Hanford City Council
August 4, 2026

City Council Meeting
Agenda
August 4, 2026
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

Council Members will meet in-person in the Council Chambers. Members of the Public may participate either in-person in the Council Chambers or remotely through the City’s Public Input Platform. Any member of the public may address the City Council on matters within the Council’s jurisdiction during the applicable public comment periods. Comments are limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes per speaker.

Speakers participating in person will be recognized first. Remote speakers will be recognized in the order they complete the registration process through the Public Input platform.

To participate remotely, review the instructions and register at:
https://publiccomment.hanfordca.gov/

To watch the meeting live (view only), visit:
http://livestream.hanford.city/

Members of the public may also submit written comments through the Public Input platform.

All written comments received before the close of the meeting will be included in the record.

4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Study Sessions are considered Special Meetings under the Brown Act. Accordingly, comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). Public Comment will be accepted during each agenda item. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

STUDY SESSION AND ACTION ITEMS:

A. Presentation from KCAG and Consultant (DKS Associates) of the Draft 2026 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (GC 54957)

Title: City Manager
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (GC 54956.9)(d)(1))

Anderson v. City of Hanford
Kings County Case No. 24CU0255
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (GC 54956.9(d)(4))

3 Cases.

D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8) Address: 109 E. Eighth Street
Negotiating Party: Carnegie Museum of Kings County
Agency Negotiators: Chris Tavarez, Jason Waters, and Ty Mizote CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Adam Medeiros
FLAG SALUTE:

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters within the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

A. Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading the title only.

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the June 16, 2026, Meeting C. City Attorney: Action to Declare Abandoned Right-of-Way as Exempt Surplus Property D. Fire: Authorize a response to County of Kings Grand Jury Report, Keeping Our Firefighters/EMS Safe in Kings County - Personnel Protective Equipment E. Fire: Authorize a response to the County of Kings Grand Jury Report, Consolidated Fire Communications in Kings County.

F. Police: Approval of the purchase of sixty-five (65) rifles and required accessories from Proforce Law Enforcement for $147,715.91 from the General Fund as approved in the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2026/2027.

PUBLIC HEARING:

A. Community Development: Amended Annexation165: a request to reduce the previous proposed annexation boundary, in order to annex approximately 86.4 acres into the City of Hanford City Limits from the Kings County Jurisdiction. Amended Prezone No. 0013- 24: a request to amend the previous prezoning scope, in order to coincide with the amended annexation boundary. The prezone will apply to the properties proposed to be annexed as a R-M Medium-Density Residential (80.95 acres) and MX-N Neighborhood Mixed Use (5.45 acres), consistent with previously approved General Plan Amendment No. 0009-24. The amended project area is located north of Grangeville Boulevard and east of 9 ¼ Avenue. The development site includes two parcels, comprising 83.61 acres (APNs 014-143-069 and 014-143-078). An additional parcel (APN 014-143-022) is also proposed to be annexed and prezoned as part of the project scope.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Fire: Receive a presentation on the "It's Not Worth It" Illegal Fireworks Campaign and appropriate $11,000 for continuation of the campaign for media and outreach costs from the General Fund for fiscal year 2026/2027; and establish an ongoing policy to continue the campaign for a total estimated cost of $49,000 to be budgeted next fiscal year to be offset by citation revenues.

B. Recreation and Community Services: Receive a presentation and provide direction on future July 4th events. If a future July 4th event is desired, appropriate $77,000 from the General Fund, to be offset by event revenue, including but not limited to ticket sales, sponsorships, illegal firework citations, and vendor sales.

COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:

Brief information-only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).

ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS:

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification or may request a matter, which is not otherwise scheduled on a City Council agenda, to be placed on a future agenda. The Council Member referring the item shall provide sufficient information as to the nature of the item. The City Council, by concurrence of a majority, may direct the City Manager to put the item on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2) A. Council Future Agenda Items
B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:

July 13–August 7: Nomination Period for City Council Candidates. Current Election Information is available on the Kings County Elections Department Website August 13: The City's Birthday Celebration at the Thursday Night Market Place August 18: Regular City Council Meeting
September 1:Regular City Council Meeting
September 15: Regular City Council Meeting
ADJOURNMENT:

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, during normal business hours. Such agendas are also available at the city’s website, www.cityofhanfordca.com subject to staff’s

ability to post the agenda before the meeting. If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office, 559-585-2515, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, at least 2 days prior to the meeting {28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II}

4.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 8/4/2026 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION AND

ACTION ITEMS

SUBJECT:

Presentation from KCAG and Consultant (DKS Associates) of the Draft 2026 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation from KCAG and Consultant (DKS Associates) of the Draft 2026 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy BACKGROUND:

Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) and their consultant, DKS Associates, will present the Draft 2026 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy with the scenarios for reducing GHG/VMT to meet CARB targets to the City Council.

The Kings Regional Vision effort, led by the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG), is the 2026 update for the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). KCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and state- designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA). Regionally, development of the RTP/SCS has included input and assistance from each of the five jurisdictions in Kings County.

An RTP/SCS is a long-term (minimum 20 year) planning document updated every 4 years. This 2026 RTP/SCS covers the years 2026 through 2049. The document, attached for Council review, must be multimodal, covering roadways, transit, active transportation, freight, and aviation, must address the transportation and land use nexus, state and federal environmental regulatory requirements, including air quality, and contain a fiscally constrained transportation project list. For transportation improvement projects to be eligible for state and federal funds, they must be listed in an adopted RTP/SCS.

KCAG released the Draft 2026 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) on July 13, 2026 for a 55-day public review and comment period that will end at 5:00PM on September 5, 2026. Please submit any questions or comments to Terri King at [email protected] or 559-852-2678.

Additional information, including access to the Draft 2026 RTP/SCS Report's Appendices, can be found at KCAG's website found at: https://www.kingscog.org/2026rtp_draft

FISCAL IMPACT:

Informational Item

ATTACHMENTS:

1. KCAG RTPSCS 2026 All Chapters

KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
2O2 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY
DRAFT

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -ii

CHAPTER 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW ................................................................ ............................................. 2 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................ .............. 2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRANSPORTATION TRENDS ............................................................. 2 SCENARIO TESTING ................................................................ ................................. 5 PREFERRED LAND USE SCENARIO ................................................................ ................ 6 FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS ................................................................ ......... 6 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND EQUITY ANALYSIS ................................................................ . 8 ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES ................................................................ ...................... 8 CONCLUSION ................................................................ .......................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 PURPOSE ................................................................ ............................................... 1 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................ ................................. 1 BACKGROUND TO THIS PLAN ................................................................ ...................... 1 Participating Agencies ...................................................................................................................................... 1 KCAG Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 2 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PLAN ................................................................ .................... 4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ........................................ 4 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING REGULATIONS .................... 4 INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT OF 2021 (IIJA) ........................................... 5 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 32 AND SENATE BILL 375 ..................................................... 5 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN GUIDELINES (2024) .................................... 5 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2050 ................................................................ .... 6 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CONTINUING REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ............................................. 6 KCAG PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM ................................................................ ....... 7 OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING ......................................... 8 ASSUMPTIONS AND INVENTORIES .................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2 : THE POLICY ELEMENT ................................................................................................................. 2-1 OVERALL GOAL; PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ....................... 2-1 Overall Goal ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Program Policy and Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 2-2 Environmental Policy and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 2-2

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -iii Public Participation Policy and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2-3 REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES .................................... 2-4 Overall Highway Goal .................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Highway System Policy and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2-4 Highway Safety Policy and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2-5 GOODS MOVEMENT POLICY AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................... 2-5 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES ................................................... 2-6 Regional Transit GOAL, Policy and Objectives ................................................................................................... 2-6 Intercity Rail and Bus Policy ........................................................................................................................... 2-8 AVIATION GOAL, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................. 2-8 Overall Aviation Goal .................................................................................................................................... 2-8 General Aviation Policy and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2-9 Aviation Land Use Policy and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 2-9 Hanford Airport Policy and Objectives.............................................................................................................. 2-9 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND OBJECTIVES ................................................... 2-10 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES ............................ 2-11 System Maintenance Policy and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 2-11 System Improvement Policy and Objectives .................................................................................................... 2-12 Demand Management Policy and Objectives ................................................................................................... 2-12 Environmental Improvement Policy and Objectives .......................................................................................... 2-12 Societal Impacts Policy and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2-13 TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND AUTOMATION (NEW SECTION, 2022) ....................... 2-13 General Technological Readiness Policy and Objectives .................................................................................... 2-13 Electric Vehicle Readiness Policy and Objectives .............................................................................................. 2-14 Mobility as a Service (MAAS) and Transportation Network Company (TNC) Curbside Management Readiness Policy and Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 2-14 CHAPTER 3 : TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION ................................................................................................ 3-1 REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM ................................................................ ................... 3-1 Functional Classification System ..................................................................................................................... 3-2 The Countywide Regional System ................................................................................................................... 3-3 Regionally Significant Roads .......................................................................................................................... 3-3 ASSUMPTIONS AND INVENTORIES ................................................................ ........... 3-14 Highway Travel Assumptions......................................................................................................................... 3-14 Highway Safety Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 3-19 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ................................................................ ......................... 3-22 Roadway Performance Management ............................................................................................................... 3-22 Local Responses to Failing Roads ................................................................................................................... 3-31 Other Considerations ................................................................................................................................... 3-33 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ................................................................ .................... 3-35 ASSUMPTIONS AND INVENTORIES ................................................................ ........... 3-35

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -iv Transit Demand........................................................................................................................................... 3-35 PUBLIC TRANSIT ................................................................ ................................ 3-38 Kings Area Regional Transit .......................................................................................................................... 3-38 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council .............................................................................................. 3-45 Triennial Performance Audits......................................................................................................................... 3-47 Transit Development Plans ........................................................................................................................... 3-47 KART Marketing Plan .................................................................................................................................... 3-47 ADA Transit Designs Standards Manual .......................................................................................................... 3-47 KART Transit Station Site Selection Study ....................................................................................................... 3-48 Corcoran Area Transit .................................................................................................................................. 3-49 California Vanpool Authority (CalVans) ........................................................................................................... 3-51 Ridehailing, Carpooling, and Carsharing ......................................................................................................... 3-53 Intercity Bus Service .................................................................................................................................... 3-54 ISSUES AND ONGOING IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS ......................................................... 3-54 Public Transit .............................................................................................................................................. 3-54 Rail Passenger Transit .................................................................................................................................. 3-59 Social Service Transportation Issues .............................................................................................................. 3-63 RAIL PASSENGER TRANSIT ................................................................ .................... 3-64 Amtrak ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-64 California High Speed Rail............................................................................................................................. 3-68 GOODS MOVEMENT ................................................................ ............................. 3-70 ASSUMPTIONS OF GROWTH AND DEMAND ..................................................................................................... 3-70 GOODS MOVEMENT STUDIES ........................................................................................................................ 3-79 SUMMARY OF GOODS MOVEMENT ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 3-81 AVIATION ................................................................ ......................................... 3-84 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 3-84 ASSUMPTIONS AND INVENTORIES ................................................................................................................ 3-84 Public Airports: PUBLIC Use ......................................................................................................................... 3-89 Private Airports: OPEN to Public Use ............................................................................................................. 3-89 Private Airports: Private Use Only ................................................................................................................. 3-89 Military Air Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 3-90 SUMMARY OF AVIATION ISSUES ................................................................ ............. 3-90 California Aviation System Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3-90 Public Airports: Public Use ............................................................................................................................ 3-90 Private Airports: Open to Public Use ............................................................................................................... 3-92 Private Airports: Private Use Only .................................................................................................................. 3-92 Military Air Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 3-93 Heliports .................................................................................................................................................... 3-95 CHAPTER 4 : AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................ 4-1 OVERVIEW ................................................................ .......................................... 4-1

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -v AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS ................................................................ ............ 4-3 Transportation Control Measures .................................................................................................................... 4-3 AIR QUALITY PROGRAMS ................................................................ ........................ 4-3 Kings County TCM Programs .......................................................................................................................... 4-3 Valleywide TCM Programs .............................................................................................................................. 4-8 SJVAPCD Incentive Programs ......................................................................................................................... 4-9 CHAPTER 5 : REVENUE FORECAST........................................................................................................................ 1 OVERVIEW ................................................................ ............................................. 1 KEY LEGISLATION ................................................................ .................................... 3 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act .............................................................................................................. 3 California Senate Bill 862 ................................................................................................................................. 3 California Senate Bill 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4 ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................ ........................................ 4 Local Funding .................................................................................................................................................. 4 State Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Federal Funding .............................................................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 6 : REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ............................................................................................. 1 OVERVIEW ................................................................ ............................................. 1 Avenal ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Corcoran ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Hanford ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Lemoore ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 County of Kings (Including Armona, Home Garden, Stratford, and Kettleman City) ................................................. 22 Kings county Area public Transit agency (Kcapta) ............................................................................................... 27 caltrans state highway operation and protection program .................................................................................... 28 caltrans Highway Safety Improvement program ................................................................................................. 29 CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) PROGRAM ........................................ 31 MAJOR CHANGES TO TRANSPORTATION IN KINGS COUNTY ............................................... 32 Public Transit ................................................................................................................................................. 32 The Future of Rail Service in Kings County ......................................................................................................... 33 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ ........................ 34 Alternative Fuels/Electric Vehicle Facilities ......................................................................................................... 34 Intelligent Transportation Systems ................................................................................................................... 34 Consistency with Other Plans ........................................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 7 : SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY .................................................................................... 7-1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ .................................... 7-1 Legislation ................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 7-3

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -vi Blueprint ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-3 Naval Air Station Lemoore Joint Land Use Study ............................................................................................... 7-5 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .................................................................................................................. 7-5 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ................................................................ ............................ 7-6 SB 375 Requirements for Public Engagement ................................................................................................... 7-6 Technical Advisory Committee ........................................................................................................................ 7-7 Stakeholder Advisory Group ........................................................................................................................... 7-7 Public Engagement Program .......................................................................................................................... 7-7 Outreach Activities Completed........................................................................................................................ 7-8 What We Heard ........................................................................................................................................... 7-12 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 7-13 Member Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................................ 7-13 Environmental Justice / Social Equity in the SCS ............................................................................................. 7-14 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 7-18 SCS IMPLEMENTATION, RECENT PROGRESS, AND ACHIEVEMENT ..................................... 7-19 KART Service improvements ......................................................................................................................... 7-19 Intercity Rail ............................................................................................................................................... 7-21 Vanpools .................................................................................................................................................... 7-22 Mobility Enhancements ................................................................................................................................. 7-22 Active Transportation ................................................................................................................................... 7-23 Electric Vehicle charging Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 7-23 Efficient and Equitable Development .............................................................................................................. 7-24 2026 SCS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ ...................... 7-29 Scenario Development Process ...................................................................................................................... 7-29 SCS Scenario Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 7-31 Scenario Comparisons .................................................................................................................................. 7-42 TOOLS AND METHODS ................................................................ .......................... 7-47 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................................ .................... 7-55 Goals and Benefits ....................................................................................................................................... 7-55 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 7-56

APPENDICES
I. Supporting Background Documents and Plans for the 2026 RTP/SCS II. Inventory of Countywide Regional Routes
I. Prior Air Quality Control Efforts
II. Unconstrained Projects Lists
III. Documentation in Support of the Sustainable Communities Strategy IV. Air Quality Conformity Analysis [To be submitted with Final 2026 RTP/SCS]

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -vii I. Additional Information about Roadway System Performance II. Valleywide Chapter
III. Public Participation Plan
IV. Response to Public Comment [To be submitted with Final 2026 RTP/SCS] V. Program Environmental Impact Report - Addendum [To be submitted with Final 2026 RTP/SCS] VI. Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Information VII. RTP Checklist
VIII. Adoption Resolution [To be submitted with Final 2026 RTP/SCS] IX. Modeling Validation/Adjustments & Off Model Analysis Technical Memorandums XV.A: KART Service Adjustments & AMTRAK San Joaquins VMT Estimates (DKS Associates) XV.B: Kings County Electromobility Analysis (DKS Associates) XV.C: Kings County Broadband Analysis (DKS Associates)
XV.E: Bicycle And Pedestrian (DKS Associates)
XV.F: KCAG Travel Model Baseline Validation (Kittelson & Associates)

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE ES -1: KINGS COUNTY POPULATION PYRAMID ................................ ...................... 3 FIGURE ES -2: HISTORIC AND FORECAST POPULATION GROWTH, KINGS COUNTY. .................. 3 FIGURE ES -3: DAILY COUNTYWIDE VMT PER CAPITA ................................ ....................... 4 FIGURE ES -4: ANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES BY TYPE ................................ ...................... 6 FIGURE ES -5: ROADWAY EXPENDITURES BY TYPE ................................ .......................... 7 FIGURE ES -6: COMPARISON OF ANTICIPATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ....................... 7 FIGURE 1 -1: KINGS COUNTY LOCATION MAP ................................ ................................ 2 FIGURE 1 -2: KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS COMMISSION ORGANIZATION .... 3 FIGURE 1 -3: POPULATION PYRAMID OF KINGS COUNTY ................................ ................. 12 FIGURE 1 -4: KINGS COUNTY POPULATION: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE (2010 – 2070) ....... 12 FIGURE 1 -5: CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN KINGS COUNTY VS. STATEWIDE ................. 16 FIGURE 1 -6: KINGS COUNTY CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE ................................ ................... 16 FIGURE 1 -7. CALENVIRO INDICATOR AND COMPONENT SCORING ................................ ..... 17 FIGURE 1 -8. SB 535 DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................ ................... 18 FIGURE 1 -9: CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 PERCENTILE OF KINGS COUNTY ............................... 19 FIGURE 1 -10: LABOR FORCE INFLOW & OUTFLOW ................................ ........................ 19 FIGURE 1 -11: WORKPLACE LOCATION FOR THOSE RESIDING IN KINGS COUNTY .................. 20 FIGURE 1 -12: RESIDENTS OF OTHER COUNTIES WORKING IN KINGS COUNTY ..................... 21

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -viii FIGURE 3 -1: KINGS COUNTY ROADWAY DESIGNATIONS ................................ ................ 3-4 FIGURE 3 -2: AVENAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS ................................ .................. 3-5 FIGURE 3 -3: CORCORAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS ................................ .............. 3-7 FIGURE 3 -4: HANFORD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS ................................ ................ 3-9 FIGURE 3 -5: LEMOORE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS ................................ .............. 3-11 FIGURE 3 -6: LNAS FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS ................................ ................... 3-12 FIGURE 3 -7: SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA ................................ ................................ ... 3-13 FIGURE 3 -8: TRIP TO WORK MODES ................................ ................................ ...... 3-15 FIGURE 3 -9: LICENSED DRIVERS AND REGISTERED VEHICLES IN KINGS COUNTY ............. 3-15 FIGURE 3 -10: STATE HIGHWAY VMT IN KINGS COUNTY ................................ .............. 3-16 FIGURE 3 -11: STATE HIGHWAY AND LOCAL ROAD VMT PER CAPITA IN KINGS COUNTY ....... 3-16 FIGURE 3 -12: MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS BY LOCATION ................................ .......... 3-21 FIGURE 3 -13: AM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR PASSENGER CARS (PCS) ONLY ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3-25 FIGURE 3 -14: AM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR TRUCKS ONLY 3-26 FIGURE 3 -15: AM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR BOTH TRUCKS AND PASSENGER CARS (PCS) ................................ ................................ ...................... 3-27 FIGURE 3 -16: PM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR PASSENGER CARS (PCS) ONLY ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3-28 FIGURE 3 -17: PM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR TRUCKS ONLY 3-29 FIGURE 3 -18: PM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR BOTH TRUCKS AND PASSENGER CARS (PCS) ................................ ................................ ...................... 3-30 FIGURE 3 -19: KINGS COUNTY PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) PER YEAR .................. 3-32 FIGURE 3 -20: PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE CONDITIONS, KINGS COUNTY ............................. 3-33 FIGURE 3 -21: AVAILABLE VEHICLES BY HOUSING UNITS IN KINGS COUNTY 2024 ............. 3-36 FIGURE 3 -22: PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY IN KINGS COUNTY* 2024 ........................... 3-37 FIGURE 3 -23: TRIP -TO -WORK PRIVATE VEHICLE OCCUPANCY FOR KINGS COUNTY 2024 ..... 3-37 FIGURE 3 -24: VEHICLE OCCUPANCY BY JURISDICTION ................................ ............... 3-38 FIGURE 3 -27: KINGS COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES ................................ .......... 3-39 FIGURE 25: KART BUSES AT HANFORD TRANSIT CENTER ................................ ............ 3-41 FIGURE 26. KART ON -DEMAND AND FLEX ROUTE ELECTRIC MINIBUS ............................. 3-42 FIGURE 3 -28: KART SYSTEM RIDERSHIP 2013- 2024 ................................ .................. 3-42 FIGURE 3 -29: KART ROUTE AVERAGE ALL DAY SPEEDS ................................ .............. 3-43

