transportation – roadways (State, County, and City), bike/ped, bridges, transit, aviation, and rail o Although roadway constitutes the greatest expenditures in most regions, the Plan includes all modes o Three critical components – policies, actions (projects), and financial – future available funding (implementation plan) • Statutes and Guidance o SB 743 o Mostly concerned about project eligibility • Planning process o Outreach is constrained, but still have opportunities for involvements ▪ Digital outreach – survey, website, Facebook, directly to the project team by email/phone ▪ Digital conversation through Zoom ▪ Information sharing process ▪ Opportunity to influence mobility and projects that come through this effort • The Challenge: Funding o Recent gas tax increase via Senate Bill 1 o Funding sources include gas and federal gas tax, state base and price-based excise tax, state truck weight fees, state diesel sales/excise tax, general sales tax, tolls, transportation bonds, State vehicle registration fees, Cap and Trace Auction Allowance Proceeds o Proceeds to state, highways, county, MPO/RTPA, cities • Pavement needs o 270 lane miles in Alpine County o Pavement Condition Index is 41 in Alpine County, quite low – lowest 20% of meeting pavement needs o Pavement needs reach $34 million per ten-year period in Alpine County • Bridge Needs o 11 bridges in Alpine County – average sufficiency rating of 74 o $2 million bridge rehabilitation needs in Alpine County • Multimodal needs o Recreational biking community is substantial in Alpine County o Transit improvements – new bus replacing old 2014 bus with high miles o New van replacement in coming years • Financial Element o Several programs available for transportation, many mode- or type-specific, i.e. for safety, rail, bike/ped, sustainable projects, etc. • Action Element ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B o Roadway, bridge, transit, bike/ped, Tribal • Project Updates o Diamond Valley Road Culvert Replacement project ▪ Just ordered to contract, will be in construction now or in the following spring/summer o Hot Springs Road Bridge Replacement ▪ $4.5 million project, will be going to construction nest spring o SR 89 @ Markleeville Creek Bridge Replacement ▪ Scheduled to be replaced, likely next season ▪ Caltrans project on the state highway o Hot Springs Road Reconstruction Project ▪ Large reconstruction project from Markleeville to the State Park ▪ $9.5 million project ▪ Will include shoulder widening where feasible for bike/ped accommodation and safety o Dixon Mine Road @ Wolf Creek Bridge Replacement ▪ $1.9 million project in progress now o Transit Bus Replacement Project o Markleeville Creek Restoration Project • Next Steps o 10/30/20 – Finish collecting and addressing community input o 10/30/20 – Comments due o 11/5/20 – Action and financial element o 12/20 – Finalize RTP o 1/2021 – ACTC Final Adoption Questions & Answers and Comments • Move to NextDoor app, more use than FB • Dixon Mine Road Bridge over Wolf Creek was completed this year ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Alpine County 2020 Regional Transportation Plan Update Community Meeting October 7, 2020 Presented by: Green DOT Transportation Solutions Alpine County Transportation Commission http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B What is an RTP? Long-range, regional transportation planning document (20 years) for Alpine County Must be updated every 4-5 years Covers all modes – City, County and State roadways, bridge, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, aviation, rail Typical Elements: Introduction/Background Existing Conditions Goals, Objectives and Policies Project Lists – Inventory of regional transportation needs Financial and Implementation Plan Identify future regional transportation needs and plan how these needs can and will be met. http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B STATUTES AND GUIDANCE Federal Transportation Funding= RTPAs MUST prepare a Regional Transportation Plan 2017 Regional Planning Handbook 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines California Transportation Plan Senate Bill 45-Local Control Assembly Bill 32-Global Warming Solutions Act SB 375-Sustainable Communities Act State Implementation Plan (non-attainment areas) Senate Bill 1 – Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B PLANNING