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -ix FIGURE 3 -30: KART ROUTES AVERAGE PEAK HOUR SPEEDS ................................ ......... 3-44 FIGURE 3 -31: KART VANPOOL TRIPS (2021- 2024) ................................ .................... 3-45 FIGURE 32: KART TRANSIT CENTER ................................ ................................ ....... 3-48 FIGURE 3 -33: CORCORAN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 2014- 2024 ................................ .......... 3-50 FIGURE 3 -34: CALVANS RIDERSHIP 2013- 2024 ................................ ........................ 3-52 FIGURE 3 -35: KINGS COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSIT CENTER ................................ ......... 3-56 FIGURE 3 -36: KINGS -TULARE STATION CONCEPTUAL RENDER ................................ ....... 3-61 FIGURE 3 -37: FUTURE BUS CONNECTIONS ................................ .............................. 3-62 FIGURE 3 -38: RIDERSHIP OVER TIME, GOLD RUNNER, 2007- 2024 ................................ 3-66 FIGURE 3 -39: HANFORD AMTRAK STATION RIDERSHIP, 2013- 2024 ............................... 3-68 FIGURE 3 -40: CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL CENTRAL VALLEY SEGMENT PLANS .............. 3-69 FIGURE 3 -41: ESTIMATED ANNUAL TRUCK VMT, KINGS COUNTY 2013 -2024 .................... 3-70 FIGURE 3 -42: KINGS COUNTY FARM PRODUCE PERCENT OF TOTAL VALUE 2024 ................ 3-71 FIGURE 3 -43: KINGS COUNTY OVERSIZE TRUCK ROUTES ................................ ............ 3-73 FIGURE 3 -44: AVENAL TRUCK ROUTES ................................ ................................ ... 3-74 FIGURE 3 -45: CORCORAN TRUCK ROUTES ................................ ............................... 3-75 FIGURE 3 -46: HANFORD TRUCK ROUTES ................................ ................................ . 3-76 FIGURE 3 -47: LEMOORE TRUCK ROUTES ................................ ................................ . 3-77 FIGURE 3 -48: KINGS COUNTY RAILROADS ................................ .............................. 3-78 FIGURE 3 -49: KINGS COUNTY AIRPORTS/HELIPORTS ................................ ................. 3-86 FIGURE 3 -50: REGISTERED AIRCRAFT BY LISTED ADDRESS, KINGS COUNTY ................... 3-87 FIGURE 4 -1: AIR MONITORING SITES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ................................ 4-2 FIGURE 5 -1: FORECAST REVENUES BY SOURCE ................................ ............................. 2 FIGURE 5 -2: FORMULA VS COMPETITIVE FUNDS BREAKDOWN ................................ ........... 2 FIGURE 5 -3: ANNUAL PROJECTED FUNDING BREAKDOWN BY SOURCE ................................ .. 3 FIGURE 6 -1: COMPARISON OF PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ............................ 2 FIGURE 6 -2: BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURES BY TYPE ................................ .................... 3 FIGURE 6 -3: LISTED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIMARY PROJECT TYPES ....................... 3 FIGURE 6 -4: INVESTMENTS BY JURISDICTIONS ................................ ............................. 4 FIGURE 6 -5: PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN BY TYPE, AVENAL ................................ ............. 6 FIGURE 6 -6: AVENAL ROADWAY PROJECT LOCATIONS ................................ ..................... 6

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -x FIGURE 6 -7: PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN BY TYPE, CORCORAN ................................ ......... 9 FIGURE 6 -8: COST BREAKDOWN BY PROJECT TYPE, HANFORD ................................ ......... 17 FIGURE 6 -9: HANFORD ROADWAY PROJECT LOCATIONS ................................ ................. 18 FIGURE 6 -10: COST BREAKDOWN BY PROJECT TYPE, LEMOORE ................................ ....... 21 FIGURE 6 -11: LEMOORE ROADWAY PROJECT LOCATIONS ................................ ............... 21 FIGURE 6 -12: COST BREAKDOWN BY PROJECT TYPE, COUNTY OF KINGS ............................ 26 FIGURE 6 -13: COUNTY OF KINGS ROADWAY PROJECT LOCATIONS ................................ .... 26 FIGURE 6 -14: COST BREAKDOWN BY PROJECT TYPE, KCAPTA ................................ .......... 28 FIGURE 6 -15: NEW KART HANFORD BUS STATION LOCATION ................................ .......... 32 FIGURE 7 -1: COUNTYWIDE EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS ................................ ............... 7-27 FIGURE 7 -2: EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN HANFORD ................................ ......... 7-28 FIGURE 7 -3: DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS (SCENARIO A) ................................ ....... 7-32 FIGURE 7 -4: HANFORD DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS (SCENARIO A) .......................... 7-33 FIGURE 7 -5: LEMOORE DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS (SCENARIO A) .......................... 7-34 FIGURE 7 -6: 2050 HOUSEHOLD INCREMENT (SCENARIO A: 2035 INTERPOLATED) ............. 7-35 FIGURE 7 -7: 2050 HANFORD HOUSEHOLD INCREMENT (SCENARIO A: 2035 INTERPOLATED) 7-36 FIGURE 7 -8: 2050 LEMOORE HOUSEHOLD INCREMENT (SCENARIO A:2035 INTERPOLATED) . 7-37 FIGURE 7 -9: ANTICIPATED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES (SCENARIOS A, B, C) ............... 7-38 FIGURE 7 -10: ANTICIPATED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES (SCENARIOS A, B, C) ............. 7-38 FIGURE 7 -11: ADU GROWTH (SCENARIO B) ................................ ............................. 7-39 FIGURE 7 -12: COUNTYWIDE VMT EFFICIENT TAZS – RESIDENTIAL GROWTH (SCENARIO C) . 7-41 FIGURE 7 -13: COUNTYWIDE VMT EFFICIENT TAZS - NON -RESIDENTIAL GROWTH (SCENARIO C) ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7-42 FIGURE 7 -14: PERSON TRIPS BY PURPOSE (SCENARIOS A, B, C) ................................ .. 7-43 FIGURE 7 -15: TRIPS BY TRIP LENGTH (SCENARIOS A, B, C) ................................ ........ 7-43 FIGURE 7 -16: TRIPS BY MODE AND AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH (SCENARIOS A, B, C) ............. 7-44 FIGURE 7 -17: AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY MODE AND PURPOSE (SCENARIO A, B, C) .......... 7-45 FIGURE 7 -18: DAILY VMT – ISOLATING EFFECT OF LAND USE BY SCENARIO .................... 7-46 FIGURE 7 -19: DAILY VMT REDUCTION BY PROJECT TYPE AND SCENARIO ........................ 7-46 FIGURE 7 -20: DAILY CO2 EMISSION REDUCTION RESULTS BY PROJECT TYPE & SCENARIO .. 7-47

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -xi

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 -1: POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS IN KINGS COUNTY JURISDICTIONS (2021- 2025) .. 11 TABLE 1 -2: KINGS COUNTY URBAN POPULATION CHANGE: 10 YEAR CHANGE (1990- 2020) ..... 13 TABLE 1 -3: NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF THOSE IN POVERTY ................................ ....... 14 TABLE 1 -4: KINGS COUNTY CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES BY INDUSTRY, 2023 .............................. 15 TABLE 3 -1: MAINTAINED ROAD MILEAGE IN KINGS COUNTY 2024 ................................ ... 3-2 TABLE 3 -2: RESIDENTS WORK LOCATIONS – COUNTYWIDE (2024) ................................ 3-17 TABLE 3 -3: CITY RESIDENTS WORK LOCATIONS (2024) ................................ ............. 3-17 TABLE 3 -4: TRIP TO WORK TRAVEL TIMES - COUNTYWIDE (2024) ................................ . 3-17 TABLE 3 -5: TRIP TO WORK TRAVEL TIMES FOR KINGS COUNTY CITIES AND LNAS (2023) ... 3-18 TABLE 3 -6: COUNTYWIDE VMT PER CAPITA 2013 VS 2024 ................................ ........... 3-18 TABLE 3 -7: MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION TYPES IN KINGS COUNTY (2019 -2025*) ............. 3-19 TABLE 3 -8: COLLISIONS IN FOG BY MONTH (2019 -2024) ................................ ........... 3-20 TABLE 3 -9: RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION CHART ................................ ................... 3-23 TABLE 3 -10: PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION, BY PERCENT OF ROADWAY, KINGS COUNTY 95TH PERCENTILE BTI ................................ ................................ ............. 3-24 TABLE 3 -11: GOLD RUNNER RIDERSHIP BY STATION FY24 ................................ .......... 3-67 TABLE 3 -12: KINGS COUNTY LEADING FARM PRODUCTS* BY VALUE .............................. 3-72 TABLE 3 -13: RAIL RIGHT -OF -WAY INVENTORY ................................ ......................... 3-83 TABLE 3 -14: KINGS COUNTY AVIATION FACILITIES 2026 ................................ ............ 3-88 TABLE 5 -1: REVENUE PROJECTION FOR KINGS COUNTY ................................ ................... 7 TABLE 6 -1: PROJECTED EXPENDITURES BY JURISDICTION ................................ ......... 2 TABLE 6 -2: AVENAL TIER I FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS ................................ .... 5 TABLE 6 -3: CORCORAN TIER I FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS ................................ 7 TABLE 6 -4: HANFORD TIER I FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS ................................ 10 TABLE 6 -5: LEMOORE TIER I FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS ................................ 19 TABLE 6 -6: COUNTY OF KINGS TIER I FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS ..................... 22 TABLE 6 -7: KCAPTA TIER I FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS ................................ .. 27 TABLE 6 -8: KINGS COUNTY SHOPP PROJECT LIST ................................ ........................ 28 TABLE 6 -9: KINGS COUNTY HSIP PROJECT LIST ................................ .......................... 29 TABLE 6 -10: CMAQ PROJECTS ................................ ................................ ................. 31

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -xii TABLE 7 -1: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION ................................ ............. 7-6 TABLE 7 -2: OFF -MODEL CATEGORIES ................................ ................................ ..... 7-52 TABLE 7 -3: EMISSION REDUCTION PER SCENARIO ................................ .................... 7-53 TABLE 7 -4: GREENHOUSE GAS PER CAPITA EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF SCS SCENARIOS .... 7-53 TABLE 7 -5: RTP/SCS PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................ ........................ 7-55

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW
This executive summary will include a brief introduction on demographic and transportation trends in Kings County, the preferred land -use scenario, information on outreach and equity analyses information on the financially constrained projects, greenhouse gas and emissions conformity, and environmental clearance.

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Kings County is a largely rural agricultural county with four incorporated cities: Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore. The County also supports four community service and public utility districts:

Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford. The population of Kings County is approximately 154,0151.

The Kings Regional Vision effort, led by the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG), is the 2026 update for the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

KCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and state -designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA). Regionally, development of the RTP/SCS has included input and assistance from each of the five jurisdictions in Kings County.

An RTP/SCS is a long-term (minimum 20 year) planning document updated every 4 years. This 2026 RTP/SCS covers the years 2026 through 2049. The document must be multimodal, covering roadways, transit, active transportation, freight, and aviation, must address the transportation and land use nexus, state and federal environmental regulatory requirements, including air quality, and contain a fiscally constrained transportation project list. For transportation improvement projects to be eligible for state and federal funds, they must be listed in an adopted RTP/SCS.

DEMOGRAPHICS AN D TRANSPORTATION TRENDS
As shown in Figure ES-1 and Figure ES-2, Kings County’s population as of 2023 is relatively young, however population is expected to decline after 2030. The California Department of Finance forecasts an average growth rate of -0.27% between 2025 and 2049. Like its population, the Countywide Daily VMT per Capita shows modest growth, as seen in Figure ES-3, however there was a slight decline in VMT per capita resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

1 California Department of Finance, 2025.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -3

FIGURE ES -1: KINGS COUNTY POPULATION PYRAMID
Source: American Community Survey, 2024 5-Year Estimates.

FIGURE ES-2: HISTORIC AND FORECAST POPULATION GROWTH, KINGS COUNTY .

Source: California Department of Finance
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Unde r 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
P opulati on
Age Group
Kings County Population Pyramid
Male Female
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 Population
Ye ar
Kings County Population
Past, Present, Future
2010 - 2070

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -4

FIGURE ES -3: DAILY COUNTYWIDE VMT PER CAPITA
Source: California Public Road Data
As a predominantly rural County with vital arterial
routes between San Francisco and Los Angeles, as
well as routes linking throughout the San Joaquin
Valley, most travel in the County is done by personal
vehicle. However, KCAG developed this RTP/SCS with
a vision on supporting a robust transportation system
that serves all residents and visitors of Kings County, balanced against regional and statewide goals. This
goes well beyond optimizing existing roadways and
includes strong investments in future transit service
and improved bicycle and pedestrian connections.

Kings County is also preparing for a future with low -emissions vehicles, including the planned development of a zero-emission transit vehicle fleet, and preparing for interim high speed rail service slated to begin in the Valley by the end of the decade. Local and regional partners have spent recent years developing plans ranging from a low- and zero-emissions truck corridor and electric vehicle adoption needs/scenarios, to plans for well-connected regional transit networks and a regional active transportation plan.

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

DAIL Y VMT PER CAPIT A
YEAR
Countywide Daily VMT per Capita (2013 - 2024)
VM T Pe r C a p i ta

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -5

SCENARIO TESTING
Scenario testing is required to be included in the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) pursuant to SB 375. The purpose of scenario testing is to gauge the effectiveness of integrating transportation investments relative to a given land use growth pattern. In coordination with KCAG’s member local jurisdictions, four integrated land use and transportation investment scenarios were developed.

Scenario A envisions a future where cities grew as prescribed by their existing general plans. The investment portfolio includes roadway maintenance, Kings Area Regional Transit (KART) service enhancements, and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, while maintaining medium investment in alternative fuel vehicles, and lower levels of investment in ridesharing, transit service expansion, operational improvements, such as roundabouts or intelligent transportation strategies, and land use. Roadway system preservation is prioritized, and no new state highway facility capacity is assumed.

Scenario B reflects efforts in several jurisdictions to accommodate new laws regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (AB 1584) and lot splits (SB9). This scenario reflects potential market response for increases in ADU activity and lot-split activity in established single family residential areas in the County. These activities increase housing density in established urban areas within the County.

Similar to Scenario A, roadway system preservation is prioritized, and no new state highway facility capacity is assumed.

Scenario C envisions growth in land use areas that are efficient (i.e., VMT). This scenario prioritizes growth and development in Land Use efficient or VMT efficient zones (15 percent below countywide average VMT/capita (residential uses) and VMT/employee (non- residential uses). This scenario follows the same funding investment as Scenario A.

Scenario D envisions a future where cities grew as prescribed by their existing general plans (same as Scenario A) but also assumes increased levels of public and private spending on electromobility infrastructure, increased state spending on broadband, and greater level of spending on bicycle and pedestrian facilities compared to scenarios A-C.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -6

PREFERRED LAND USE SCENARIO
The KCAG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the KCAG RTP/SCS Stakeholders Advisory Group met on August 12, 2026 and August 13, 2026 respectively. Both committees recommended Scenario X as the 2026 RTP/SCS preferred scenario. The KCAG Transportation Policy Committee was briefed on August 26, 2026 and based on input from the KCAG TAC and RTP/SCS Stakeholders Advisory Group, formally selected Scenario X as the preferred Scenario for this RTP/SCS on August 26, 2026.

FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS
A key requirement of an RTP/SCS is that it must be
financially constrained. Reasonable estimates of
revenues anticipated over the life of the plan must
be made. The total anticipated revenues must be
greater than or equal to the transportation
improvement expenditures included in the plan. A
high-level summary of the expenditures outlined in
this document is shown in Figure ES-4 through
Figure ES-6.

FIGURE ES -4 : ANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES BY TYPE
Roadway
Expenditures,

72.30%
Transit
Expenditures,

25.10%
Active
Transportation
Expenditures,

1.00%
Aviation Project
Expenditures,

0.97% Air Quality
Projects, 0.64%

EXPENDITURE BY TYPE

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -7

FIGURE ES -5 : ROADWAY EXPENDITURES BY TYPE

FIGURE ES -6 : COMPARISON OF ANTICIPATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Maintenance
Projects,

48.85%
Signal
Installation/
Infrastructure
Upgrade, 9.96%
Widening,

41.19%

ROADWAY PROJECTS BY MAIN LISTED

IMPROVEMENT TYPE
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
Revenues Expenditures
Thousand Dollars ($000)
Comparison of Anticipated Revenue and Expenditures
Anticipated Revenue Operating Costs
Roadway Projects Transit Projects
Active Transportation Projects Aviation Projects
Air Quality

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -8

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND EQUITY ANALYSIS
Public outreach has been a key part of the Kings Regional Vision effort. Public engagement was conducted on social media, to local media outlets, at city council and board presentations, and a special website, www.kings- regionalvision.com/, was developed for the purposes of the RTP/SCS update.

KCAG held two public engagement workshops in October 2025 to present existing conditions findings and the purpose of the RTP/SCS to the public.

Future workshops will aid in establishing regional priorities and vision.

Public outreach has been a key part of KCAG’s ongoing efforts to provide equitable input to shape the development of the RTP/SCS. KCAG has worked to involve stakeholders from throughout the County and has considered how its improvements can best create a transportation system that meets all the region’s needs with the resources the local jurisdictions have.

A summary of public engagement feedback is included in Appendix IX.

ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
All scenarios must meet state and federal air quality
goals. As shown in the table to the right, all scenarios meet the required Federal air quality requirements.

These scenarios are also required to meet statewide
greenhouse gas reduction goals. The target that Kings
County must meet in this RTP/SCS cycle is 13%.

Scenario X, the preferred scenario, is projected to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by XX .X% over the
life of the plan. In addition, Scenario A complies with all federal transportation-air quality conformity regulatory requirements for health-based criteria pollutants that
Kings County is currently nonattainment (i.e., ozone
(O
3), particulate matter (PM -10) and fine particulate
matter (PM 2.5).

A Programmatic E nvironmental Impact Report ( PEIR)
for the 2022 RTP/SCS, was certified by KCAG on
September 14, 2022. An addendum to the PEIR was
prepared for the 2026 RTP/SCS and is provided under separate cover.

Mobile Source
Pollutant
Measure Met by
Scenario?
2008 and 2015
8-Hour Ozone 
PM-10 
1997 24-Hour PM

2.5 
1997 Annual PM

2.5 
2006 PM 2.5
Winter 24-Hour 
2012 Annual PM

2.5 
2012 Pending
Annual 2.5 

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATE GY • JULY 13, 2026 • ES -9

CONCLUSION
KCAG has prepared an RTP/SCS that will guide future transportation investment within the County in the short, medium, and long term of the plan horizon. The plan considers the nature of the County, future changes to the transportation system and land use, the impacts of future investments, and complies with financial and environmental planning requirements. KCAG has developed this multimodal plan in consultation with the local agencies of Kings County, namely, the incorporated cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Lemoore, Hanford, and the County of Kings and has conducted robust public participation to ensure that this plan reflects regional priorities. The RTP/SCS includes significant investments in the future of Kings County beyond roadways with significant investment in all transportation modes including public transportation, active transportation, electromobility, goods movement, and aviation.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-1 CHAPTER 1 :

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE
The main purpose of this Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is to describe how transportation can complement regional goals and objectives. Transportation not only influences, but it is also affected by local public policy planning for land use, infrastructure, housing, and economic development. This plan considers a broad range of policy matters affecting transportation as the need continues to exist coordinate all facets of community structure.

This plan is designed to comply with the 2024 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on January 26, 2024. It is expected to be used as a guide by state and local officials as they strive to upgrade the overall transportation system in Kings County. In addition, this plan is a data source and information document for the public . As such, it will be of value as a decision -making tool to anyone who has the desire to improve and benefit from an upgraded regional transportation system in Kings County.

REGIONAL SETTING
The study area includes all of Kings County, which is approximately 1,396 square miles, including its incorporated and unincorporated areas (See Figure 1-1). Located in the San Joaquin Valley, Kings County is bounded by Fresno, Tulare, Kern, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo counties. Elevations range from 175 feet in the Tulare Lake Basin to 3,473 feet at Table Mountain in the southwestern portion of the county. Kings County is primarily rural agricultural land with roughly two-thirds of the county’s land area being level, irrigated farmland.