PROCESS Stakeholders – County, Caltrans, Tribal Governments, resource management agencies, freight, local business owners, residents of Alpine County Community Involvement and Input Opportunity to influence project lists and goals, objectives and policies http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Community Engagement ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B THE CHALLENGE-FUNDING http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B THE CHALLENGE-FUNDING http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B PAVEMENT NEEDS Pavement 270 Lane Miles Avg. PCI = 41 (2018) Pavement Cost $34 Million Need – 10 year PCI=41 http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B BRIDGE NEEDS 11 Bridges Average Sufficiency Rating = 74 Million Rehabilitation Needs http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B MULTI-MODAL NEEDS Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Aviation Projects Transit Improvements Project Lists not final http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B FINANCIAL ELEMENT Short-Range (1-10 yr) Long-Range (11-20 yr) Total Active Transportation Program (ATP)(1) - $ - $ - $ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)(6) - $ - $ - $ Grant Programs Total - $ - $ - $ Highway Bridge Program (HBP)(5) (26) - $ - $ - $ Bridge Programs Total - $ - $ - $ Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) - $ - $ - $ SB1 Roadway Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) - $ - $ - $ Roadway TCRF Loan Repayment - $ - $ - $ Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) - $ - $ - $ Receipts from Federal Lands (Secure Rural Schools, 1908 Act, et. Al.)(12) (21) - $ - $ - $ State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)(14) (22) - $ - $ - $ Roadway Programs - Local Total - $ - $ - $ State Highway Operations and Protection Program - $ - $ Roadway Programs - State Total - $ - $ - $ Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (17) - $ - $ - $ Local Transportation Funds (LTF)(8) - $ - $ - $ Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) (10) (24) (25) - $ - $ - $ State Transit Assistance (STA) State of Good Repair- (16) - $ - $ - $ Transit Fare Box Revenue(15) - $ - $ - $ Other Transit Revenues (18) - $ - $ - $ Transit Programs - Total - $ - $ - $ Annual Distribution for Aviation(2) - $ - $ - $ Aviation Programs - Total - $ - $ - $ Total Transportation Revenue - $ - $ - $ Bridge Programs Table 5.1 Projected Revenues from Federal, State, and Local Sources* for Del Norte County Revenue Category Revenue Grant Programs Roadway Programs - Local Roadway Programs - State Transit Programs Aviation Programs http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B ACTION ELEMENT Project Categories Roadway Bridge Transit Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Source Funding Source Route Route/PM Total Cost Constructio n Year 2015 RTP STIP Hot Springs Rd. Between Markleeville and State Park Rehabilitate roadway and widen shoulders 1,200,000 $ 2020-21 2015 RTP STIP Diamond Valley Rd. Diamond Valley Road Rehabilitate Roadway 1,420,000 $ 2025 2015 RTP STIP SR 88/89 Near Woodfords Westbound left turn pocket - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88 Carson Pass from Kirkwood to Red Lake Roadway Rehabilitation - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 89 North of Pickett's Junction Truck climbing lanes - $ TBD 2015 RTP TE SR 88 Near Woodfords Visitor Information and Interpretive Kiosk - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88 Intersection with Diamond Valley Rd/ Foothill Rd Left turn pockets - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88 Woodfords near Caltrans maintenance station Warning signs regarding Markleeville turnoff - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88 Intersection with Blue Lakes Rd Turn pockets - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88 Intersection with Emigrant Trail Turn pockets - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88 *Intersection with Kirkwood Meadows Drive Northbound to westbound left-turn acceleration lane - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP Local Roads In Bear Valley Avalanche Road Rehabilitate Roadway - $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP, FLAP HS Road Hot Springs Road Hot Springs Road Phase 2- Between Markleeville and State Park 10,490,000 $ TBD 2015 RTP STIP Local Roads Various Rehabilitate roadways as prioritized by Pavement Management Plan in order to achieve overall PCI rating of 50 - $ TBD Table 4.1 Roadway Projects Constrained Unconstrained http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Project Updates Diamond Valley Road Culvert Replacement Hot Springs Road Bridge Replacement-($4.5 million) SR 88 @ Markleeville Creek Bridge Replacement Hot Springs Road Reconstruction Project- ($9.5 million) Dixon Mine Road @ Wolf Creek Bridge Replacement- ($1.9 million) Transit Bus Replacement Project-Spring 2021 Markleeville Creek Restoration Project http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B NEXT STEPS 10/30/20- Finish collecting and addressing community input 10/30/20- Comments Due 11/5/20- Action and Financial Element 12/2020- Finalize RTP 1/2021- ACTC Final Adoption http://alpineregionalplan.com ™ 10/20/2020 - Finish Collecting and addressing community input ™ 10/30/2020 - Comments Due ™ 11/5/2020 - Action Element ™ 02/2021 - Finalize RTP ™ 3/16/2021 - ACLTC Final Adoption ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Questions/Comments? Contact Jeff Schwein [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] http://alpineregionalplan.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN DOCUMENT Draft Document is Currently Being Prepared For more information visit: www.alpineregionalplan.com UPCOMING MILESTONES • Draft project lists have been compiled • First digital community meeting likely to be held in Winter/Spring of 2021 • A second community meeting will be held at the draft phase of the RTP • The Alpine RTP is anticipated to be completed and adopted in June 2021 CHECK BACK FOR MORE UPDATES SOON!! ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C Attachment C - Coordination with the State Wildlife Action Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D Attachment D - Native American Tribal Consultation and Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D Outreach Method Date Initial Consultation Letter June 18, 2020 Invitation #1 to Community Meeting with links to survey and websites September 30, 2020 Invitation #2 to Community Meeting with links to survey and websites October 7, 2020 Community Meeting #1 October 7, 2020 Questionnaire Distribution October 15, 2020 Project List Solicitation TBD Invitation to Draft RTP Presentation Meeting #1 TBD Invitation to Draft RTP Presentation Meeting #2 TBD Draft RTP Meeting TBD Invitation to Final RTP Adoption Meeting #1 TBD Invitation to Final RTP Adoption Meeting #2 TBD Final RTP Adoption Meeting TBD Tribal Government Contacts Hung a Lel Ti Irvin Jim Jr., Chairman 96A Wahoe Blvd. [EMAIL REDACTED] Woodfords, CA 96120 Kenneth Cruz, Program Director, Roads [EMAIL REDACTED] Consultation Summary Native American Tribal Consultation and Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D 627 Broadway, Suite 220 Chico, CA 95928 June 18, 2020 Hung a Lel Ti ATTN: Irvin Jim, Jr., Chairman 96A Washoe Blvd. Woodfords, CA 96120 Re: Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan, 2020 Update Dear Mr. Jim, The Alpine County Local Transportation Commission (ACLTC) is in the process of developing a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the 2020 – 2040 planning horizon. The RTP is the long range planning document required by law to define the policies, financial projections, and projects within the region. This information is used by local agencies, tribes, the regional transportation planning agency, and the State to implement transportation projects within Alpine County. Coordination and consultation with local and regional Tribes is recommended by the California Transportation Commission’s RTP Guidelines. In order to address this recommendation and improve inter-regional coordination, we are soliciting your input in regards to the Alpine County 2020 RTP. The ACLTC is soliciting any information on potential projects, and any comments your Tribe may have for the Alpine County 2020 RTP. Input and comments can be submitted by contacting project consultant Green DOT Transportation Solutions, currently contracted to perform duties of the ACLTC and to prepare the 2020 RTP, at the contact information provided below. We will provide updates to the development of the RTP and the CEQA review process as milestones are reached. As updates and new information become available, they will be posted on Alpine County