BACKGROUND TO THIS PLAN

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
This 2026 RTP update was prepared by the staff of the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) with assistance from each of its member agencies: the cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore and the County of Kings. The Santa Rosa Tachi -Yokut tribe was also consulted during the development of the RTP. Caltrans District 6 , Lemoore Naval Air Station, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District furnished helpful information, comments, and general support of this planning effort.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-2

KCAG ORGANIZATION
The Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) is a council of governments that addresses inter-jurisdictional public policy matters. Transportation is a major area of concentration. KCAG is a state-designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) recognized by the state's Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and a federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). As an MPO/RTPA, KCAG prepares and maintains the Regional Transportation Plan, prepares the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). KCAG also reviews the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and other state transportation programs, monitors local public transit operations, and oversees federal transportation grant proposals. KCAG is also charged with administering the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund. The organization of KCAG is shown in Figure 1-2.

FIGURE 1-1: KINGS COUNTY LOCATION MAP
Source: California State Geoportal

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-3 All RTPA activities are gov erned by the KCAG Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) composed of locally elected officials from each of the member agencies and the staff from Caltrans District 6.

The TPC is advised by two committees:

1. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Members of the TAC include KCAG staff, county and city public works and planning directors, city managers, county administrative officer, Caltrans District 6 staff, a Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) representative, a Lemoore Naval Air Station (LNAS) representative, a San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District representative, and a Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe representative; and,

2. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) : Members of the SSTAC include appointed representatives of social service providers and transit users. The SSTAC provides input to the RTPA on the transit needs of transit dependent and transit disadvantaged persons, including elderly, disabled, and low- income persons. Other citizen committees are formed on an ad hoc basis by the TPC.

FIGURE 1-2: KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS COMMISSION ORGANIZATION Source: KCAG

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-4

ORGANIZATION OF THIS PLAN
It is the intent of KCAG to produce an informative, readable, and credible document that provides a clear display of transportation needs and demands in Kings County. To do so, the following format is followed:

1. Relevant socio- economic and transportation assumptions are stated. These are supported by inventories and forecasts.

2. Emerging and recurring transportation issues are identified and evaluated.

3. In response to the assumptions and issues, relevant objectives and policies are stated.

These are the guidelines for decision making.

4. To carry out the objectives and policies in light of the issues and assumptions, an implementation strategy for improvements is identified.

5. Financial resources needed to cover the costs of recommended projects and programs are discussed.

This section discusses the development of the 2026 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and provides an overview of how KCAG and the San Joaquin Valley MPOs as a whole, coordinated the development of the 2026 RTP/SCS.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
This plan is a continuation of the transportation planning process that began in Kings County in 1975 with the adoption of the first Kings County Regional Transportation Plan, which has provided a foundation for each of KCAG's subsequent RTP updates.

This RTP update examines the need for improved facilities and services, while acknowledging current budget constraints. Most importantly, this plan sheds new light on the need for specific major improvements to the regional highway system.

A number of other state and local plans were examined for consistency with this plan. There were no significant areas where other plans conflicted with this document. There were several minor differences among other Regional Transportation Plans in the San Joaquin Valley, but no major policy conflicts. The plans reviewed include local agency General Plan Circulation Elements, Active Transportation Plans, Area Plans, Economic Studies, Environmental Impact Reports, and previous Regional Transportation Plan updates. The full list of plans reviewed is included in Appendix I.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING REGULATIONS Federal regulations (23 U.S.C. 134, 23 U.S.C. 150, and 49 U.S.C. 5303. a s amended) have established the national policy for designated MPOs to implement a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive performance-based multimodal transportation planning process.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-5 As the designated MPO for Kings County, KCAG is responsible for addressing all regional transportation planning and programming requirements set forth in the MPO planning regulations.

These regulations work in tandem with the federal authorization bill described below.

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT OF 2021 (IIJA)
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is a federal funding bill that includes funding for infrastructure projects of various types across the United States, including for transportation.

Funding may help with regional connectivity projects, government fleet electrification, and Amtrak funding. The IIJA contains a 5-year reauthorization with increased funding for all core transportation programs in the United States and several new competitive grants. IIJA funding is anticipated to end in 2026.

The IIJA continues the primary changes established by the two prior reauthorization bills: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century of 2012 (MAP-21) and Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2016 (FAST Act) . MAP-21 made major changes in the programmatic structure for both highways and public transportation and included initiatives intended to increase program efficiency through performance -based planning and the streamlining of project development. A nother key feature of MAP-21 is the establishment of a performance - and outcome- based program, known as “Performance Based Planning”, with the objective to invest in projects that will make progress toward the achievement of the national goals for the transportation. The FAST Act carried forward the same performance management framework. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) worked with state and regional agencies to identify performance measures that meet the requirements. Beginning in 2018, state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Transportation Organizations (MPOs) were required to implement the Federal performance measures.

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 32 AND S ENATE BILL 375
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, establish California’s climate change strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . Although AB 32 did not have a direct effect on the transportation plans, SB 375 is a supplement to AB 32 that directly impacts the plans.

SB 375 requires that each metropolitan planning organization prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an integrated element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that is updated every four years. The SCS is intended to show how integrated land use and transportation planning can lead to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.

See Chapter 7 for the SCS.

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN GUIDELINES ( 2024) As a fundamental building block of the State’s transportation system, the RTP should support state goals for transportation, environmental quality, economic growth, and social equity (California Government Code Section 65041.1). In recognition of this, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) updated the California RTP Guidelines in 2024 to promote an integrated, statewide, multimodal, regional transportation planning process and effective transportation investments in

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-6 California. The RTP Guidelines provide guidance to MPOs and RTPAs for developing RTPs that meet applicable federal and state transportation planning requirements. The goal of California’s regional transportation planning process is to implement transportation projects that maintain California’s commitment to public health and environmental quality while considering the views of all stakeholders.

CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2050
The California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2050 is the state’s blueprint for transportation and land use strategies that aim to improve the movement of people and goods. The CTP 2050 is a tool for policy decision-makers; aligns regional goals and makes recommendations for strategies that positively impact land use and transportation practices in California. Similar to the SB 375 requirements for Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), SB 391 adds new requirements to the CTP to meet California’s climate change goals under AB 32. In addition, SB 391 required Caltrans to update the CTP every 5 years thereafter.

The CTP is a core document that addresses the applicable federal statewide and non -metropolitan transportation planning regulations and helps tie together several internal and external plans and programs to help define and plan transportation in California. Unlike the RTP, it is not project specific or subject to both federal air quality conformity regulations and CEQA, but it does look at how SCS implementation will influence the statewide multimodal transportation system, as well as how the state will achieve sufficient emission reductions in order to meet AB 32 and SB 391.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CONTINUING REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP
In 2010, the eight San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Metropolitan Planning Organizations coordinated with the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to formally begin coordinating on the technical aspects and the federal requirements related to the RTP. In addition, the Valley MPOs also initiated coordination with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to prepare for the state requirements established by Bill 32 and SB 375. In 2010, the Valley was awarded a $1 million grant from the Strategic Growth Council for valley wide model improvements to meet the requirements of AB 32 and SB 375.

The eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs have also continued to work cooperatively in the development of their planning and programming documents. KCAG and the other MPOs routinely participate in an Interagency Consultation (IAC) process that includes the MPOs, FHWA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Caltrans, the Air District, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and have held workshops to coordinate the development of the 2026 RTPs and 2027 FTIPs.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-7

KCAG PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
KCAG updated the 2025 Supplemental Public
Participation Plan (PPP) in preparation for the 2026
RTP/SCS effort. The PPP has been updated in
preparation for the 2026 RTP/SCS update. The updated
PPP identifies the following tasks that were performed as part of the 2026 RTP/SCS publication participation
process:
• Consultation with various public and local
agency representatives who are
representatives of the KCAG Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC). The Committee's
responsibilities are to provide information about their general plans and land use decisions to help develop a foundation for the 2026 RTP. The agencies were also asked to identify their priorities for RTP improvement projects and review and comment on various RTP elements. Three rounds of meetings were performed with each of the four cities and the county planning departments to gather the above information. • The Santa Rosa Tachi Yokut tribe has a representative member on the TAC and was included in the public participation process. KCAG’s adopted Public Participation Plan outlines various outreach activities required to meet the federal planning process, including a process for co nsultation with federally recognized Native American Tribal Governments. KCAG adopted a policy for government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Native American Tribal Governments in Kings County . Other disadvantaged communities were invited to public meetings and workshops to ensure that their input was reflected throughout the RTP/SCS development process (See Chapter 7 for Kings County Disadvantaged Communities Maps). • The KCAG Technical Advisory Committee convened several times during the development of the 2026 RTP/SCS. The TAC members were informed about the process, the approach to the plan, and the timeline of the development of the 2026 RTP/SCS. • KCAG hosted public meetings and met with the city councils and Board of Supervisors for each of the member jurisdictions and provided a presentation on the entirety of the 2026 RTP and answered questions from the councils, board, and the public. • KCAG staff formulated a focus group, the RTP Stakeholder Advisory Group consisting of community development and public works representatives from each of its member agencies, local transit agencies, LNAS, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Caltrans, LAFCo, and Laguna Irrigation District to provide , review, analyze, and formulate the information from local agency general plans . These representatives also

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-8 participated in the outreach workshops for receiving public input on for the Sustainable Communities Strategy scenarios.
• KCAG also requested meetings with the Tachi Yokut Tribe and Lemoore Naval Air Station, to provide an opportunity to inform them of the process, review the inputs and compare information with their general plans and land use policies for consistency. • The draft 2026 RTP documents were also placed on the KCAG website to provide widespread review and to allow comments from many agencies, groups, and individuals. • KCAG held another round of three noticed public workshops to explain the SCS scenarios and to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the scenarios. KCAG staff attended City Council meetings for the four cities and the Board of Supervisors meeting to provide the same information as was provided to the public. • Public hearings were noticed and held before the KCAG Transportation Policy Committee regarding review of the 2026 RTP/SCS. The general public is invited to attend the KCAG Transportation Policy Committee and KCAG Technical Advisory Committee meetings and meeting announcements are posted at the meeting locations, KCAG office, local newspapers, and the KCAG website. Copies of all notices, persons/agency comments, and the KCAG responses are on file at the KCAG office.

The KCAG outreach efforts for the development of the documents resulted in comments received from Caltrans and CARB . Comments on the draft document will be included as an appendix to the final document.

OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
This section seeks to integrate a wide range of social and economic matters that figure into KCAG's transportation planning process. It offers an understanding of how KCAG will approach transportation problems, make decisions, and develop recommendations. This section also aims to set forth the basic socio -economic facts of this region and to examine important transportation planning and programming issues that KCAG must consider.

ASSUMPTIONS AND INVENTORIES
Population Assumptions

1. Kings County is, and will remain for many years, a predominantly rural, sparsely settled, agricultural county. Of the approximate 890,545 agricultural acres within the County, approximately 84 % (749,100) acres are considered farmland.

2. Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone Contracts continue to hinder premature urban growth. The Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone Program for Kings County represent the most cost effective and extensive agricultural land preservation mechanism

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1-9 available to the County. As of 20241, Williamson Act Contracts accounted for 46% (341,792 Acres) of farmland in the County and Farmland Security Zone Contracts accounted for 43% (321,453 Acres) of county farmland. Kings County remains one of the highest land ratios for Williamson Act and Far mland Security Zone contracted land to total countywide acreage.

Therefore, this program serves as the most effective agricultural land preservation tool available to Kings County and ensures long term use of the County’s highly valued agricultural land resources remain in agriculture while also providing beneficial support to local farming operations.

3. Kings County is the home of the Lemoore Naval Air Station (LNAS), one of the Navy master jet bases in the United States. The air station will continue to strongly influence the population and cultural characteristics of Kings County by bringing new people into the area. The future role of the U.S. Navy and the closures of military bases around the country may affect LNAS.

The Kings County General Plan assumes a constant base population of 7,500 through the year 2030.

4. Kings County has a large percentage of young adults (due in part to the presence of LNAS), and a high birth rate (39.5) (due in part to the high number of young adults), however population is projected to decline by 34.7%
2 (See Figure 1-3).

5. The surrounding agricultural land preserves, the capacities of sewer and water facilities, and land use policies of the county and cities will restrict growth in the rural communities of Armona, Kettleman City, and Stratford. However, Armona has the possibility of incorporation in the future.

6. Kettleman City will continue as an agricultural employee housing community for the western portion of the County and as a highway service center
offering restaurants, gas, and electric vehicle charging station sites for statewide travelers on Interstate 5 and State Highway 41.

7. Stratford will continue to function as an agricultural service center and agricultural employee housing
community.

8. The Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe is located 4 miles south of Lemoore on roughly 2,300
acres. According to the American Community Survey
(ACS), the population of the Rancheria is 7 55
3 .

1 California Department of Conservation, GIS Open Data. 2 California Department of Finance, Population Projections (2025 Baseline). 3 American Community Survey 2024 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 10 Consultations with the Tribe regarding the future of the Rancheria are ongoing.

The Tachi Palace Casino Resort, a Tribal Enterprise, is the main source of livelihood and income for tribal members on the Rancheria and employs more than 1,400 people 4. Other sources of employment income include the tribal government, farming, and ranching. In addition, a tribal headquarters building, Head Start facility, park, and playground are located on the Rancheria. With multiple activities at the Tachi Palace Casino Resort, it is expected that there will be an increase in population residing on the Rancheria, an increase in available jobs, and an increase in traffic on local and regional roads leading to the Rancheria.

9. The California State Prison in Avenal is located about two miles southwest of downtown and occupies about 640 acres. As of 2025, there are nearly 1,300 employees at Avenal State Prison. Based on employment and housing data resulting in the opening of the prison in 1987, it is assumed that 75% of the new employees would come from outside the local area and 60% of relocated employees are expected to reside in the communities of Avenal, Hanford, and Lemoore. The Kings County General Plan assumes a constant population of 7,200 through the year 2035. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated inmate population of the Avenal State Prison is 3,821.

10. The California State Prison in Corcoran was opened in 1988 and is located adjacent to SR 43, approximately two miles south of downtown Corcoran. As of 2025, there are approximately 1,848 employees. It is estimated that 15% of the employees live in Corcoran, 35% in Hanford, and the remaining 50% outside Kings County. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated inmate population of the Corcoran State Prison is 2,657.

In addition to CSP-Corcoran, a second state prison and a Substance Abuse Treatment Facility were constructed in 1997 and located immediately south of the existing prison. There are approximately 1,947 employees at this facility. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated population of this facility is 5,319. The California Department of Corrections added emergency housing facilities within both prisons.

11. Table 1-1 below shows the population trend of Kings County from 2000 to 2025. Since 2010, the population of the County has remained relatively consistent, with minimal growth (1%).

However, from 2000 to 2010, Kings County had significant growth (18%). According to the State of California Department of Finance, there are approximately total 48,045 housing units with an average household size of 3.07 in Kings County.

12. The average annual population growth rate in Kings County will continue to be between 0 and 2%, with a long term annual average growth of about 0.5%. The California Department of Finance, as shown in Figure 1-4 , below, forecasts a modest annual growth rate peaking at

0.58% in 2026 before declining to -2.50% by 2070.

4 Tachi Palace Celebrates 30 Years in the Central Valley, October 2023.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 11

13. Kings County rural and urban population will remain relatively stagnant (Table 1-2).

TABLE 1-1: POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS IN KINGS COUNTY JURISDICTIONS (2021- 20 25) Source: U.S. Decennial Census, California Department of Finance *2025 Population is the California Department of Finance Estimate AREA 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
AVENAL
POPULATION 13,696 12,752 13,173 13,422 14,065 13,315
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE - 0.71% 0.33% 0.19% 0.47% - 0.55%

CORCORAN
POPULATION 22,339 20,819 22,020 21,476 21,765 21,612
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE - 0.70% 0.56% - 0.25% 0.13% - 0.07%

HANFORD
POPULATION 57,990 58,798 58,382 59,201 59,856 61,238
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 0.14% - 0.07% 0.14% 0.11% 0.23%

LEMOORE
POPULATION 27,038 27,273 27,026 27,007 27,122 27,692
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 0.09% - 0.09% - 0.01% 0.04% 0.21%

UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
POPULATION 32,011 31,525 31,320 30,874 31,072 30,158
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE -0.15% - 0.07% - 0.14% 0.06% - 0.30%

KINGS COUNTY (TOTAL)
POPULATION 152,486 151,167 151,921 151,980 153,880 154,015 ANNUAL GROWTH RATE - 0.09% 0.05% 0.00% 0.12% 0.01%

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 12

FIGURE 1-3 : POPULATION PYRAMID OF KINGS COUNTY
Source: American Community Survey (5-Year Estimates)

FIGURE 1-4 : KINGS COUNTY POPULATION: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE (2010 – 2070) Source: Department of Finance, State of California (October 2025)

8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Unde r 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
P opulati on
Age Group
Kings County Population Pyramid
Male Female
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 Population
Ye ar
Kings County Population
Past, Present, Future
2010 - 2070

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 13 TABLE 1-2 : KINGS COUNTY URBAN POPULATION CHANGE: 10 YEAR CHANGE (1990- 2020)

CATEGORY
1990 2000 2010 * 2020 *
Pop % Pop % Pop % Pop %
RURAL FARM 2,679 3% 2,520 2% N/A N/A N/A N/A
RURAL NON -FARM 28,241 28% 14,441 11% 16,601 11% 16,642 11% URBAN 70,549 70% 112,500 87% 136,381 89% 135,844 89%
TOTAL 101,469 100% 129,461 100% 152,982 100% 152,486 100% Source: U.S. Decennial Census
Notes: Rural Non-Farm: Unincorporated areas near cities, and rural towns of less than 2,500 persons. Urban: A community of 2,500 or more persons. The 2010 Census did not define rural as previous years did.

Economic Assumptions

1. Agriculture and related industries will remain the dominant sector of this region's economy.

That sector, together with LNAS and the California State Prisons in Avenal and Corcoran, will help buffer Kings County from sharp economic fluctuations. Poverty rates over time and Employees by Industry are shown below in Table 1-3 and Table 1-4. Poverty rates have steadily declined from 21% in 2012 to 15% in 2023.

2. Kings County is a low -income county. It will continue having a larger percentage of low - income persons and a smaller percentage of upper- income persons compared to the state.

This is due to the large farm worker population and lack of large industries. The annual average unemployment rate for Kings County in 2024 was 8.9%, this is higher than the statewide average unemployment rate of 5%. Unemployment rates and historical labor force data are shown in Figure 1-5 and Figure 1-6.

3. Per the California Economic Development Department, through the year 2028, most of the non-agriculture jobs created in Kings County are expected to be in retail trade, services, and manufacturing. Even though government is one of the largest employment industries, the industrial machinery servicing sector will lead in employment gains. Modest growth is expected in the number of agricultural technicians.

4. To meet the requirements of SB 535, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) designated disadvantaged communities (DACs). CalEPA has created a grading system (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) shown in Figure 1-7 that looks at the pollution burden and population characteristics of census tracts. CalEPA generally defines disadvantaged communities in four types of geographic areas:
a. census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0. b. census tracts lacking overall scores due to gaps but receiving the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 cumulative pollution burden scores.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 14 c. census tracts identified in the 2017 DAC designation as disadvantaged, regardless of their scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0.
d. areas under the control of federally recognized Tribes.

Using these definitions, much of the Central Valley would be considered as disadvantaged as shown in the SB 535 dashboard in Figure 1-8. In Figure 1-9, the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score for Kings County is shown. The county has an average score that puts it within the 74 th percentile.

5. The U.S Bureau Census Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LODES) database is used to see the inflow and outflow of the workforce of Kings County. In 2023, an estimated 55% of Kings County’s workforce commute out of the county to work and around 45% work within the county. Among the counties that Kings County residents travel to for work are the adjacent Tulare and Fresno Counties. Additionally, nearly 22,000 workers commute to Kings County for work and reside in adjacent counties. The inflow/outflow are shown in Figure 1-10 through Figure 1-12.

TABLE 1-3 : NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF THOSE IN POVERTY
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

COUNTY TOTAL
1969 1979 1989 1999 2012 2020 2023

PERSONS BELOW
POVERTY LINE 12,092 10,386 16,218 21,307 27,819 21,908 23,421

PERCENT OF GROUP
POPULATION 19.20% 14.57% 18.18% 19.50% 21.20% 16.00% 15%

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 15 TABLE 1-4 : KINGS COUNTY CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES BY INDUSTRY, 2023

Note: Includes only residents age 16 and above
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

INDUSTRY NUMBER PERCENT
Educational services, health care and
social assistance
11,064 20.81%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining
8,253 15.53%
Retail trade 5,578 10.49%
Public administration 5,142 9.67%
Manufacturing 4,792 9.01%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, and
accommodation and food services
4,554 8.57%
Professional, scientific, and
management, and administrative and
waste management services
3,489 6.56%
Transportation and warehousing, and
utilities
2,824 5.31%
Construction 2,153 4.05%
Other services, except public
administration
2,039 3.84%
Wholesale trade 1,660 3.12%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental and leasing
1,187 2.23%
Information 421 0.79%

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 16

FIGURE 1-5 : CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN KINGS COUNTY VS. STATEWIDE Source: California Economic Development Department

FIGURE 1-6 : KINGS COUNTY CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Source: California Economic Development Department

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 17

FIGURE 1-7 . CALENVIRO INDICATOR AND COMPONENT SCORING Source: Designation of Disadvantaged Communities, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 18

FIGURE 1-8 . SB 535 DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Source: California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 19

FIGURE 1-9: CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 PERCENTILE OF KINGS COUNTY Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Data Dashboard

FIGURE 1- 10: LABOR FORCE INFLOW & OUTFLOW
Source: US Census Bureau LODES Data

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 20

FIGURE 1- 11: WORKPLACE LOCATION FOR THOSE RESIDING IN KINGS COUNTY Source: US Census Bureau LODES Data

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 21

FIGURE 1- 12: RESIDENTS OF OTHER COUNTIES WORKING IN KINGS COUNTY Source: US Census Bureau LODES Data

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 22 Principal Land Use Policies and Assumptions

1. Adopted city and county general plans will continue to direct growth in the region. The following are significant long-term land use policies of city and county general plans. All are based on the premise that development must be contained in areas where urban services are most readily available. The idea is to lessen public service costs, while slowing the conversion of prime farmland to urban uses. T hese policies will help Kings County maintain its present pattern of development long into the future as a vast expanse of prime farmland with several articulated urban concentrations along state routes.

2. As the general plans will guide urban growth into compact, land -sparing configurations, the proportion of persons living in urban and incorporated areas will continue to increase.

Additional plans, including specific plans and other future plans, are detailed further in this RTP/SCS.

Avenal General Plan (2018)
• Preserve and enhance Avenal’s unique and small -town
character and minimize urban sprawl and “leap-frog”
development.
• Prioritize the development of vacant, underdeveloped, and/or re-developable land within the boundaries of the existing developed area and where urban services are or can be made available.
• Maximize farmland, open space , and wildlife habitat
preservation on lands outside of the City.

Corcoran Area General Plan (2014)
• Maintain and enhance Corcoran’s physical diversity, visual qualities and small-town characteristics.
• Minimize urban sprawl and “ leap-frog development ” and provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses.
• Give priority consideration to infill development of vacant and underutilized land within the City limits.
• Identify greenbelt areas on lands outside of the City in order to maximize farmland, open space, and wildlife
habitat preservation.

Hanford General Plan (2017)
• Promote a well-planned community that grows in an organized fashion. • Development preference of vacant and underutilized properties with limitation of urban sprawl-style development patterns in new growth areas.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 1- 23 • Recognize and protect the right of agricultural uses within the growth boundary to exist and continue to operate in proximity to new development on the fringes of the City.

Lemoore General Plan (2008)
• Promote a sustainable, balanced land use pattern that satisfies existing needs and safeguards future needs.
• Maintain a well-defined compact urban form, with a defined urban growth boundary and development intensities on land designated for urban uses. • Preserve Prime Farmland not needed to accommodate urban area growth. • Work to preserve State-designated Prime Farmland, retain agricultural use designation and encourage the continuation of farming activities outside the City.

Kings County General Plan (20105)
• Establish Community Plan land use policies and associated improvement standards to integrate smart growth principles and compact urban design to revitalize existing communities.
• Prioritize infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels within the existing special district boundaries.
• Require urban growth to be contiguous to existing urban development and to annex to a city or community services district.
• Preserve the integrity of the County’s agricultural land resources through agricultural land use designations and other long term preservation policies. • Promote the orderly growth of Kings County's urban areas by directing new development into incorporated cities where services are provided.
• Ensure that growth in unincorporated communities is coordinated with general plan and special district's improvement programs and capabilities. • Prevent haphazard, sprawling, or "leapfrog" growth by infilling vacant or under-utilized lots within the community fringes.

5 Kings County is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. The General Plan Update is anticipated to be completed in 2026.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-1 CHAPTER 2 :

THE POLICY ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL; PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES This chapter seeks to establish a central goal to guide the Regional Transportation Plan and to define objectives and policies needed to meet the goal and to respond to the issues that KCAG must consider. State guidelines require RTPAs and MPOs to develop realistic goals, policies, and objectives to guide state and local planning efforts. The following definitions are prescribed:

A goal is the end toward which effort is directed; it is general and timeless.

A policy is a direction statement that guides present and future decisions on specific actions.

An objective is a result to be achieved by a stated point in time. It is capable of being quantified and realistically attained considering probable funding and political
constraints. Objectives are successive levels of
achievement in the movement toward a goal and should
be tied to a time-specific period for implementation.

In compliance with these guidelines and the Federal Transportation Planning Factors as outlined in 23 U.S.C. §134(h), an overall goal is presented to cover all aspects of KCAG's transportation planning endeavors. The goals, objectives, and policies found in this plan were developed from a number of sources: various state documents, the prior editions and supplements to the Kings County Regional Transportation Plan, general plans of the cities and county, and the comments of the KCAG Transportation Policy Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council.

OVERALL GOAL
To develop a transportation system that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient development, management, and operation of surface transportation systems to equitably and safely serve the mobility and accessibility needs of people and freight (including meeting the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, accessible pedestrian walkways, and bicycle transportation facilities) and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-2

PROGRAM POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Program Policy
Continue making full use of KCAG's decision-making forums, including their regular meetings, to examine alternative solutions to transportation needs and problems.

Program Objectives

1. Transportation decisions shall be made on the basis of the broadest range of Kings County area public interests.

2. KCAG shall provide clear and firm guidance to the California Transportation Commission, Caltrans, and local agencies on all transportation matters affecting Kings County.

3. Consider the California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2040 long- range policy framework to meet our future mobility needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster continued collaboration between local and statewide level planning.

4. Transportation decisions shall include Transportation Systems Management (TSM) evaluations.

5. Public safety, retention and maintenance of the existing system, and system efficiency and resilience shall be used as criteria in evaluating projects.

6. Total route or system development shall be considered when selecting projects.

7. Funding sources for all transportation modes shall be identified, evaluated , and developed. With these, a complete system that is accessible, safe, and efficient shall be built.

8. Public and private transportation facilities shall be planned and developed consistent with overall growth and development policies contained in city and county general plans.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Environmental Policy
The environmental consequences of transportation projects shall be taken into account . Of particular importance are impacts relating to air quality, energy use, noise, and changes in land use that negatively impacts land cover.

Environmental Objectives

1. Using Transportation System Management (TSM) evaluations, consider those alternative solutions that lessen environmental problems, yet serve transportation needs.

2. Seek to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts associated with selected alternatives.

3. Use environmental documents such as Initial Studies and EIRs as decision-making tools.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-3

4. Coordinate transportation control measures with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the latest air quality attainment plan for the San Joaquin Valley.

5. Consult with lead agencies on projects having environmental effects, of statewide, regional, or areawide significance on transportation facilities.

6. Maintain modeling capability that will respond to state and federal reporting requirements and the need for accurately projecting travel demand in future years.

7. Conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes for the protection of cultural resources in accordance with AB 52.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Public Participation Policy
Transportation facilities and services should meet the needs of all segments of the population.

KCAG employs an environmental justice approach to its public participation policy and procedures and welcomes community comment and guidance in its transportation planning and decision-making process.

Public Participation Objectives

1. Continue building an active citizen participation forum.

2. Seek representation from the entire community, including the elderly, low income, persons with disabilities, and the census -identified environmental justice areas and disadvantaged communities of Kings County.

3. Hold citizen meetings at convenient times and places.

4. Seek citizen comments early in the planning process, preferably in the problem - identification stage of project preparation.

5. Work to create an atmosphere that encourages the expression of all viewpoints, allowing both obvious and latent issues to be brought into the open.

6. Explore alternative methods of obtaining the public's views. Use surveys, make presentations to special interest groups, etc.

7. Keep local media informed of transportation issues and encourage their attendance at public meetings held by KCAG.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-4

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES

OVERALL HIGHWAY GOAL
Maintain, upgrade, and complete a regional system of roadways which is convenient, safe, and efficient, and which serves the needs of all users.

HIGHWAY SYSTEM POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Highway System Policy
Maintenance shall be continuous to keep the regional highway system from falling further into disrepair. The system shall be upgraded and completed as revenues allow.

Highway System Objectives

1. Maintain and rehabilitate the regional system; reconstruct deteriorated road sections.

2. Provide safety improvements to reduce the number, severity, and probability of fatal and serious injury vehicle collisions.

3. Undertake new construction projects to upgrade and complete the regional system, and to close gaps in local and state highway systems.

4. Implement operational improvements (such as ITS operations, road widening, relief of parking congestion, traffic signals, passing lanes, and turn lanes) to maximize service and efficiency.

5. Carry out landscaping and maintenance projects to help make highways compatible with their surroundings.

6. Enforce local ordinances regulating oversize truck terminal access.

7. Work with Caltrans and local agencies to obtain right-of -way dedications at designated future interchanges and along mainline portions of state highways within the regional transportation system.

8. Engage with the California State Legislature and the California Transportation Commission to adopt equitable laws and policies for apportioning fuel taxes and funding highway projects. Ensure that Kings County receives its equitable proportions of available discretionary transportation dollars.

9. Coordinate with other Regional Transportation Planning Agencies in the area to foster coordinated highway facilities planning.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-5

HIGHWAY SAFETY POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Highway Safety Policy
Improve routes of regional significance to promote the safe operation of vehicular traffic, especially during high collision probability times such as times of heavy winter fog, night, etc.

Highway Safety Objectives

1. Assist night and especially fog driving by providing and maintaining highly reflective "fog" or edge striping, or rumble strips either at edge or center divider line routes of regional significance.

2. Provide adequate shoulder areas on all state highways and rural regional routes.

3. Install traffic control measures on roads and at intersections when such measures are deemed necessary in accordance with the latest California Uniform Traffic Control Device Manual.

4. Improve and maintain regional route road pavement surfaces and drainage.

5. Widen or rehabilitate bridges where needed.

6. Provide adequate railroad grade protection devices.

7. Encourage the enforcement of posted speed limits.

GOODS MOVEMENT POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Goods Movement Policy
Support the efforts of the trucking and rail industries to transport commodities safely and efficiently.

Goods Movement Objectives

1. Access and support local and private agencies to expand the terminal access route designated by Caltrans to
connect to national routes.

2. Designate and maintain regional and local truck routes to improve safety, limit maintenance costs, and prevent major pavement deterioration on local streets and roads that are not designed for heavy truck traffic.

3. Where needed, widen regional highways and retrofit intersections to accommodate heavy truck traffic.

4. Support enforcement of local truck route ordinances.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-6

5. Develop plans to mitigate congestion on local streets and at intersections where heavy truck traffic occurs.

6. Support efforts to require all trucks carrying hazardous materials to have a manifest, including identification and instructions for handling materials in case of spills . Also support efforts to improve hazardous waste containers so that spillage or leakage does not occur.

7. Support truck weight fees that equitably provide for the highway maintenance costs resulting from heavy trucking.

8. Encourage the improvement of railways with the end purpose of increasing the efficiency of goods movements.

9. Support the installation of automatic grade protection devices at all grade crossings.

10. Improve rail grade crossings as needed to improve traffic flows.

11. Encourage the efficient movement of goods through California ports.

12. In concert with Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and local jurisdictions, restrict roads available for hazardous waste trucking to mitigate potential adverse effects associated with transportation.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES

REGIONAL TRANSIT GOAL, POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Regional Transit Goal
Provide safe, secure, coordinated, and efficient public transit systems that can reasonably meet the needs of residents.

Regional Transit Policy
Encourage and support the development of a safe, efficient, effective, and economical public transit system.

Regional Transit Objectives

1. Continue operating the Kings Area R egional Transit (KART) and Corcoran Area Transit (CAT) systems to provide dependable services for those living in Kings County's urbanized areas who have "unmet transit needs" which can be met at a cost KCAG determines to be reasonable.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-7

2. Provide assistance to social service agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of coordinated transportation services for their clients.

3. Encourage transit operators to minimize transit system operating costs by increasing ridership through the following examples:
a. Implement route and schedule modifications.
b. Implement equipment and maintenance improvements.
c. Implement an aggressive marketing program to improve the image of public transit.
d. Follow up on comments of the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC).

4. Follow recommendations included in the KCAG Kings County Transit Development Plan.

5. Assist eligible claimants, both public and private, in applying for federal transportation grants.

6. Encourage the practice of ridesharing/vanpooling as an alternative to single occupant vehicle commuting.

7. Utilize the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council to identify unmet transit needs of the transit dependent.

8. Encourage development of a transit system that interconnects and coordinates with other modes of transportation (e.g. passenger rail, intercity bus, multi -jurisdictional transit, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities, etc.).

9. Encourage and support the enhancement of transit services as a transportation control measure to improve air quality.

10. Support the coordination and consolidation of transit services where appropriate through the development and implementation of the Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan.

11. Develop cohesion and cooperation among transit operators that will result in efficient and accessible transit service between and within communities.

12. Support and encourage a network of fast, convenient, high quality transit services that are competitive with the cost and time to driving alone during peak periods.

13. Encourage employers to offer incentives, such as awards, flexible hours, and financial incentives for employees who use transit for their work commute.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-8

14. Coordinate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies amongst transit agencies to ensure systems compatibility and to enable the use of uniform regional passes and other fare media.

15. Encourage and support the transition to an all zero-emissions transit fleet.

INTERCITY RAIL AND BUS POLICY
Intercity Rail and Bus Policy
Preserve an effective and convenient intercity public transportation system of regularly scheduled bus and rail services.

Intercity Rail and Bus Objectives

1. Monitor and respond to all legislation that could impact bus or rail services in Kings County. Continue the use of KCAG as the forum through which public discussion on bus and rail matters is formalized into public policy recommendations.

2. Work with adjacent RTPA's and Caltrans to unify regional support for keeping and upgrading intercity bus and rail services through membership in the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority.

3. Continue Federal and State support of the Amtrak “Gold Runner” trains.

4. Support aggressive marketing programs for Amtrak trains and intercity buses.

5. Seek to coordinate local transit service schedules with those of intercity modes.

6. Support the programming of grade crossing improvements to increase the speed and safety of intercity rail services.

7. Ensure that possible upcoming changes to intercity bus and rail network continue to effectively serve Kings County residents.

8. Consolidate and accommodate transit services at the future High Speed Rail station location.

AVIATION GOAL, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES

OVERALL AVIATION GOAL
A fully functional and integrated air transportation and airport system that is complementary to the regional transportation system.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2-9

GENERAL AVIATION POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
General Aviation Policy
Promote the development and maximum utilization of public and private airports to provide for county and regional general air transportation needs.

General Aviation Objectives

1. See that the existing countywide airport system is maintained and upgraded. Where warranted, use federal, state, local, or private funds to carry out improvements.

2. Ensure that public expenditures for airport development are consistent with demonstrated public demand.

3. Support the retention of scheduled passenger air service at Fresno and Visalia to provide convenient and dependable links to major commercial airports.

4. Airport improvements, in particular at the Lemoore Naval Air Station, shall be protected by coordinated city or county land -use regulations in aviation easements . Such easements should be used to minimize the nuisance effect of airports on their surroundings, and to prevent the encroachment of uses that are incompatible with air operations.

5. Follow the recommendations of the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Hanford Municipal Airport Master Plan.

6. Recognize and allow airstrips necessary for servicing agricultural needs.

7. Support increases in aviation capital improvement funds and sources for rural general aviation public use airports.

AVIATION LAND USE POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Aviation Land Use Policy
Work with local agencies to ensure compatible land uses around existing airports to reduce noise and structure conflicts.

Aviation Land Use Objectives

1. Support the Kings County's Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the local airports in their efforts to ensure compatible land uses around airports.

2. Support the local airports in their attempts to acquire the land surrounding the airports.

3. Support noise abatement procedures around the local airports.

HANFORD AIRPORT POLICY AND OBJECTIVES

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2- 10 Hanford Airport Connectivity Policy
Maintain alternative modes of transportation to and from the Hanford Municipal Airport.

Hanford Airport Connectivity Objective

1. Support local transit service to and from the Hanford Municipal Airport.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Active Transportation Policy
Improve the existing transportation system to better accommodate bicycles and pedestrians as well as automobiles and trucks; improve public awareness of and competence in bicycle use; and improve public and private sector responsiveness to bicycle and pede strian transportation.

Active Transportation Objectives

1. Provide low-stress connections to multi-modal hubs such as the future High Speed Rail and Cross Valley Corridor stations.

2. Provide a well -developed, safe, and convenient, intermodally -connected system of bikeways complete with support facilities.

3. Ensure that future development supports and facilitates the expansion, improvement, and maintenance of the bikeway system.

4. Provide on-going bicycle safety education and information programs.

5. Implement bikeways that will connect major employers, educational facilities, and recreational areas.

6. Encourage partnerships between private, non- profit, governmental and citizens groups to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

7. Fund road maintenance that will also provide better roads for bicycles.

8. Correct roadway surface and hazards on bikeways.

9. Provide theft-resistant parking facilities at high-use destinations.

10. Eliminate physical barriers to bicycle travel.

11. Encourage enforcement of bicycle traffic laws.

12. Keep the freeway sections of State Route 198 closed to bicycles to prevent children from playing on the freeway.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2- 11

13. Start public awareness programs to increase acceptance of the bicycle.

14. Integrate bicycle and pedestrian considerations into local planning agendas.

15. Encourage local jurisdictions to implement complete streets and other multi- modal concepts as outlined by the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358), as well as Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R1 (DD-64-R1).

16. Encourage the use of bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation to enhance air quality and improve human health.

17. Implement the projects identified in the current "Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan".

18. Utilize the Bicycle Advisory Committee in the prioritization and programming of bicycle improvements.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES State planning guidelines suggest that TSM objectives be time - specific and quantified. This is to allow year -by-year analysis of progress toward TSM targets. These requirements apply to Transportation Management Agencies (TMA). Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) is not a TMA and is not required to participate in the Congestion Management Program (CMP).

Because of this distinction, the objectives in KCAG's program are not themselves quantified or time -specific. Staff acknowledges that Kings County, although considered a small urbanized area based on population, is very rural and its transportation improvements are small in scale compared to those of larger urbanized areas. While Kings County's size does not preclude TSM planning, it does make it hard to set realistic or meaningful target figures. The attainment of TSM objectives can be documented by periodic studies of the effectiveness of TSM measures in future RTPs.

SYSTEM MAINTENANCE POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Maintenance Policy
Maintain and improve the quality of the existing transportation system.

Maintenance Objectives

1. Shorten the travel time required to move people and goods on the existing system.

2. Ensure 15-minute walk from HSR station to pick up to drop off, and major transit hubs such as the Cross Valley Service.

3. Lower travel costs required to move people and goods on the existing system.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2- 12

4. Increase the safety of the existing system.

5. Improve the personal security of persons using the existing system.

6. Improve the comfort and convenience of the existing system.

7. Enhance the reliability of the existing system.

SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
System Improvement Policy
Increase the efficiency and minimize the cost of the existing transportation system.

System Improvement Objectives

1. Seek to reduce dependency upon the automobile for single occupant vehicle commuting by encouraging carpooling.

2. Encourage use of Kings County's transit system.

3. Facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel.

4. Find cost-effective ways to upgrade the existing system.

5. Minimize the operating costs of the existing system.

DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Demand Management Policy
Coordinate and educate new employers of demand management strategies such as Rule 9410.

Demand Management Objectives

1. Ensure employers are conforming with Rule 9410 and offering demand management strategies such as vanpool, park and ride.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Environmental Improvement Policy
Minimize the undesirable environmental impacts of existing transportation facilities and services.

Environmental Improvement Objectives

1. Reduce noise and vibration caused by the existing system.

2. Reduce air quality impacts caused by the existing system.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2- 13

3. Reduce the amount of energy consumed by users of the existing system.

SOCIETAL IMPACTS POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Societal Impacts Policy
Promote desirable and minimize undesirable social and economic impacts of the existing transportation system.

Societal Impacts Objectives

1. Provide adequate transportation services to the disadvantaged and transit dependent at a reasonable cost.

2. Provide reasonably priced public transit.

3. Minimize neighborhood impacts caused by transportation improvements.

4. Complement the long-range land-use policies of local general plans.

TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND AUTOMATION (NEW SECTION, 2022) Transportation technologies are being developed at an increasingly rapid pace. These technologies range from automated driving systems (AV), connected vehicles (CV), enhanced traffic controls (V2I), personal/cloud -informed software informing Mobility as a Service (MAAS), Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), micro - mobility, electr o-mobility, and improved broadband internet connectivity. New technologies will help improve traffic flow, improve safety, reduce mobile source GHG emissions, and enhance efficient energy use.