RTP website at If you have any questions or would like additional information, feel free to contact me by email at [EMAIL REDACTED] or by phone at (530) 895-1109. Thank you for your attention to this process, Sincerely, Jeff Schwein, AICP CTP Project Manager (530) 895-1109 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D 2020 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Page 1 of 1 AGENDA – COMMUNITY MEETING Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2020 Time: 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM Location: Zoom Webinar WmIvd1g5Mk0vQT09 Call-in: +1 [PHONE REDACTED] US (San Jose) Webinar ID: 820 2070 0058 Passcode: 374354 AGENDA: 1. Introductions 2. Presentation – a. Introduction to the Regional Transportation Plan b. Elements of a Regional Transportation Plan 3. Open Discussion and Community Feedback 4. Adjourn ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D Alpine County 2020 Regional Transportation Plan – October 7, 2020 Meeting Notes Presentation • What is an RTP? o Long range, 20-year Plan but is updated every 5 years o Covers all modes of transportation – roadways (State, County, and City), bike/ped, bridges, transit, aviation, and rail o Although roadway constitutes the greatest expenditures in most regions, the Plan includes all modes o Three critical components – policies, actions (projects), and financial – future available funding (implementation plan) • Statutes and Guidance o SB 743 o Mostly concerned about project eligibility • Planning process o Outreach is constrained, but still have opportunities for involvements ▪ Digital outreach – survey, website, Facebook, directly to the project team by email/phone ▪ Digital conversation through Zoom ▪ Information sharing process ▪ Opportunity to influence mobility and projects that come through this effort • The Challenge: Funding o Recent gas tax increase via Senate Bill 1 o Funding sources include gas and federal gas tax, state base and price-based excise tax, state truck weight fees, state diesel sales/excise tax, general sales tax, tolls, transportation bonds, State vehicle registration fees, Cap and Trace Auction Allowance Proceeds o Proceeds to state, highways, county, MPO/RTPA, cities • Pavement needs o 270 lane miles in Alpine County o Pavement Condition Index is 41 in Alpine County, quite low – lowest 20% of meeting pavement needs o Pavement needs reach $34 million per ten-year period in Alpine County • Bridge Needs o 11 bridges in Alpine County – average sufficiency rating of 74 o $2 million bridge rehabilitation needs in Alpine County • Multimodal needs o Recreational biking community is substantial in Alpine County o Transit improvements – new bus replacing old 2014 bus with high miles o New van replacement in coming years • Financial Element o Several programs available for transportation, many mode- or type-specific, i.e. for safety, rail, bike/ped, sustainable projects, etc. • Action Element ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D o Roadway, bridge, transit, bike/ped, Tribal • Project Updates o Diamond Valley Road Culvert Replacement project ▪ Just ordered to contract, will be in construction now or in the following spring/summer o Hot Springs Road Bridge Replacement ▪ $4.5 million project, will be going to construction nest spring o SR 89 @ Markleeville Creek Bridge Replacement ▪ Scheduled to be replaced, likely next season ▪ Caltrans project on the state highway o Hot Springs Road Reconstruction Project ▪ Large reconstruction project from Markleeville to the State Park ▪ $9.5 million project ▪ Will include shoulder widening where feasible for bike/ped accommodation and safety o Dixon Mine Road @ Wolf Creek Bridge Replacement ▪ $1.9 million project in progress now o Transit Bus Replacement Project o Markleeville Creek Restoration Project • Next Steps o 10/30/20 – Finish collecting and addressing community input o 10/30/20 – Comments due o 11/5/20 – Action and financial element o 12/20 – Finalize RTP o 1/2021 – ACTC Final Adoption Questions & Answers and Comments • Move to NextDoor app, more use than FB • Dixon Mine Road Bridge over Wolf Creek was completed this year ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment D For more information, visit the project website at: Take our survey online at: If you have questions or want to provide input directly to the project team, contact Stephanie Alward at: [EMAIL REDACTED] I [PHONE REDACTED] THE ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Regional Transportation Plan is a 20-year plan for the County’s entire transportation system including roadways, transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and aviation projects. What improvements does your community need? We want to hear from you! ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment E Attachment E - Project Lists ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment E Blank Page ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment E Project Source Funding Source Route/PM Description Total Cost Const. Year 2015 RTP STIP Hot Springs Rd. Between Markleeville and State Park Rehabilitate roadway and widen shoulders $ 10,500,000 2022 2015 RTP STIP Diamond Valley Rd. Rehabilitate Roadway $ 1,420,000 2025 $ 11,920,000 2015 RTP STIP Westbound left turn pocket TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Carson Pass from Kirkwood to Red Lake Roadway Rehabilitation TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 89, North of Pickett's Junction Truck climbing lanes TBD TBD 2015 RTP TE SR 88, Near Woodfords Visitor Information and Interpretive Kiosk TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88 at Diamond Valley Rd/ Foothill Rd Left turn pockets TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Woodfords near Caltrans maintenance station Warning signs regarding Markleeville turnoff TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Intersection with Blue Lakes Rd Turn pockets TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Intersection with Emigrant Trail Turn pockets TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP SR 88, Intersection with Kirkwood Meadows Dr. Northbound/westbound left-turn acceleration lane TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP Local Roads in Bear Valley Avalanche Road Rehabilitate Roadway TBD TBD 2015 RTP STIP Various Local Roads Rehabilitate roadways as prioritized by Pavement Management Plan in order to achieve overall PCI rating of 50 TBD TBD ACTC TBD SR 4 Bear Valley, SR 88 Kirkwood, and SR 89 east slope Corridor planning approach to recognize seasonal closures TBD TBD TBD 2020 SHOPP SHOPP SR 88, 4, and 89 near Kirkwood Install new Transportation Management System (TMS) elements and construct Maintenance Vehicle Pullouts (MPVs). $ 33,608,000 2024 2020 SHOPP SHOPP SR 88 near Kirkwood, at the Caples Lake Maintenance Station. Reconstruct a dormitory and sand shed structures, and rehabilitate a generator building. $ 32,551,000 2024 2020 SHOPP SHOPP SR 4 near Bear Valley, from Calaveras County line to Route 89; also on Route 89 at 0.9 mile north of Route 4 Rehabilitate pavement, replace guardrail and signs, place Rock Slope Protection (RSP), rehabilitate drainage systems, and enhance highway worker safety. $ 47,947,000 2025 2020 SHOPP SHOPP Various Locations on SR 4, 88, and 89 in Alpine County (EA 1F720) Rehabilitate drainage culverts at 36 locations within the project limits. $ 8,251,000 2025 2020 SHOPP SHOPP Near Bear Valley, at 2.0 miles east of Route 207 (PM 4.96); also on Route 207 north of Route 4. Environmental mitigation for drainage rehabilitation project EA 0S750. Culverts TBD TBD 2020 SHOPP SHOPP In Alpine County, on Routes 4, 88, and 89 at various locations. Environmental mitigation for drainage rehabilitation project EA 0S680. Culverts TBD TBD $ 122,357,000 Unconstrained Total Caltrans Caltrans SHOPP Total Table 4.1 Roadway Projects Alpine County Constrained Constrained Total Unconstrained ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment E Project Source Funding Source Route Cost 2015 RTP HBD, STIP, Toll Credit Hot Springs Road-Hot Springs Creek Bridge Replace bridge $ 4,304,250 4,304,250 $ 2015 RTP HBD, Toll Credit Springs Camp- West Fork of Carson River Bridge Rehabilitate Bridge TBD 2015 RTP HBD, Toll Credit Wolf Creek Road - Silver Creek Bridge Rehabilitate Bridge TBD TBD Constrained Total Table 4.2 Bridge Projects Alpine County Constrained Unconstrained Unconstrained Total ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment E Project Source Location Project Name/Description Const. Year Cost 2018 ATP SR 89 at Turtle Rock Park Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 88 - Pacific Crest Trail at Kit Carson Pass Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 88 0 Kirkwood Trail