GENERAL TECHNOLOGICAL READINESS POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Technological Readiness Policy
Prepare for new technology systems by incrementally installing and upgrading existing communications and traffic signal systems.

Technological Readiness Objectives

1. Maintain and support regional and statewide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) plans and Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) plans and programs.

2. Encourage the installation of broadband fiber optic lines as part of roadway rehabilitation and improvement projects.

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2- 14

3. Support the expansion of high- quality broadband to all residential community areas of Kings County as well as schools and businesses.

4. Support roadway design features that facilitate autonomous vehicle -to-infrastructure communications.

5. Upgrade traffic signal software and communication systems using the latest statewide standard protocols as needed.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE READINESS POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
Electric Vehicle Readiness Policy
Support planning, analysis, and implementation of electric charging infrastructure systems.

Electric Vehicle Readiness Objectives

1. Gauge grid capacity within the existing grid to accommodate future EV demand and electrification infrastructure.

2. Support state/national efforts to expand access and quantity of electric charging stations by applying for grants and other funding and coordinating with statewide objectives.

3. Support and coordinate with conversion efforts of local, regional, and state -owned vehicle fleets, local and regional transit vehicles, and other transportation systems.

4. Support regional and local efforts to plan for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, use case identification, fleet analysis, travel analysis, public health, and equity analysis.

5. Monitor and support the impacts and enhancements to local transportation systems, trails, guideways, and other facilities which could result in improved usage of Light Electric Vehicles (LEV), including e-bikes, e-taxis, scooters, and other electric vehicles.

MOBILITY AS A SERVICE (MAAS) AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (TNC) CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT READINESS POLICY AND OBJECTIVES MAAS and TNC Policy
Support planning, analysis, and impact evaluation of Mobility as a Service (MAAS) technologies including cloud -based informatics, Transportation Network Companies (TNC), and other software-based transportation efficiency solutions.

MAAS and TNC Objectives

1. Work with local agencies to ensure curbside management strategies can accommodate pick up/drop off areas as appropriate.

2. Monitor and respond to impacts on and improvements to transportation systems from cloud-based transportation information applications which affect mobility (e.g.-Waze).

202 6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 2- 15

3. Gather travel data associated with usage of TNC ridesharing applications and vehicle sharing organizations and companies and incorporate such data into regional travel models and system usage forecasts and associated plans.

4. Support the education and dissemination of information on coordinated access, mobility, ticketing, payment, and scheduling of trips and trip chains through improved communication mobility technology services.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-1 CHAPTER 3 :

TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION
This chapter will summarize the existing transportation network in Kings County and its jurisdictions. This chapter will include trends related to circulation in Kings County.

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
This section focuses on the most utilized component of Kings County's transportation system:
the highway system. There are nearly 2,000 miles of surfaced roads in Kings County (See Table 3-1) that are maintained by the State, the County of Kings, and the four cities. Nearly all travel depends upon these roads, their bridges, overcrossings, interchanges, and traffic control devices.

The purpose of this section is to show the current conditions of the County’s roadways and justify improvements for the regional highway system based on the following:
• Outlining assumptions guiding KCAG's highway planning efforts; • Defining those roads which are of regional significance; and • Itemizing those issues affecting highway planning.

Projects deemed necessary for the maintenance and preservation of the regional roadway network will be presented in Chapter 6: Regional Transportation Needs.

This plan does not study all roads in Kings County, instead it identifies and examines key routes which serve regional, rather than merely local, transportation demands. This section is divided into two areas of study: the Countywide Regional System which includes the most heavily used county and state rural roads; and the Regionally Significant Roads in Urban Areas, which include roads that transect urban areas and serve regional traffic. Local access planning for circulation and parking belongs in city and county general plans and must be undertaken by local agencies.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-2 TABLE 3-1: MAINTAINED ROAD MILEAGE IN KINGS COUNTY 202 4 Source: Caltrans, 2024 California Public Road Data.
*Does not include state highway mileage.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Caltrans and local agencies have practiced a method of classifying roads by their function for many years. The idea is to categorize streets and highways by their expected capacity and access. This method furnishes an important link between transportation and land -use planning. A rational land development program cannot be realized if road designs and capacities are not related to the intensity of use they will serve. Every road has a unique role to play, and each must be calculated in its relationship with the larger network of roads.

There are three street and highway classes where through traffic prevails: Major Arterials, Minor Arterials, and Collectors. Major Arterials serve high -volume corridors that connect major traffic generators. Minor Arterials serve less concentrated traffic -generating areas, acting as boundaries to neighborhoods and collect traffic from Collector streets. Minor Arterial streets prime function is the movement of through traffic, but they also provide direct access to residential areas and neighborhoods, collecting traffic from local access streets and distributing it to the arterial system. Minor Collector streets would serve less traffic than Major Collectors.

Figure 3-1 illustrates functional classifications based on the functional classifications approved for the county by the Federal Highway Administration. The maps shown in Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-5 are based on the general plans of each city.

JURISDICTION MAINTAINED MILEAGE PERCENTAGE OF COUNTYWIDE TOTAL
STATE SYSTEM 156.09 8.46%
KINGS COUNTY 1,282.97 69.54%
AVENAL * 41.98 2.28%
CORCORAN * 64.10 3.47%
HANFORD * 209.02 11.33%
LEMOORE * 90.46 4.90%
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT 0.38 0.02%
TOTAL 1,845.01 100.00%

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-3

THE COUNTYWIDE REGIONAL SYSTEM
The roads that make up the countywide regional network are known collectively as Routes of Regional Significance with a system of roles as follows:
• Serve inter-county and intra-county travel;
• Link important population centers;
• Join with other regional routes to form a comprehensive network; and • Provide access between agricultural areas and processing facilities and markets.

Included in this system are 156. 09 miles of state -maintained regional routes . These are among the most important roads in this area because they serve most of the travel between Kings and surrounding counties, and they carry a very significant portion of intra- county traffic. Regionally significant, county-maintained roads satisfy the majority of the remaining intra-county demand. Figure 3-1 highlights some "Routes of Regional Significance."

REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ROADS
Avenal
General. Incorporated in 1979, Avenal is a community with a population of approximately over 13,000 located in the southwestern section of Kings County. With 19.5 square miles, Avenal has the largest land area of any city in the county, however only 2.5 square mi les is urbanized. Historically, its economy had been based on the petroleum industry, although in the 1970's, the California Aqueduct and Interstate 5 were completed which brought water and access and a shift from an oil-based economy to one based on agriculture.

Growth Trends. A state prison facility was constructed near Avenal in 1987. As of December 31, 2025, the prison inmate population was 3, 821, or roughly 29% of the total Avenal population. Over 1,200 jobs have been created to serve the prison population. A prior study found about 8 percent of the prison employees live in Avenal, with many of the employees commuting from Coalinga, Lemoore, and Hanford. As a result, state and local roads servi ng Avenal have elevated levels of local and commuter traffic.

Inventory of Regional Routes: See Figure 3-2 for Avenal’s functional roadway classifications.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-4

FIGURE 3-1: KINGS COUNTY ROADWAY DESIGNATIONS
Source: KCAG

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-5

FIGURE 3-2: AVENAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Source: City of Avenal

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-6 Corcoran
General. Corcoran is in southeastern Kings County, about 18 miles south of Hanford on SR 43 and borders the Kings County/Tulare County line. Corcoran considers itself as the “Farming Capital of the World.” It is the home of several major agricultural corporations with cotton ginning, grain milling, and plant oil extraction being the city's primary industries. According to the Department of Finance, the estimated total population of the area for 2026 was approximately 21,504 persons.

Growth Trends. Because modern farming is highly mechanized, there is limited demand for farm labor in Corcoran. Unless new job-producing industries can be attracted there, the area's population is expected to continue growing at a slow sustained rate. Such growth can be easily contained within the urban limits set by the city's general plan.

A state prison facility was constructed near Corcoran and opened in early 1988. The California Department of Corrections also constructed a substance abuse treatment center adjacent to the existing prison facility. There are approximately 3,800 employees at these facilities combined. As of December 31, 2025, the inmate population of both facilities combined was 7,976, which is approximately 37% of the city’s total population. Prior estimates have found that about 15% of the approximately 1,600 prison employees live in Corcoran, 23% in Hanford, 6% in Lemoore and the remaining 51% outside Kings County.

Traffic volumes on regional routes can expect to increase due to additional commuters. The State Department of Corrections and the City of Corcoran have upgraded some intersections and streets in Corcoran leading to the prison to mitigate the traffic impacts. With the new facility, some adverse impacts on the circulation would be mitigated by the placement of traffic signals.

Inventory of Regional Routes: See Figure 3-3 for urban functional classification and Appendix II and Appendix VII for general information such as current road conditions and traffic factors.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-7

FIGURE 3-3 : CORCORAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Source: City of Corcoran

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-8 Hanford
General. Hanford is the county seat of Kings County, as well as its largest city, with over 60,000 residents. The city itself is compacted into an area of about 6 square miles with s everal rural residential concentrations scattered around the city.

Growth Trends. Like most communities in the San Joaquin Valley, Hanford's economic livelihood is squarely based on farm -service enterprises. In recent years, other sectors of the city's economic community have flourished such as retail sales and professional service enterprises. Combined with military residents, these factors have created more jobs and helped Hanford enjoy significant growth since 1970. Despite the estimated local jobs, almost half of the employed persons residing in Hanford commute elsewhere for employment such as LNAS, Visalia, and Fresno.

Generally, new residential growth is occurring north of Grangeville Boulevard, and in pockets east of 10th Avenue and west of 11th Avenue. Additional residential growth is planned to occur in the southwest corner of the city as well. Many retail establishm ents are compacted in the downtown core, although three major shopping centers, including a regional mall, are in the area of 12th Ave. and Lacey Blvd. Industrial uses are located south of Houston Avenue, between 10th and 11th Avenues. City planners indicate that only modest extensions of the city's urban area will be needed to manage Hanford's growth needs for several years. The annual percentage of population growth is anticipated to be between 1 and 3 percent.

Inventory of Regional Routes: See Figure 3-4 for urban functional classification and Appendix II for general information such as current road conditions and traffic factors.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3-9

FIGURE 3-4: HANFORD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Source: City of Hanford

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 10 Lemoore
General. Lemoore is a city of approximately 28,000 persons situated in north-central Kings County, near the intersection of SR 41 and SR 198. Unlike most cities in this region, Lemoore's economy is not principally based upon agricultural services. Instead, it is the home of many military and civilian persons employed at the nearby Lemoore Naval Air Station (LNAS). Accordingly, Lemoore is populated by many young single adults and new families.

Growth Trends. Lemoore's population has increased at a much faster pace than the rest of the county in the past several years. Most of this is attributed to the increasing dominance of LNAS as a military training center. While Lemoore generally provides housing and services for LNAS personnel, employment opportunities also exist at a large dairy processing facility. Some of the Avenal and Corcoran Prison employees commute to work from Lemoore.

According to the 2008 General Plan, the City of Lemoore has been growing at a rate of 4% since 1992. Growth has leveled off between 2020 and 2025. In terms of traffic demands, the Lemoore area can expect elevated and sustained traffic loads on all regional and local roads serving their area due to activity at the nearby LNAS.

Inventory of Regional Routes: See Figure 3-5 for urban functional classification and the Appendix II for a table of routes.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 11

FIGURE 3-5: LEMOORE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Source: City of Lemoore

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 12 Lemoore Naval Air Station
General. Established in 1961 to support the US Navy’s Pacific Fleet, Lemoore Naval Air Station (LNAS) is today the West Coast Master Jet Base for the US Navy.

Growth Trends. The base’s area of influence is large. The site in Lemoore was chosen in part because of its congestion-free airspace. Local planning efforts continue in tandem with LNAS staff to ensure that urban growth of the nearby City of Lemoore, as well as local air operations, do not interfere with current or future base operations.

The LNAS has put forward an expansion plan, and recent upgrades to on -site facilities, including a hangar and a school, are either underway or complete. LNAS population, while dependent on operational requirements, is expected to grow, and the 2030 master plan listed concerns about the limited on-site and community housing.

FIGURE 3-6 : LNAS FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Note: Residential Area Only, Full extent of operational area not shown.

Source: NAS Lemoore Master Plan 2030

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 13 Santa Rosa Rancheria
General. Established in 1934 on a 40-acre desolate farmland parcel of land, the Santa Rosa Rancheria is the Native American community of the Tachi -Yokut Tribe. The Rancheria is approximately 2,300 acres. There are currently 188 housing units with an estimated total population of 784. The main source of revenue is the Tachi Palace Casino and Resort, which employ about 1,400 persons.

Growth Trends. An updated 2020 economic development plan, agreed as part of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Tachi -Yokut tribe, includes expansions to the Tachi Palace, the addition of 200 additional homes, wastewater treatment systems, and a new fire station.

Inventory of Routes. While there are no existing regionally significant routes, as the Rancheria grows, the need for a regional route increases. Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) include public roads that are located within or provide access to an Indian reservation, Indian trust land, or restricted Indian land that is not subject to fee title alienation without the approval of the federal government, or Indian communities in which Indian natives reside. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Roads System is included in the IRR system and includes those existing and proposed roads for which the BIA has or plans to obtain legal rights-of-way

1. Tribal Roads System includes those roads whose rights-of-way are under the jurisdiction of a Tribe. There are 16.3 miles of public roads inventoried on the Santa Rosa Rancheria lands, a mix of BIA and County Roads.

FIGURE 3-7: SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
Source: California State Geoportal

1 This includes only roads for which the BIA has the primary responsibility to construct, improve, and maintain. Any additions or deletions to this system must be supported by resolution from the Tribes.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 14

ASSUMPTIONS AND INVENTORIES

HIGHWAY TRAVEL ASSUMPTIONS

1. Automobiles and pickups will remain this county's preferred means of personal transportation. (See Figure 3-8)

2. The number of Kings County residents operating motor vehicles will continue to increase. (See Figure 3-9)

3. Growth in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) has gradually increase d since 2013 until 2020 when travel implications of the COVID pandemic and shelter -in-place restrictions decreased countywide VMT to 2014 levels (Figure 3-10). However, as shown in Figure 3-11 the increase in VMT has been fairly commensurate with population growth in Kings County and has increased since 2020.

4. Workers that are living in Kings County will continue to travel within the County for work. As shown in Table 3-2, nearly 25% of workers travel to work outside the county , while nearly 75% work within the County. For workers living within one of the four incorporated cities, over 50% for each city travel outside their city limits to work (See Table 3-3). Given that Kings County's population centers are widely dispersed, many county residents commute long distances to work with nearly 50% traveling less than 20 minutes to work and 50% traveling 20 minutes or more (See Table 3-4 and Table 3-5).

5. Existing mobile source emissions will be reduced through Transportation Control Measures to help meet air quality standards, resulting in these actions:
a. Ridesharing will increase.
b. More people will walk and commute by bicycle.
c. More people will use the Kings Area Regional Transit (KART) system, Amtrak trains, KART Vanpools, CalVans, and other local transit services. d. Increased incidence of work-from-home decreasing workday vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

6. With continuing growth in the nearby Fresno and Visalia metropolitan areas, and local growth attributed to LNAS, the Corcoran Prison and the Avenal Prison, traffic along the state highways and local regional routes will increase, and public demand will be made to upgrade these highways. (See Figure 3-11)

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 15

FIGURE 3-8: TRIP TO WORK MODES
Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates

FIGURE 3-9: LICENSED DRIVERS AND REGISTERED VEHICLES IN KINGS COUNTY Source: Outstanding Drivers Licenses: DMV Data 2016-2024; Registered Vehicle: CARB EMFAC Data

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 16

FIGURE 3- 10 : STATE HIGHWAY VMT IN KINGS COUNTY
Source: Caltrans Public Road Data, 2013-2024

FIGURE 3- 11 : STATE HIGHWAY AND LOCAL ROAD VMT PER CAPITA IN KINGS COUNTY Source: Caltrans Public Road Data, 2013-2024, Department of Finance Population Forecasts

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 17 TABLE 3-2: RESIDENTS WORK LOCATIONS – COUNTYWIDE ( 202 4) Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates

TABLE 3-3: CITY RESIDENTS WORK LOCATIONS ( 202 4)

WORK LOCATION

AVENAL CORCORAN HANFORD LEMOORE
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent IN SAME CITY 823 20% 1,663 34% 10,825 44% 2,851 25%
OUTSIDE OF THE CITY 3,214 80% 3,278 66% 13,865 56% 8,573 75% TOTAL 4,037 100% 4,941 100% 24,690 100% 11,424 100%
Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimates

TABLE 3-4: TRIP TO WORK TRAVEL TIMES - COUNTYWIDE ( 202 4)

TRAVEL TIME NUMBER PERCENT
0-9 MINUTES 12,225 22.30%
10 TO 19 MINUTES 14,978 27.30%
20 TO 44 MINUTES 19,863 36.30%
45> MINUTES 7,706 14.10%
TOTAL 54,772 100.00%
Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimates

WORK LOCATION NUMBER PERCENT OF WORKFORCE
IN KINGS COUNTY 43,158 74.7%
OUTSIDE KINGS COUNTY 14,312 24.8%
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA 315 0.5%
TOTAL 57,785 100.0%

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 18 TABLE 3-5 : TRIP TO WORK TRAVEL TIMES FOR KINGS COUNTY CITIES AND LNAS ( 2023 ) Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimate
TABLE 3-6: COUNTYWIDE VMT PER CAPITA 201 3 VS 2024
Source: National Highway Performance Program

TRAVEL
TIME

AVENAL CORCORAN HANFORD LEMOORE LEMOORE

STATION

PERCENT OF

WORKFORCE

PERCENT OF

WORKFORCE

PERCENT OF

WORKFORCE

PERCENT OF

WORKFORCE

PERCENT OF

WORKFORCE
0-9
MINUTES 14% 31% 22% 21% 32%
10-19
MINUTES 13% 20% 27% 34% 35%
20-44
MINUTES 38% 37% 38% 34% 29%
45>
MINUTES 35% 12% 13% 11% 4%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2013 2024 CHANGE
COUNTYWIDE VMT 3,713,650 5,012,310 1,298,660
COUNTYWIDE POPULATION 150,270 153,638 3,368
VMT PER CAPITA 24.7 29.1 4.4

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 19

HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSUMPTIONS

1. Dense "Tule Fog" will continue to impose severe transportation difficulties and safety problems in Fall and Winter. (See Table 3-8)

2. Collisions involving other vehicles and fixed objects remain the largest cause of vehicular fatalities and injuries in Kings County; many are caused by unsafe or improper driving (Figure 3-12). In addition to strict enforcement of motor vehicle laws, more operational and safety improvements, including new facilities, are needed to help lower the probability of crashes on the regional system.

TABLE 3-7: MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION TYPES IN KINGS COUNTY (2019 -2025*) *Does not include PDO Crashes, 2024 and 2025 Crash data is provisional Source: California Highway Patrol (SWITRS)
MOTOR

VEHICLE

INVOLVED
WITH:

NO. % OF ALL

CRASHES
NUMBER

FATALITIES
% OF

FATALITIES
NUMBER

INJURED
% OF

INJURED
UNSAFE SPEED 879 22% 16 10% 863 23%

ALCOHOL OR
DRUG*
528 13% 50 30% 478 13%
BICYCLE 121 3% 3 2% 118 3%
PEDESTRIAN 194 5% 34 20% 160 4%
MOTORCYCLE 198 5% 11 7% 148 0.5%
NOT

STATED/OTHER
2,063 52% 53 32% 2,049 54%
TOTAL 3,983 100% 167 100% 3,816 100%

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 20 TABLE 3-8: COLLISIONS IN FOG BY MONTH (2019 -202 4)
Source: California Highway Patrol (SWITRS)
Note: Only months when collisions in fog occurred are included.

MONTH COLLISIONS IN
FOG

TOTAL COLLISIONS BY
MONTH

PERCENT OF

COLLISIONS IN FOG
JANUARY 34 320 0.85%
FEBRUARY 7 274 0.18%
MARCH 4 301 0.10%
APRIL 1 328 0.03%
OCTOBER 8 385 0.20%
NOVEMBER 14 312 0.35%
DECEMBER 40 318 1.00%
TOTAL 22 238 0.75%

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 21

FIGURE 3- 12 : MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS BY LOCATION
Note: Certain roadways lack data near the edge of the County.