Crossing Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 4 at Bear Valley Road Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 4 at Bear Valley - Lake Alpine Trail Crossing Safe Recreational Crossings of State Highway TBD TBD 2018 ATP Highway Guide Sign Replacement Countywide Wayfinding Implementation TBD TBD 2018 ATP Natural Features, Portals and Places Signage Countywide Wayfinding Implementation TBD TBD 2018 ATP Visitor Kiosks Countywide Wayfinding Implementation TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 89 at Montgomery Street Crosswalks and pedestrian warning signage TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 89 - Markleeville to Woodfords Class II - Bike signage and shoulder widening to accommodate Class II Bicycle Lanes TBD TBD 2015 RTP SR 4 - Markleeville SR 89 Shoulder and Pavement Improvements TBD TBD 2015 RTP Laramie Street - County Building Driveway Markleeville Class I Path TBD TBD 2018 ATP East side of SR 89 from Diamond Valley Rd. to Barber Rd. Alpine Village Trail TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 89/Luther Pass Road from County Line to SR 88/99 Luther Pass Road Class III Bicycle Route TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 88 from the SR 89 junction in Woodfords to the Nevada State Line SR 88 Class III Bicycle Route TBD TBD 2015 RTP Diamond Valley Road - Barber Road Alpine Village Trail TBD TBD 2015 RTP East end of Manzanita Lane - Diamond Valley School Manzanita Drive/Diamond Valley Trail TBD TBD 2015 RTP Kirkwood Meadows Road - Luther Pass Road Class II - SR 88 Bike Lanes and Shoulder Widening TBD TBD 2015 RTP Loop Road - Kirkwood Meadows Drive Loop Road Crosswalks TBD TBD 2015 RTP Kirkwood Meadows Drive - At Main Lodge Kirkwood Meadows Road - Main Lodge Crossing TBD TBD 2015 RTP Kirkwood Meadows Drive - At Main Lodge Pedestrian Access on Kirkwood Meadows Bridge Striping TBD TBD 2015 RTP SR 88/ Emigrant Trail Road Intersection - Kirkwood Meadows Drive Bridge Class II - Kirkwood Meadow Road Bike Lanes TBD TBD 2018 ATP SR 4 in the Lake Alpine area Lake Alpine Speed Feedback Signs TBD TBD 2018 ATP Bear Valley - elementary school, library, Bear Valley Lodge, gas station Bicycle Parking TBD TBD 2015 RTP Bear Valley Road - Creekside Drive Class I Bear Valley Loop Path TBD TBD 2015 RTP Health Center - Diamond Valley Road Hung-A-Lel-Ti Class I Multi-Use Path TBD TBD 2015 RTP Weber Street - SR 89 Additional SR 89 Bikeway Signage- Identify segments for shoulder widening TBD $ 670,200 2015 RTP Various Countywide SR2S Program TBD TBD 2015 RTP Sierra Pines Trailer Park - Manzanita Drive Sierra Pines Class I Multi-Use Path TBD TBD 2015 RTP on SR 88 - Visitor Center Carson Pass Pedestrian Crossing Overhead Flashing Beacons TBD TBD 2015 RTP Mosquito Lakes Campground Entrance Mosquito Lakes Pedestrians Crossing TBD TBD 2015 RTP SR 4 Entrance to Lake Alpine - SR 4 Exit from Lake Alpine Lake Alpine Speed Reduction Signage TBD TBD $ 670,200 Total Community Projects Table 4.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Unconstrained Community Projects - Markleeville Community Projects - Woodfords and Alpine Village Community Projects - Kirkwood Community Projects - Bear Valley Community Projects - Hung-A-Lel-Ti Other Unconstrained Countywide / State Highway Projects ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment E Project Source Funding Source Project Description Cost Const. Year 2015 SRTP PTMISEA, FTA Install security cameras in minivam 5,000 $ TBD 2015 SRTP PTMISEA, FTA Passenger amenities - shelter and bench at Sierra Pines 10,000 $ TBD 2015 SRTP TBD Minivan Replacement TBD TBD 15,000 $ Table 4.4 Transit Projects Unconstrained Unconstrained Total Project Source Funding Source Project Description Cost Const. Year CSAP CAAP AC Overlay and restripe runway 300,000 $ 2050 CSAP CAAP Chip seal and restripe runway 140,000 $ 2050 CSAP CAAP Install safety related signage 18,000 $ TBD CSAP CAAP Install 2 windsocks 20,000 $ TBD CSAP CAAP Fence and gate airport property 275,000 $ TBD CALTRANS TBD Air Cargo Operations and Goods Movement Study TBD TBD 753,000 $ Table 4.5 Aviation Projects Unconstrained Unconstrained Total Route Project Description Cost Const. Year Diamond Valley Road Widen the pavement along Diamond Valley Road to provide paved shoulders in areas with poor sight distance. TBD TBD TBD Table 4.6 Tribal Projects Unconstrained Washoe Tribe Unconstrained Total