Source: National Highway Performance Management System

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 22

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

ROADWAY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
A performance measure is “an analytical planning tool that is used to quantitatively evaluate transportation improvements and to assist in determining effective implementation actions, considering all modes and strategies.” Performance measures provide the basis for evaluating the operating conditions of the regional transportation system, identifying the location and severity of congestion, identifying gaps in transit service, indicating insufficient pedestrian or bicycle access, or indicating unsafe facilities or areas.

Establishment of multimodal performance measures is a federal congestion management plan (CMP) requirement. Federal directives outlined in 23 CRR 450.320 (b) require the congestion management process to result in multimodal system performance measures and strategies that can be reflected in the regional planning documents, such as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . However, given that Kings County does not have metropolitan areas exceeding a population of 200,000, the CMP is not required of Kings County.

While a CMP is not required for Kings County, KCAG has been measuring the transportation network to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. The performance measures should incorporate highway and roadway system performance, measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. These performance measures sh all support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives, and shall be used in the development of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) established a performance - and outcome-based program, known as “Performance Based Planning,” with the objective to invest in projects that will make progress toward national goals for the transportation. This framework has been carried forward in subsequent federal transportation funding bills including the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act legislation. Passage of the federal performance management rule required state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan transportation organizations (MPOs) to implement the federal performance measures by 2018. State DOTs (e.g., Caltrans) are directly responsible for submitting performance targets and annual progress reports on those targets to federal agencies. MPOs, such as KCAG, are required to establish targets specific to their planning area, or support the statewide targets, and report annually on progress. KCAG does not establish its own targets and elects to support the statewide targets.

The local jurisdictions in Kings County continue to invest in projects that increase safety . KCAG adopted the Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan in 2025, which has guided additional investment in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The County of Kings, City of Corcoran, and City of Avenal have made substantial investments in Safe Routes to School plans since 2018. Additionally, the cities of Hanford and Corcoran recently completed their respective Active Transportation Plan.

In addition to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements, KCAG has also compiled data on fatality rates on state highways, which will assist with discovering crash patterns. This data may be supportive to projects along these corridors when coordinating with Caltrans.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 23 One key measurement to assess roadway performance is the travel time reliability using a measure of buffer time index (BTI). Travel time reliability is how predictable travel time can be critical for commuters, goods movement, and transit provision. Travel time reliability is defined as the variation in travel time for the same trip from day to day (“same trip” implies a trip made with the same purpose, from the same origin to the same destination, at the same time of the day, using the same mode, and by the same route). If variability is large, the travel time is considered to be unreliable, because it is difficult to generate consistent and accurate estimates for it. If there is little or no variation in the travel time for the same trip, the travel time is considered to be reliable. Buffer Time is the amount of extra time a person needs to account for above the average travel time to ensure being on time 95% of the time (approximately one day late per month). If a commute trip usually takes 30 minutes, but there are periodic issues with weather or traffic incidents that can cause the commute to take 45 minutes, the buffer time would be 15 minutes, causing the commuter to be 15 minutes early on an average day, and late only occasionally.

The Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition definitions were used to define congestion and reliability.

These thresholds reflect heavy congestion (with observed average speed less than 60 percent of the free-flow speed) and unreliable road segments (with a 95th percentile travel time more than 1.5 times longer than the 50th percentile travel time (i.e., average), quantified by Level of Travel Time Reliability or LOTTR). The scheme below was used to develop the thematic maps of the results. The 95th percentile measurement, which captures a wider variety of possible weekday conditions, is used in the charts and tables on the following pages (Figure 3-13 to Figure 3-18).

In general, roadways in Kings County are both uncongested and largely reliable, with peak hour exceptions in/near Hanford (12th Avenue, North 10th Avenue) during the AM /PM peak hour and Lemoore (SR 41). SR 41 north of its juncture with I-5 also experiences recurring weekday AM peak hour congestion and poor reliability in the northbound direction. Table 3-9 shows the percentage of roadways congested during peak hour, and the peak hour reliability of interstate highways in Kings County.

TABLE 3-9 : RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION CHART

RELIABLE MODERATELY RELIABLE UNRELIABLE
BTIA < 1.25 BTIA 1.25 – < 1.5 BTIA > = 1.5
UncongestedB (>= 60 % of free-flow) Predictable and efficient Not always predictable, but usually efficient
Unpredictable, but not
often congested
CongestedB (< 60% of free-flow) Predictable and
inefficient
Not always predictable, but
usually inefficient
Unpredictable, but often
congested
A Buffer Time Index – A measure of reliability, measures percentage of travel time devoted to being on time above average travel time.

B Free flow speeds were estimated for each segment based on NPMRDS data during the hours of midnight and 3 AM.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 24 TABLE 3- 10 : PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION, BY PERCENT OF ROADWAY, KINGS COUNTY 95TH PERCENTILE BTI

Source: DKS Associates, 2026. National Performance Management Research Dataset, 2024.

CONGESTED UNRELIABLE MO DERATE RELIABLE TOTAL UNRELIABLE MODERATE RELIABLE TOTAL YES 2.2% 0.1% 91.4% 93.7% 0.1% 1.9% 96.0% 98.1%
NO 4.3% 0.0% 2.1% 6.3% 0.0% 0.1% 1.8% 1.9%
TOTAL 6.5% 0.1% 93.4% 100.0% 0.1% 2.0% 97.9% 100.0%
Congested UNRELIABLE MODERATE RELIABLE TOTAL UNRELIABLE MODERATE RELIABLE TOTAL YES 0.0% 0.0% 99.7% 99.7% 0.0% 0.0% 99.2% 99.2%
NO 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%
TOTAL 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Congested UNRELIABLE MODERATE RELIABLE TOTAL UNRELIABLE MODERATE RELIABLE TOTAL YES 0.3% 0.1% 95.5% 95.9% 0.0% 0.1% 99.0% 99.1%
NO 3.9% 0.1% 0.1% 4.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 0.9%
TOTAL 4.2% 0.2% 95.6% 100.0% 0.0% 0.2% 99.8% 100.0%

TRUCKS AM TRUCKS PM

AUTOS AM AUTOS PM

TRUCKS AND AUTOS AM TRUCKS AND AUTOS PM

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 25

FIGURE 3- 13 : AM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR PASSENGER CARS (PCS) ONLY
Note: Certain roadways lack data near the edge of the County.

Source: National Highway Performance Management System

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 26

FIGURE 3- 14 : AM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR TRUCKS ONLY Note: Certain roadways lack data near the edge of the County.

Source: National Highway Performance Management System

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 27

FIGURE 3- 15 : AM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR BOTH TRUCKS AND

PASSENGER CARS (PCS)
Note: Certain roadways lack data near the edge of the County.

Source: National Highway Performance Management System

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 28

FIGURE 3- 16 : PM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR PASSENGER CARS (PCS) ONLY
Note: Certain roadways lack data near the edge of the County.

Source: National Highway Performance Management System

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 29

FIGURE 3- 17 : PM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR TRUCKS ONLY Note: Certain roadways lack data near the edge of the County.

Source: National Highway Performance Management System

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 30

FIGURE 3- 18 : PM PEAK HOUR RELIABILITY AND CONGESTION ANALYSIS FOR BOTH TRUCKS AND

PASSENGER CARS (PCS)
Note: Certain roadways lack data near the edge of the County.

Source: National Highway Performance Management System

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 31

LOCAL RESPONSES TO FAILING ROADS
As with any structure, roads require a long -term commitment of money to keep them in service .

Theoretically, a well-constructed road can last about 15 years before needing extensive renovation.

Preventive maintenance applied during this period will extend the life of the road and delay the need for reconstruction. Even with preventive maintenance, however, roads will eventually wear out.

Many factors cause roads to deteriorate:

1. Changing air temperature, low humidity, and ultra -violet radiation oxidize oils and make the pavement shrink and become brittle.

2. Winter rains and nuisance water washes sand out of road mixes, causing surface raveling.

3. More weight is being placed on trucks. In terms of road wear, one heavily loaded truck can be equated to 3,000 to 6,000 automobiles.

4. Because Kings County is a major cotton producer, cotton module movers must access local roads. In just a few seasons, these vehicles can cause extensive road damage.

5. As the natural ponding basin for the Kings, Kaweah, and Tule Rivers, Kings County occasionally experiences flooding. Extensive road damage has been caused by past flooding.

The level of funding for local roads has not kept pace with the number of lane miles of roads needing rehabilitation or reconstruction. In response to road needs and limited revenues, major changes were made to local road programs:

1. There was a change in emphasis from road reconstruction to maintenance with an increase in the use of asphalt concrete overlays for road improvements.

2. On badly deteriorated sections, heavier, longer-lasting seals have been used.

3. Reconstruction of major roads has been delayed as long as possible.

The effects of these cost-saving strategies have fully impacted all areas of Kings County. The surface of many roads has deteriorated so severely that total reconstruction is the only remaining option .

Even though funding shortfalls continue, local governments are now beginning to shift their road programs to these courses of action:

1. Putting more money into reconstruction of deteriorated major arterials.

2. Continuing maintenance on high-use roads.

3. Reducing maintenance for minor streets and roads.

4. Convert low volume roads to gravel.

5. Seeking new sources of funding for local roads.

The average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) in Kings County is generally considered to be in good or fair conditions, as shown in Figure 3-19. PCI in Kings County has primarily ranged from 59 to

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 32 63, with the highest PCI being in 2008 while the lowest PCI was in 2016. Since 2016, the average PCI has increased from 59 to 61.

Figure 3-20 illustrates the road and bridge conditions within Kings County, however the map data is only available up to 2020, therefore more recent results are not reflected and may not match Figure 3-19 findings. As of 2020, pavement conditions are primarily good and fair with some spots of poor pavement along SR 41 near I-5. Bridge conditions in the county are also good and fair with two poor bridge conditions on SR 41 and in Hanford.

FIGURE 3- 19 : KINGS COUNTY PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) PER YEAR Source: California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, April 2023

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 33

FIGURE 3- 20 : PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE CONDITIONS, KINGS COUNTY Source: Caltrans

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Consideration of Complete Streets
Director’s Policy 37 (DP -37), superseding DD -64-R2, directs all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans to consider non-automobile modes, including those walking, biking, or taking rail and bus transit . This RTP/SCS contains other chapters detailing local agencies’ improvements

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 34 regarding pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure, and other projects designed to create a more complete street network for active transportation and transit in later chapters.

Highway Spheres of Influence
An examination of previous Regional Transportation Plans of Valley agencies revealed that no MPO viewed transportation from a truly regional perspective on transportation issues. The respective MPOs confined their studies to their own county areas, as if their interest in a road suddenly stops at the county boundary.

The result was a patchwork of partially coordinated transportation plans, hindering cooperative planning for county-maintained road improvements. District 6 counties (Kings, Tulare, Kern, Fresno, and Madera) could experience better success in obtaining state funding for state system projects if the valley jurisdictions coordinated on efforts. Kings and Tulare Counties have coordinated efforts in past Regional Transportation Improvement Programs by programming regional dollars for the widening of SR 198. Additionally, Kings and Tulare Counties are coordinating on ongoing Cross Valley Corridor services.

An expanded planning area to examine Highway Spheres of Influence was created to assist with regional coordination. It extends into neighboring counties and identifies segments of county and state maintained regional roads that serve both jurisdictions. As a practical matter, the study found that changes to most major highways running through the San Joaquin Valley would impact Kings County and emphasized the need for regional coordination.

KCAG has continued to collaborate with our partners and other regional agencies in various planning efforts. The 2018 RTP update mentioned 2008 efforts by Caltrans to complete Corridor System Management Plans along SR 99, which have been supplemented by additional transportation concept reports on State Routes 137, 269, 43, 198, 33, and 41, as well as a report on Interstate 5 . These were completed between 2011 and 2017.

In 1996, the San Joaquin Valley Railroad petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for an abandonment exemption of an 18.1 mile segment of the Coalinga Branchline between Huron and Rossi. Protests were filed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and several shippers, citing rail shipping needs and rail freight potential. Subsequently, the STB denied the abandonment exemption on March 5, 1999. Continuation and extension of freight rail on this segment will reduce truck travel and emissions. An upgrade along the Coalinga Branch Line was completed in 2004.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 35

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Public transit is one of the most important services any jurisdiction can offer its residents . In an increasingly mobile society, the need for all residents to have access to employment, schools, medical services, and recreational activities is necessary to maintain equitable opportunities for all persons.

Public transit plays a vital role in providing mobility for all persons, especially those with limited mobility and low-income. Typically, rural areas contain a higher percentage of lower income persons (per capita) living in smaller cities that are separated by long distances. While urban public transit systems serve a wide cross- section of riders, rural transit patrons have predominantly been the elderly and people with disabilities or limited mobility , who in most instances have no other choice of transportation services other than those offered by the local public transit operator.

In Kings County, there are several private and public agencies providing transportation services .

Among those providers mentioned in this chapter, the focus is on the Kings Area Regional Transit (KART) system (the primary public transit operator in Kings County), Corcoran Area Transit, Amtrak Gold Runner (formerly San Joaquins), the future high-speed rail, and commuter rail service. Included in this section are the vanpool programs that provide vanpools to agricultural growers, employers, and students who commute long distances and ridesharing programs designed to reduce single- occupant vehicle commuting within Kings County and the central San Joaquin Valley region.

ASSUMPTIONS AND INVENTORIES

TRANSIT DEMAND
1) Although most county residents can rely upon their own means for transportation, as shown in Figure 3- 21 through Figure 3- 23, transportation needs will continue to exist, especially among elderly, disabled, and low-income groups. Many households having only one available vehicle are also challenged with limited access to transportation. 2) The COVID 19 pandemic significantly impacted transit ridership and services, recovery efforts are ongoing. However, KART will continue to fill a vital role for those without other mobility options and the Amtrak Gold Runner (formerly San Joaquins ) and the future High-Speed Rail will continue to serve as a vital link in the statewide rail network. 3) Many transit agencies in the San Joaquin Valley h ave seen decreasing ridership due to the passage of AB 60 in 2013 which removed restrictions for undocumented California residents to get a driver's license. These factors reduced transit ridership particularly among smaller transit providers which in turn has compromised the ability for transit providers to meet their TDA fair- box recovery targets.
4) The population growth of Kings County combined with the growth in employment opportunities over the next twenty years will increase ridership and transit demands for services in areas beyond the reach of existing KART routes . KART must remain flexible and responsive to the increasing demands.
5) A significant demand for intercity bus and rail services for the San Joaquin Valley will continue.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 36 6) The Hanford intermodal station will continue being a major stop on the Amtrak Gold Runner line by drawing riders from Kings , Tulare and Fresno counties. A much higher percentage of Kings County residents will ride the train than residents of any other valley counties. 7) The Kings/Tulare Regional High Speed Rail station and the Cross Valley Corridor service will increase transit service in Kings County, and regional efforts to ensure all residents in the County continue to be served will be needed.
8) Because many Kings County residents commute long distances to work, ridesharing will continue as a viable alternative to single-occupant vehicle commuting. 9) Public transit, used as a transportation control measure (TCM) for air quality improvement, will help the region to attain both state and federal mandated air quality standards. 10) Kings County received over $5 million in assistance to its transit agencies and will continue to work to ensure that transit has enough funding to provide the needed services within the County.
11) Transportation Networking Companies (TNCs) such as Uber or Lyft are not expected to have an impact on transit ridership. The cost of current transit services is lower in most census tracts than estimated for ride -sourcing services according to the 2017 report “Opportunities for Shared-Use Mobility Services in Rural Disadvantaged Communities in California’s San Joaquin Valley”. TNC use is expected to increase to serve the future high speed rail station.

FIGURE 3- 21 : AVAILABLE VEHICLES BY HOUSING UNITS IN KINGS COUNTY 2024 Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate
6%
28%
40%
17%
9%
A v ailable V ehicles per H ousehold
N o Ve h i c l e
1 V ehicle A v ailable
2 V ehicles A v ailable
3 V ehicles A v ailable
4+ V ehicles A v ailable

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 37

FIGURE 3- 22 : PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY IN KINGS COUNTY* 2024 * Defined as persons having a long-lasting condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities . Disability status of the civilian non-institutionalized population. Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimate

FIGURE 3- 23 : TRIP -TO -WORK PRIVATE VEHICLE OCCUPANCY FOR KINGS COUNTY 20 24 Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimate
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
A v enal Corcoran Hanford L emoore
Number of Persons with Disabilities by A ge and Jursidiction Unde r 5 5–17 18–34 35–64 65–74 75+

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
A v enal Corcoran Hanford L emoore K ings County
Commuting V ehicle Occupancy by Jurisdiction
Dr i ve Al o n e2-person 3-person 4+ person

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 38

FIGURE 3- 24 : VEHICLE OCCUPANCY BY JURISDICTION
Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimate

PUBLIC TRANSIT
Services provided by the two local public transit operators in Kings County, Kings Area Regional Transit and Corcoran Area Transit, are detailed in the 2021 Kings County Transit Development Plan and are summarized in this section, along with the intercity rail and bus services that are available as interregional transit options. Figure 3-25 illustrates public transit throughout the region.

KINGS AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT
The largest single provider of public transportation within Kings County is the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), a joint powers agency comprised of the County and the cities of Hanford, Lemoore, and Avenal . The City of Corcoran does not participate in the KART system and operates its own transit system, described in this section.

KCAPTA oversees the operation of the Kings Area R egional Transit (KART) system and establishes the operating policies and defines the services to be provided by KART, including service hours and days, fares, and routes.

KCAPTA operates and manages a bus transfer facility located at the new KART Transit Center in Hanford. The new transit center has 20 bus bays, up from only 8 at the former transit center. The day-to-day management and actual operations of the system are carried out under contract with a private firm, MV Transportation, Inc. KCAPTA staff is responsible for but not limited to design and organization of marketing programs, ridership outreach, transit surveys, review of invoices and service reports, and preparation of reports for the KCAPTA Board meetings. KCAPTA is also responsible for overseeing accounting functions and seeking all funding and financial sources available to nonprofit public transportation.

1.18 1.1 1.1

1.08 1.1

1.02 1.04

1.06 1.08

1.1 1.12

1.14 1.16

1.18 1.2
Occupancy
V ehicle Occupancy by Jurisdiction
A v enal Corcoran Hanford L emoore K ings County

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 39

FIGURE 3- 25 : KINGS COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES
Source: KCAPTA, KCAG

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 40 KART began operations in June of 1980 and has seen a steady increase in the number of riders and new services over the past decades. However, KART, like many other systems, felt the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic KART ridership decreased overall by 58%. Ridership has been slowly increasing with KART’s 202 5 ridership 64% higher and now exceeding pre-COVID ridership levels.

Four levels of service are offered by KART: fixed-route, paratransit service , micro -transit, and vanpools. There are daily fixed route services in Hanford and Lemoore, limited service connecting Avenal, Corcoran, Hardwick, and Laton to Hanford and commuter service connecting Kings County to Visalia and Fresno.

KCAPTA’s mission is to provide safe, accessible, convenient, and efficient public transportation services to Kings County and is able to do so through the following:
• KCAPTA has produced both a general KART Riders Guide and a KART Paratransit Guide which addresses ADA eligibility requirements, travel attendants, service area and hours, fares, reservations, and other policies for paratransit services. • provide clean energy with updated buses and equipment. • determine the appropriate and most efficient zero emission infrastructure system for each operator.
• hold unmet transit needs public hearings to gather feedback and address any gaps in service.

KCAPTA currently has a fleet of 24 fixed route buses, 10 cutaway buses, and 2 support vehicles for maintenance and supervision. All fixed route buses are equipped with radios, automated fare equipment, security cameras, wheelchair lifts, and bike racks . Cutaway buses are equipped with radios, cameras, mobile data terminals, automated fare equipment, and wheelchair lifts.

KART’s fixed route service currently consists of 1 5 routes and over 200 bus stops. Operating hours are 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. This schedule results in an annual total of approximately 69,673 vehicle revenue hours, 1,613,928 vehicle revenue miles, and 635,639 trips based on 2024 data from the National Transit Database (NTD).

The paratransit and micro- transit fleets currently consist of 10 buses. Operating hours are aligned with the fixed route service hours, with transportation available up to ¾ of a mile of the current service area. Annual usage totals approximately 9,362 vehicle revenue hours, 92,282 revenue miles, and 21,999 trips based on 2024 NTD data. Figure 3-26 indicates annual KART ridership.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 41

During the COVID -19 pandemic, one of KCAPTA’s primary efforts was to focus on the routes that best serve a lower transit population. All fixed routes were modified to provide a higher frequency of bus runs with shorter service times of 30 minutes and to allow for social distancing. This promoted more efficient service while allowing for riders’ social distance of 6 feet with limited seating to 10 passengers. Late day service hours on Saturdays in addition to the flex route service to Lemoore College were temporarily stopped. KART has postponed its Sunday services indefinitely since 2020.

These changes to KART services are still in effect as of 2025.

In 2020, KCAPTA began operating a new vanpool
program. The day -to-day management and
actual operations of the system is conducted
under contract with a private firm, Enterprise.

This service operates 7 days a week , and
ridership continues to grow. In 2025, 50 vehicles
were in operation with annual revenue miles of
1,031,747, revenue hours of 20,852, and annual
ridership of 192,594. Total passenger miles trips
traveled for 2025 were over six million

2. KART provide s limited general public demand-
response service for Lemoore residents between
designated bus stops in Lemoore. Lemoore also
has fixed route service (Route 20) which provides half-hour service throughout the day. As of July 2022, KART’s cutaway bus is utilized for the general public demand-response “flex” service with curb-

2 National Transit Database, Annual Agency Profiles.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 42 to-curb stops in Hanford using a mobile application “GoKART” to schedule rides. Micro-transit service has been expanded to Lemoore.

Data gathered by the California Integrated Travel Program (Cal -ITP), indicate that bus speeds and delays are minor along KART routes. Note that low speeds do not necessarily mean high delay s, as schedules may account for congestion and slow speeds. Figure 3- 27 shows the average route speeds for an entire day. As shown, average speeds are higher on regional routes such as SR 41, SR 43, SR 198, and I-5; indicating that routes outside of Hanford and Lemoore are likely to experience less congestion and increased sp eed limits due to highway speeds . Figure 3- 28 illustrates the average route speeds for peak hour periods. As shown, average speeds during peak hour periods are lower than all day, particularly in Hanford and Lemoore, this is indicative of potential congestion and delay as transit fleet are circulating with private vehicles during peak hour periods.

FIGURE 3- 26 : KART SYSTEM RIDERSHIP 201 3- 202 4
Source: National Transit Database, 2024.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 43

FIGURE 3- 27 : KART ROUTE AVERAGE ALL DAY SPEEDS

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 44

FIGURE 3- 28 : KART ROUTES AVERAGE PEAK HOUR SPEEDS

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 45 Based on NTD data, between 2021 to 2025, there is an average of 41 vehicles in operation with an annual average of 139,663 passenger trips. KART vanpool trips are illustrated in Figure 3-29.

As of 2022, preliminary discussions are in place for expanded cooperation between Caltrans and KCAPTA. In response to widening on SR-99, mitigation measures for Tulare County includes Caltrans- funded vanpools, with Caltrans contributing roughly $252,000 to fund 30 additional KART vanpools over two years and $2.885 million to fund an additional round trip transit service between Hanford and Visalia over 20 years.

FIGURE 3- 29 : KART VANPOOL TRIPS (2021 -2024)
Source: National Transit Database, 2024.

SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
As required by the Transportation Development Act (TDA), members of the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) consist of representatives of transit dependent groups in Kings County including seniors, the developmentally disabled, persons with limited means, and representatives of both non-profit and for-profit agencies that serve these groups. The SSTAC acts as the advisory body through which transit needs are assessed and brought forward to KCAG, KCAPTA, and the City of Corcoran.

To evaluate the transit systems, the SSTAC uses definitions of “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet” criteria, as well as the following guidelines adopted by KCAG to help identify areas for improvement. These guidelines are also used to evaluate applications for federal grant funds from all eligible transit operators.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 46 Dependability - The transit operator must demonstrate that its service is reliable, and it regularly meets its schedule. A dependable backup system must be available so that in normal circumstances only minor delays in the operating schedule will occur and service will not be unreasonably disrupted.

Accessibility - The transit operator must demonstrate that the system is accessible to the elderly and disabled. Each vehicle does not have to be fully accessible, but provisions must be made within the system to provide reasonable service to persons with special needs.

Affordability - The transit operator must demonstrate that the fare structure of the system provides for ridership by persons of limited income . This does not mean a fare cannot be charged, but that the fare may not be excessive in a manner which restricts the access of the poor.

Adequacy - The transit operator must demonstrate that it provides a reasonable level of service with sufficient range and capacity to allow any person who cannot provide their own transportation to have access to opportunities which will support an adequate standard of living. The minimum service should provide travel to medical appointments, shopping areas, social service agencies, and home again.

Economy - The transit operator must demonstrate that it has attempted to provide the most efficient and effective service possible and identify criteria used to establish a service cost limit. When suggested by performance measures analyses, the operator should present feasible alternative transit programs with projected costs vs. service levels.

Convenience - The transit operator must demonstrate that the service proposed will be such that it does not discourage use of the service . While service is not expected to be instantaneous or as convenient as travel by private automobile, reasonable headway time should be incorporated into scheduling and capacity considerations.

Coordination - The transit operator must demonstrate how its system is coordinated with other systems and travel modes to enhance, rather than detract from the effectiveness of each system.

Monitoring - The transit operator must have a plan for monitoring its service . Data required from the operator is listed with information on the performance audit.

Flexibility - The transit operator must demonstrate how the system can adjust its schedule and route to accommodate changes in community needs . When the operator has made an adjustment in its service, it will document the basis for the change and improved service which resulted from the change
Responsiveness - The transit operator must implement a Productivity Improvement Program designed to ensure that the system can anticipate demands for new service, expand service, and operate at the most efficient cost.

Requests for adjustments in local transit routes and service levels continue to be made by the public and social service providers. The KCAG Technical Advisory Committee also expresses its view on transit service. However, it is the SSTAC which represents the "voice" of transit dependent groups in the county. The SSTAC, by virtue of its membership who represent the actual transit user, is in the

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 47 unique position to access transit service and receive any unmet transit needs requests. Each year, KCAG actively recruits new agencies, social service providers, transportation providers, and/or members of the public interested in public transportation to participate on the SSTAC, which includes concerned citizens from both rural and local communities in representing the elderly, disabled, and/or low-income persons. Both KCAG and transit operators will continue to solicit input from the SSTAC for service adjustments based upon the needs of ridership groups.

TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS
A performance audit to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of each transit operator is required to be completed every three years under the Transportation Development Act (TDA).

Each audit provides constructive and practical recommendations for transit service improvements in meeting TDA requirements, in addition to addressing the effectiveness and progress on the recommendations of the previous audit. These recommendations can be incorporated into KCAG’s transit development plans.

TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLANS
The 2021 Kings County Transit Development Plan (TDP) provides a comprehensive view of public transit operations in Kings County and is considered the “blueprint” for transit planning for the two public transit providers in Kings County, for a planning horizon of five years through the year 2025.

KCAG updates the Transit Development Plan every 4 years, the most recent Plan was completed in 2021, to provide a review of transit operations to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the services, to identify capital and operating needs based on data and public outreach, and to review and develop performance goals based on system analyses.

KART MARKETING PLAN
The 1992 Marketing Plan developed for KART to improve public transit awareness and encourage the use of KART in Kings County. In 2016, KCAPTA updated the Marketing Plan with the Market Assessment and Marketing Plan. The updated Plan identified surveys and marketing analyses for KART patrons and targeted groups which are underrepresented in ridership figures. Recommended strategies, some of which had already been implemented for KART, include establishing regularly updated bus schedules, installation of a GTFS and real -time data system to provide electronic and online trip planning capabilities, website redesign, improved bus stop signage, information displays in high traffic areas, establishing a gatekeeper network for potential transit riders, establishing a client relationship management system (CRM) to maintain agency stakeholders, creating a new branding logo and vehicle graphics, and increasing advertising efforts to maximize and promote KART services.

ADA TRANSIT DESIGNS STANDARDS MANUAL
In 2019, KCAPTA completed an official manual for design guidance for the coordination of transit facilities and local development, with an emphasis on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). The KCAPTA ADA Transit Designs Standards Manual serves as a living document for transportation facilities installation,

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 48 improvements, and maintenance system -wide in an effort to increase accessibility and enhance transit use by people with disabilities.

KART TRANSIT STATION SITE SELECTION STUDY
As KART outgrew its station site adjacent to the Amtrak Hanford Station, a new study was conducted to find and select a new transit station . The 2018 KART Transit Station Site Selection Study was conducted by a consultant team and identified a new site further east of the current station along 7th St in Hanford. The new transit site was completed in January 2026.

To support the new KART transit site, KCAPTA also sought funding for an additional Park & Ride lot.

KCAPTA applied for CMAQ funds for this project, which was constructed just north of the new KART station.

Coordination of Transit Systems
While service overlaps are rare among the local area transit providers, KART and Corcoran Area Transit, when possible, do strive to further accommodate those transportation needs which are not fully met . For changes to service, including incorporating current service from smaller or social service transit providers, a feasibility study can be undertaken, and service contracts negotiated.

The SSTAC is also responsible for advising KCAG on the coordination and consolidation of specialized transportation services. The 2021 update of the Transit Development Plan includes the Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan, which addresses the coordination of social services transportation opportunities within Kings County.

Corcoran Intermodal Facility
The intermodal facility in Corcoran, the Corcoran Depot, was built in 2000 and maintained by the City of Corcoran, has provided a more convenient and attractive transportation hub for transit patrons

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 49 and providers. The facility is used as a transfer point for KART buses, Corcoran Area Transit, and Amtrak Gold Runner trains. The station was designed similar to the old Santa Fe station, and includes passenger ticket lobby and waiting areas, restrooms, vending machines for Amtrak tickets, and offices for Corcoran Area Transit staff.

CORCORAN AREA TRANSIT
The City of Corcoran has provided its own Dial -A-Ride (DAR) transit service, Corcoran Area Transit (CAT), since 1975 for Corcoran residents and for those living in the rural fringe area surrounding Corcoran. CAT is operated by the Community Development Department of the City of Corcoran.

Initially provided to senior citizens, the demand response service was expanded in 1989 to serve the public.

In 1999 a new Amtrak Train Depot was built, and the City made available discounted one -way and round-trip Amtrak tickets to residents to increase connectivity with rail and to support revenue retention. In 2013, KART bus tickets were made available for a discounted price for intercity travel between Corcoran and Hanford for access to County services . Over the past years, Corcoran combined its fares with discounted AMTRAK and KART tickets to meet Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenue threshold requirements and sought new strategies to increase farebox return .

KART continues to provide its intercity routes between the cities of Hanford and Corcoran, primarily utilized by employees to the California State Prison and California Substance Abuse Treatment facility located in Corcoran.

Most ridership in Corcoran consists of senior citizens, people with disabilities, students, and children who can ride at a reduced rate. CAT provides six demand response buses equipped with wheelchair lifts that operate from station –to-destination service and not door-to -door or curb-to-curb. Dial-a- Ride service operating times are synchronized with the KART Corcoran –Hanford route in order to provide bus connections during weekdays, as well as with Amtrak’s schedule for passenger service.

Annual usage for Corcoran’s demand response totals approximately 2,892 vehicle revenue hours and 28,834 revenue miles, with 23,319 trips based on 2024 NTD. CAT’s annual ridership is indicated in Figure 3-30. Additional services available at the Corcoran Depot include transfers to the Tachi Palace Casino in Lemoore. Recent changes to the Prison’s visitation schedule during weekdays have reduced visits to Saturdays only, when both transit services are unavailable. However, the Prison’s Visitors Friends Outside Program provides its own vanpools to the Corcoran depot to transfer visitors coming to the prison via Amtrak.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 50

FIGURE 3- 30 : CORCORAN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 201 4- 202 4 Source: National Transit Database, 2024.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 51

CALIFORNIA VANPOOL AUTHORITY (CALVANS)
Vanpooling is somewhat different than carpooling, though it is based upon the same principle:
reducing single -occupant commuting. Vanpooling is defined as 7 to 15 persons who commute together in a van-type vehicle, and who share the operating expenses. The riders typically share the operations cost of the van, however there are variations of cost and ownership by either the riders or a sponsoring employer. Essentially, vanpooling serves the long-distance commute market of over 20 miles to an employer site . Increased use of vouchers or subsidized trips by employers is highly promoted by CalVans, resulting in higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions. By providing longer trips to more remote locations, in the instance of agricultural vanpools, CalVans is able to provide lower costs per revenue hour and passenger mile with the voucher system.

Originally in 2001, KCAPTA commenced a vanpool program for riders to the Corcoran and Avenal State Prisons when the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ceased operating vanpools to state facilities. KCAPTA purchased additional vans to implement new vanpools and under a pilot program to include farmworkers, Agricultural Industries Transportation Services (AITS), vanpooling grew to 180 vans in service in 2009 and has since extended into areas of Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Ventura counties. In 2012, the California Vanpool Authority (CalVans) was established as a joint powers agency, of which KCAG was a member.

CalVans has grown as a ridesharing service that meets the needs of commuters who cannot travel between home and work with local fixed -route or demand response service . Operating across multiple counties, CalVans now has capacity to administer over 800 vanpools to commuters of all types. These range from state and federal workers, as well as farmworkers. Those using the vanpool program must meet certain conditions and agree to manage and operate the vans in a non -profit manner. These vanpools are primarily used to serve two large markets: correctional institutions and farmworkers. In February of 2026, there were a total of 63 CalVans vehicles operating within Kings County and a total of 218,431 annualized vanpools trips reported in Kings County.

CalVans general and agricultural vanpools have had sustained growth over the past 7 -year period, thus CalVans is planning to increase the number of available vans in its fleet. Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant funds awarded to CalVans in 2015 have allowed for expansion of the agricultural worker vanpool program with the purchase of clean fuel vehicles for

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 52 agricultural workers in the San Joaquin Valley’s disadvantaged communities. Additional Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) grant funds will be used to support the purchase of zero emission, plug-in hybrid, or hybrid passenger vans and electric charging equipment for low carbon transportation alternatives for the agricultural worker vanpool program . The expansion of this program has resulted in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in Kings County, shown in Figure 3-31 below.

In contrast to some privately operated vanpool providers, CalVans reports its operations data to the National Transit Database (NTD), which increases CalVans member agencies’ federal formula funds.

Reporting to the Federal NTD system includes tracked information regarding the accumulation of all miles traveled by each van, the number of passengers carried, how long they traveled, and the miles they traveled in each van.

FIGURE 3- 31 : CALVANS RIDERSHIP 20 13 -202 4
Note: Represents all CalVans service, not just those assigned to Kings County Source: National Transit Database (NTD) 2024

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 53

RIDEHAILING, CARPOOLING, AND CARSHARING
Rideshare Programs
One of the rideshare programs within the Central San Joaquin Valley region is provided by Valley Rides, an incentive carpooling and vanpooling program between Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) and California State University Fresno. A rideshare coordinator is responsible for developing and implementing the rideshare program which includes services to individuals and employers, public awareness activities, and special studies. These services include the Kings County area, a toll -free telephone number to receive rideshare matching services, and a website. Signs posting the toll- free number have been placed along major highway corridors in Kings County .

Carpool, transit, rail, bicycling, and vanpool resources are provided to registered users.

As part of a FY 2016 -17 Valley -wide study of transit conducted by the eight Valley MPOs in partnership with the UC Davis Institute of Transportation, the Rural Transit Alternatives Study, shared access services were evaluated for future car sharing or ridesharing options to rural disadvantaged communities. Active transportation options, such as car, bicycle, and ridesharing, were identified and analyzed for cost effectiveness for residents located within rural disadvantaged communities. Part of the effort was to develop a pilot model project to evaluate innovative transit solutions within selected communities which may serve to boost potential ridesharing alternatives in disadvantaged communities within the San Joaquin Valley, while encouraging owners of low or zero emission vehicles to become ride -sourcing or ride-splitting drivers. For Kings County, issues stem from the fact that transit agencies provide very cost-effective transit services to many communities, while ride-sourcing fares from companies such as Uber and Lyft, are less likely to attract drivers to serve remote rural communities within the Valley.

For Kings County, the community identified for review in the study was the City of Avenal, identified as a Rural Disadvantaged Community scoring above the 75th percentile of California census tracts burdened by environmental and socioeconomic challenges, a s ranked by the CalEnviroScreen

3. Carsharing versus other ridesharing options were evaluated and determined to be the best resource for a potential pilot program for rural residents of Avenal due to being the most cost-effective service.

Compared with fixed route transit and Dial -a-Ride service, it was determined that split -carsharing was the least expensive option, through carsharing reservation systems and/or apps for carpools.

In 2022 KCAPTA and the City of Avenal partnered with MioCar to implement a carshare pilot program.

This program is operated by MioCar utilizing a plug-in electric vehicle, to support the electric vehicle charging need of the program, KCAPTA install ed a solar powered electric charging station . This station is open to the public and MioCar at no cost.

The issue of feasibility and profit for rideshare drivers to provide service to the more rural areas like those in Kings County prohibits this alternative as a viable option to those disadvantaged communities that are far from major destinations.

3 California Environmental Protection Agency’s, California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 54

INTERCITY BUS SERVICE
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a major local intercity bus operator, Orange Belt Stages, has ceased operations. At this time, there are two non-Amtrak bus operators that serve Kings County, Greyhound and FlixBus. Greyhound was acquired by FlixBus in 2021. These operators have two stops in Kings County, Hanford and Lemoore. Details on Amtrak Thruway bus services are summarized in the following section.

ISSUES AND ONGOING IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS

PUBLIC TRANSIT
Kings Area Regional Transit
1) Both KCAG and the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) must continue to seek out and define transportation needs. It is vital that the KART system remain proactive to transit patrons’ needs, who include the elderly, disabled, and persons with limited means, allowing both input and feedback for future transit route adjustments. KART management and the KCAPTA Board must remain accessible to those who need transit service in the community.

They must ask themselves and the community: Who in Kings County needs transit services? Where are the needs located? What level of service will reasonably meet those needs? The annual “unmet transit needs” public hearing process conducted by the KCAG Transportation Policy Committee to allocate Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues to support KART will assist in determining the answers to these questions. Fortunately, there have been sufficient LTF revenues in the past to fund any transit needs identified through this process. However, decreases in other funding sources have occurred over the past several years, making LTF revenues even more critical to the transit system operations within the County. 2) KART's cost-sharing formula is based on 50 percent service hours and 50 percent population of each member. KCAPTA continually, on an on-going basis, reviews the formula to provide an equitable apportioning of transit costs among the member agencies. 3) Due to Kings County's rural nature, County residents must rely more on their own means for transportation than those living in the more densely populated areas of the state. Public transit services are well patronized by a small segment of the population, primarily by residents of limited means without access to a car and the elderly, yet public transit is generally considered a low-priority public expenditure.

Although KART's ridership and fare revenues have increased, it still requires the public to subsidize about 85 percent of its costs. The intent of the Transportation Development Act is to ensure that all persons have access to transportation for both drivers and non-drivers. 4) Over the lifetime of the system , the KART system has improved its farebox return ratio.

However, because of added cost to implement state and federal requirements such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Welfare-to-Work, as well as the impact of the COVID- 19 pandemic, the farebox ratio has not been able to increase as steadily as it had in the past.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 55 In addition, many transit agencies in California have seen decreasing ridership due to improving economic conditions, ride-hailing apps such as Uber and Lyft, and the passage of AB 60 in 2013 which removed restrictions for undocumented California residents to get a driv er's license.

These factors have served to reduce transit ridership particularly among small and/or rural transit providers which in turn has compromised many transit providers ’ ability to meet their TDA fair-box recovery targets; this can consequently lead to reduced funding, and ultimately, services. Kings County is not immune to these factors. Recent ridership has generally declined compromising fare-box recovery ratios and the transit agency’s ability to remain eligible for TDA funding which is critical to simply maintain existing levels of transit service provided today.

KCAPTA continues to increase awareness of community ridership and to adjust routes to better serve the greatest number of people. Care should be taken to ensure that such adjustments, while appearing to be more economical, do not reduce service to the low-mobility groups KART is designed to serve. KCAPTA strives to comply with paratransit complementary service requirements and provides paratransit rider training to qualifying ADA riders. KCAPTA also conducts outreach and advertising to social service agenci es and others with clientele who utilize KART services.
5) Due to prior budget cuts, some social service agencies have requested KART to supplement their clients’ transportation needs. Because transit needs of the elderly and disabled are high priorities of KART, it will require additional services at an increased cost. The coordination of transportation services among KART and social service providers should be implemented where feasible. KCAPTA provides KART tickets to agencies and to the City of Corcoran to distribute to their clientele riders. KCAPTA also has a greement(s) to coordinate bus services with other agencies/organizations within Kings County, to provide emergency service and/or needed transit for special events.
6) KCAPTA began providing service to Visalia for educational and employment needs several years ago, but Tulare County has not proposed providing complimentary service to Hanford. KCAPTA will need to coordinate with TCAG to develop, fund, and operate a commuter service that will meet service needs and performance criteria. Implementation of the Cross Valley Corridor service is expected to provide the complimentary service between Visalia and Hanford. 7) Federal welfare reform law requires local transit providers to consider giving priority to enhancing services for welfare-to-work purposes.

KCAPTA must work with public and private agencies to develop and equitably fund new routes and services that offer welfare recipients the ability to obtain employment and training opportunities. KART services are utilized by County social service agencies, such as the Kings County Human Services Agency – Employment Training Division, to provide such transportation.
8) KCAPTA developed the 7th Street Hanford transfer station near the Amtrak station in 1989, in response to KART’s growing bus fleet. By 2017, the KART system had outgrown the existing transfer station.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 56 Due to KART’s growth in meeting the County’s transit demand, KCAPTA completed a site selection study for a future regional multimodal transit center and acquired funding to construct the new transit center in Hanford. A KART Hanford Fixed Route Study analyzed the route system needs at the new transit center site to include modifying routes and introducing new routes in order to meet transit needs. KCAPTA must investigate all new sources of funding and submit grant applications to obtain required funds for various projects because currently used funding programs available to operators in rural counties are insufficient to meet these needs. The 2021 Transit Development Plan (TDP) identifies various public transit funding sources for coordinated transportation. The Study determined a final site of several parcels together in Hanford on 7th Street, east of the former station and on the corridor that provides access to the future High Speed Rail Kings/Tulare station . In 2026, the construction of the KCAPTA transit center was completed and ready for occupancy in January 2026.

9) Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP 21), KCAPTA is required to manage a comprehensive transit asset management plan.

Since 2012, KCAPTA has installed and operated a compressed natural gas (CNG) station and converted its gas-powered bus fleet to CNG. More recently, KCAPTA established performance safety measures and developed a transit asset management plan in compliance with Federal law. KCAPTA handles transit system inventories and conditions assessments of assets, including infrastructure, mechanical malfunctions, repairs, and/or replacement of the CNG buses in order to maintain a state of good repair. KCAPTA also employs performance measures to monitor and report the safety and security of the buses and infrastructure. Having CNG buses allows KCAPTA to acquire additional sources of funding through air quality grant programs. KCAPTA is moving forward with plans to finalize a transition to a zero-emission fleet. 10) Efforts by the California Air Resource Board to reduce levels of noxious odors, fumes, and other air pollutants generated by transit fleet vehicles, in order to meet ozone air quality standards, have resulted in significant technological advancements in zero emission buses in the past few years. KCAPTA will have until the year 2040 to convert its entire compressed natural gas (CNG) fleet to zero emission. Employing charging stations along with conversion to zero emission vehicles creates higher preliminary costs. KCAPTA will need to apply for zero emission bus

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 57 incentive programs and obtain federal funding to subsidize the purchase of zero emission buses, charging station equipment, and installation and meet funding requirements. 11) The potential for high transit ridership remains in Kings County. Despite interruptions by the COVID-19 pandemic, KART ridership has returned to normal levels and continue to grow.

Recovery efforts by KCAPTA to increase ridership have included seasonal passes at a reduced rate of $20 in 2021 and free transit for the public in December 2020 and 2021. KART seasonal passes are now sold at the City of Avenal to promote usage and sales of the passes from different locations. Despite the impacts to ridership from the COVID-19 pandemic, KCAPTA has implemented three projects that will help to maximize ridership potential:

a. Built the new multimodal transit center that can accommodate other mobility options and enhance the customer experience;
b. Redesign the fixed route system of frequent transit to simplify its use and improve customer experience, while maximizing effectiveness and efficiency and minimizing the impact on current customers; and
c. Partner with Uber to utilize their on -demand platform to grow ridership and operate at maximum efficiency.

Corcoran Area Transit
1) The City of Corcoran’s Dial -a-Ride service has provided residents with a dependable transit system for over 30 years. Both the prison and related facilities in Corcoran, along with the Corcoran Amtrak intermodal station, will increase transit demand. The ability of Corcoran Area Transit to meet this demand will require changes in transit routes and equipment and increase the need for additional funding.
2) Corcoran Area Transit (CAT) has experienced slow growth in their bus services, hovering in the low thirty-thousand mark until the onset of the COVID -19 pandemic. Corcoran relies on Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for most of the transit system. To supplem ent ridership and to support their revenue structure in meeting farebox requirements for LTF funding, the City has sold Amtrak and KART transfer tickets at discounted prices to its patrons. While the Dial-A-Ride and Amtrak ticket sales have increased within the past year, the number of KART ticket sales has decreased within the past 3 years, resulting in the downward trend. With the operation of the Corcoran Amtrak intermodal facility by the City and expanded Dial -a-Ride service within the Corcoran area to meet the needs of local residents, the City has created the need for funding that exceeds what is available from traditional transit funding sources. 3) Each year, depending on subsidized KART fare tickets for Corcoran -to-Hanford commutes, Corcoran was able to secure additional revenue to aid their TDA farebox requirements. To improve CAT’s ability to meet the minimum 10 percent farebox requirement, the Ci ty recently approved raising general and senior priced fares upon recommendation of the King’s County Transit Development Plan (TDP). Subsidized Amtrak tickets generally split 50/50, were also approved for raised cost to the general public, in order to red uce the subsidy cost to the City.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 58 The City will need to monitor its additional revenues toward farebox calculations to remain in compliance.
4) The KART fixed Route 13 in -town service in Corcoran was discontinued in 2017, thus the City will have to fund and provide its own fixed route service to its residents. The 2020 Corcoran Transit Fixed Route Study has identified fixed route service through public outreach and transit data analyses, which the City will utilize in the near future. Both KCAPTA and Corcoran share a regional pass for service between Hanford and Corcoran through a subsidy program with shared revenue generated by the sale of day and monthly passes. 5) Efforts by the California Air Resource Board to reduce levels of noxious odors, fumes, and other air pollutants generated by transit fleet vehicles, in order to meet ozone air quality standards, have resulted in significant technological advancements in zero emission buses in the past few years. Corcoran will have until the year 2040 to convert its entire fleet to electric. However, the City is planning to convert its diesel buses to CNG within the next few years. In the future, Corcoran will need to apply for zero emission bus (ZEB) incentive programs and obtain federal funding to subsidize the purchase of battery electric buses, charging station equipment, and installation and meet funding requirements with conversion to electric fleet. The ZEB Implementation Plan being developed for 2023 will include the City’s ZEB rollout and infrastructure plans.

Intercity Bus Issues
1) Regular intercity bus services will hinge on coordination with other counties in the region after Orange Belt Stages ceased operations in 2020 due to the impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic.

The importance of this issue will be further discussed in the following section, Rail Passenger Transit.

Ridehailing and Carsharing Issues
By far, most of the unused transportation capacity in Kings County is in private automobiles. By doubling up on the number of persons in a car or van, many public benefits result. As is shown by Figure 3-23, many Kings County residents in urban areas already carpool. Due to the uncertainty caused by the pandemic, long-term efforts such as increased telework and an increase in solo driving as a means to physically distance from other households, are not yet clear. However, it is in the County’s interest to continue to support ridesharing. From a consumer's perspective, ridesharing gives a higher level of convenience for daily commuters, saves money otherwise spent on gas, and reduces wear on owners' cars. From a regional standpoint, the use and formation of carpools would help to reduce noxious odors which attribute to vehicle emission and poor air quality in the Valley.

Ridesharing should be promoted as a demand-regulating practice to reduce automobile congestion, fuel consumption, air pollution, and the need for additional road and parking capacity. Few would argue the value of these effects, though some point out that l ower gas sales mean less tax money to fix deteriorated roads. Lowering the demand for new facilities, however, will mean that more can be spent on upgrading the existing roads and parking areas. Commute alternatives to improve the carbon footprint include: carpooling, vanpooling, public transit, bicycling, walking, alternative work schedules, park-and-ride lots, and the Emergency Guaranteed Ride Home Program.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 59

RAIL PASSENGER TRANSIT
Amtrak
Kings County is fortunate in that it is linked with
other areas of the state by Amtrak Gold Runner
(formerly San Joaquins) trains. Ensuring the
continuation of adequate intercity service is of
considerable importance to Kings County.
1) Most of the equipment on the Gold Runner
Corridor is owned by the State. Amtrak
maintains the equipment, with oversight of
equipment maintenance by the SJJPA and the
Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority,
working in partnership with Caltrans. In the
Gold Runer Corridor, the rail rights -of-way
(ROW) and infrastructure are owned by UPRR and BNSF. UPRR and BNSF grant trackage rights to each other depending on ownership and route segment. The Gold Runner Corridor comprises 365 route miles, 316 miles between Oakland and Bakersfield with 13 intermediate stops; and 49 miles between Sacramento and Stockton with one additional intermediate stop. Amtrak operates the San Joaquin’s under provisions of its contracts with the BNSF and UPRR. The predominant right-of-way of the Gold Runner route serving Kings County is owned by the BNSF Railway Company.
2) State costs to support intercity rail operations have increased significantly due to reductions in Amtrak’s federal funding. SB 1118 authorized the former “Steering Committee of the Caltrans Rail Task Force” to continue working with Caltrans to assist in the management and promotion of the service. This committee was renamed the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee which represents the counties along the route.
3) Like virtually all Amtrak trains, the Gold Runner operates at a loss. With operating expenses exceeding ticket sales, a deficit remains to be shared by Amtrak and Caltrans under the 403(b)- agreement begun in 1979. Continued state support was on the condition that a farebox ratio of 55 percent would be maintained. This requirement could be waived for three years. However, as additional services were provided and changes were made in Amtrak’s cost allocation formula, the previously attained high farebox ratios around 80 percent were no longer able to be achieved. As a requirement of SB 457, the state developed uniform performance standards for the state-supported rail corridors to control costs and improve efficiency. The performance standards reflect the total route ridership, cost efficiency, and quality of service and are no longer based solely on farebox ratios.
4) The Gold Runner saw declining on-time performance with 66 percent on-time rate in FY 23

4. 4 Amtrak 2023 Route On-Time Performance

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 60 5) Improvement strategies to the San Joaquins route include adding new locomotives that would help to reduce air quality pollution, improving disjointed land uses with access constraints by encouraging transit -oriented development along the corridor, and providing study and infrastructure investments to improve access, especially to link intercity rail services to regional rail and transit.

6) As a result of SB 742 (2019), bus -only ticketing on the Amtrak Thruway Bus network is now available, bolstering the capacity of the SJJPA to serve smaller communities in the Valley. An opportunity also exists to provide coordinated feeder bus service by the KART and Corcoran Dial-a-Ride systems. The feeder bus network is a very important element of the San Joaquins since more than 55 percent of all passengers use a feeder bus during their trip. 7) In November of 1988, the Kings County electorate approved a ballot measure which made the county eligible under Article XIX, Section 4 of the California Constitution, for transit guideway funds for capital improvements to the Amtrak San Joaquins line. Each of the counties eligible for Article XIX funds was to receive a county minimum share of budgeted funds based on a percentage of each county's 1990 Census population to the total eligible county population.

The amount of funding available to Kings County through the Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) Program ranged between $88,100 and $225,600. Funds were used for projects to construct the Hanford and Corcoran intermodal facilities and the Cross Valley Rail Feasibility Study.

With the enactment of SB 45 and the elimination of the TCI Program, a minimum of funds is no longer available to Kings County. Intercity rail projects are now programmed through the Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) on a statewide competitive basis. However, with the start of high -speed rail service between Fresno and Madera, the Joint Powers Authority is looking to end San Joaquins service south of Madera. This deeply impacts Kings County, and KCAG will continue to work with partner agencies to ensure adequate bus bridging is available.

High Speed Rail
1) The unstable nature of finances available to the high-speed rail project, continual cost overruns, and the ever-continuing delays is of local planning concern. 2) The County continues to believe that the High Speed Rail project may bring its development patterns out of line from desired development patterns laid forth in local general plans, accelerate loss of farmland, and be in conflict with the spirit of the Bond Act.

If a high-speed train comes to the Valley, it must be designed and operated so that it benefits the Valley economy. Benefits could include job creation, improved access to services available in major urban centers, and potentially greater economic output. Although a downtown station could be used as a catalyst to stimulate a comprehensive urban area revitalization program, the CAHSRA has proposed a station outside of the downtown area and in the County of Kings secondary sphere of influence away from an e xisting transportation hub . This could induce unplanned leapfrog development and is contrary to current concentric, agriculture sustaining planning documents, including the Sustainable Communities Strategy element of this document.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 61 The City of Hanford applied for a Caltrans Sustainable Communities planning grant in 2021 to develop a Station Area Plan to plan land uses surrounding and associated with the High-Speed Rail station area, to promote connectivity to the Downtown core, and to promote an efficient, reliable, and effective multi-modal transportation system. Major deliverables would include a Plan that addresses infrastructure needs, transportation connectivity, and land use planning. A conceptual rendering of the station from the High-Speed Rail Authority is included as Figure 3-32. No grant funds were awarded.
3) At the start of interim revenue service between Merced and Bakersfield, the current intent of the SJJPA is to terminate high San Joaquins service at Merced. The impact on the county will be significant, as Hanford and Corcoran, which currently have dedicat ed rail stations, will instead be serviced by the aforementioned Kings/Tulare station. The SJJPA has explored possible service alternatives, including an integrated bus service, to replace current service provided by the San Joaquins. Consultation with local agencies ruled out using BNSF right-of- way to offer a rail replacement due to cost and inflexibility. The diagram of bus connections, as provided in the 2021 South of Merced Integration Study Report is provided as Figure 3-33, below. It should be noted that while in the interim bus connections are planned between Huron and Porterville, prior planning on the Cross Valley Rail Corridor remains and coordination continues across area stakeholders.

FIGURE 3- 32 : KINGS -TULARE STATION CONCEPTUAL RENDER
Source: California High Speed Rail Authority

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 62

FIGURE 3- 33 : FUTURE BUS CONNECTIONS
Source: San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority South of Merced Integration Study

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 63

SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
1) Recent KART surveys have determined that the types of trips most needed by these two transit- dependent groups are those related to medical, shopping, and personal business purposes.

Access to jobs, health programs, and recreational activities are the largest transportation needs for these groups, based upon feedback provided by the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) that is comprised of mostly social service providers. Work -related trips are needed by disabled clients of several social service organizations. Trip requests from elderly and disabled persons in Corcoran are almost exclusively for medical and personal business purposes to Hanford and Fresno.
2) As required by Section 99238 of the Public Utilities Code, the KCAG Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) appointed representatives of social service providers and transit users to serve as the SSTAC. The SSTAC's primary role is to advise the RTPA and to provide input in the identification of transit needs of the elderly, disabled, and persons with limited means. The SSTAC evaluates and recommends approval of applications for federal transit grants benefiting the elderly and disabled and reviews transit plans.
3) As previously documented, many agencies in Kings County provide transportation services for the elderly and disabled and are primarily funded with federal and state funds. The Lanterman Developmental Services Act requires agencies to make full use of existing services, such as public transit, whenever possible to meet client needs. Due to federal and state budget cutbacks, many of these agencies are having to reduce or discontinue service and are asking public transit agencies to supplement their clients’ transportation needs. To meet the transportation needs of the elderly and disabled which are of high priority, KART has had to add services at an increased cost.
4) In 2021, KCAG prepared the Transit Development Plan (TDP), which assessed current and future trends in transit demand. Forecast analyses of the County’s transit demand indicate the elderly population will outpace other age categories in the coming decades, increasing from

10.6 percent in 2020, 13.1 percent by 2030, and 14.0 percent by 2040. KCAG will be developing an update to the TDP in FY 2026-27.
5) Funding for elderly and disabled transit capital projects is available through the Federal Transit Act (FTA) Section 5310 grant program on a statewide competitive basis. Small agencies that need a bus and/or equipment are not able to compete effectively for funds based on the statewide criteria that are used to score projects and/or strict qualification requirements.

Regional funds should be allocated on a more equitable funding basis, such as a formula apportionment to each regional transportation planning agency for allocation to area transit providers.

The FTA Section 5310 program has been modified to include funding for mobility management to build coordination between existing public transportation providers and other transportation service providers. Area agencies, such as the Kings County Commission on Aging, who depend upon KART services for their clientele, may benefit from grant funds for travel training opportunities, but are subject to statewide competition.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 64

RAIL PASSENGER TRANSIT
AMTRAK
Amtrak provides vital connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley through its Gold Runner (formerly San Joaquins) service, established and offered jointly through Amtrak and Caltrans. Governance is through the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority.

San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
To protect the existing Gold Runner rail service and to promote its improvement, in 2012, local and regional agencies throughout most of the Gold Runner Corridor (Bakersfield -Fresno-Modesto- Stockton-Sacramento-Oakland) sponsored and supported Assembly Bill 1779 (AB 1779). This bill enabled regional government agencies to form the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) to take over the administration and management of the existing San Joaquin rail service from the state.

AB 1779 was passed by the Legislature on August 30, 2012 with bi-partisan support and was signed by Governor Brown on September 29, 2012. The first SJJPA Board meeting was held on March 22, 2013 in Merced.

AB 1779 defines the composition of the SJJPA and requires the execution of an interagency transfer agreement with the Department of Transportation and that the transfer must result in administrative or operating cost reductions. The SJJPA officially took over the management and administration of the Gold Runner service from the State on July 2, 2015. AB 1779 requires the SJJPA to protect the existing Gold Runner rail service and facilities and seek to expand service as warranted by ridership and available revenue. Increases in the Gold Runner rail service and ridership will result in more jobs, improved air quality, and will help promote sustainable development in the Gold Runner Corridor. Under the provisions of AB 1779, the state will continue to provide the funding necessary for service operations, administration and marketing. Furthermore, Caltrans Division of Rail will remain responsible for the development of the Statewide Rail Plan an d the coordination and integration between the three state-supported intercity passenger rail services.

Beyond cost-effective administration and operations, train riders and San Joaquin Valley residents have had a stronger voice in deciding what happens with the service since local decision -making is more responsive and adaptive to passenger issues. The SJJPA, which is made up of elected officials throughout the San Joaquin Corridor, will be a strong voice in advocating for service improvements and expansions – particularly in Washington D.C. and in Sacramento. The SJJPA will take advantage of joint marketing and partnerships with local agencies throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

The ten member agencies that make up the SJJPA are as follows:
• Alameda County
• Contra Costa Transportation
Authority
• Fresno Council of Governments
• Kings County Association of
Governments
• Madera County Transportation
Commission
• Merced County Association of
Governments
• Sacramento Regional Transit
• San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission
• Stanislaus Council of Governments
• Tulare County Association of
Governments.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 65

The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission ( SJRRC) was selected by the SJJPA Board to be the Managing Agency at the July 26, 2013 SJJPA Board Meeting. As Managing Agency of the SJJPA, the SJRRC will provide all necessary administrative support for the SJJPA. The SJPPA along with its supporters and sponsors are working with other partner agencies to advocate for conventional intercity rail service improvements throughout California.

San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee
The purpose of the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee (SJVRC) is to discuss and formulate suggestions and ideas for improvements to the Amtrak Gold Runner passenger train service. The SJVRC was established in 1987 and was managed by Caltrans until the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) took over management in 2015. The SJVRC is part of a larger grassroots effort by the SJJPA to engage and inform citizens about the Gold Runner Rail Service.

On October 9, 2015, the SJVRC met and adopted new bylaws. These bylaws changed the structure of the Committee. Elected officials no longer serve on the Committee, therefore the SJVRC is now a citizen-based committee.

Amtrak Gold Runner (San Joaquins) Service Information
Of the three Amtrak intercity corridors within California, the Gold Runner rail line is considered one of the busiest corridors in the United States. The Gold Runner Corridor c urrently has seven trains that provide daily roundtrips within 11 counties with 18 stops from Bakersfield to Sacramento or the Bay Area. The Gold Runner service is 37.5% of all Amtrak intercity rail ridership. Connecting Amtrak Thruway bus service is provided to Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and 132 other destinations in California and Nevada. The Amtrak Thruway service supports intercity passenger rail by connecting service with guaranteed seating to markets without direct passenger rail service, using an integrated train and bus ticket program. Amtrak Thruway buses previously needed to sell a rail ticket with bus tickets, but SB 742 (2019) has allowed Amtrak to sell bus- only tickets. This is likely to increase ridership in the region by dramatically increasing route availability.

As a national enterprise, Amtrak continually seeks coordination of passenger rail services with other providers to increase connectivity and ridership. One method being examined by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) is to coordinate non -riders with excess seating capacity in key corridors or with outside bus providers. Offering group discounts to riders, including seniors, students, and veterans, and group discounts through the “Friends and Family Program” to organizations, schools, and churches is a viable program for the Gold Runner . The trains are accessible to the people with disabilities and provide on-board bicycle racks, checked baggage, and food services.

Figure 3-34 shows the Gold Runner ridership from 2007 to 2024. Ridership on the Gold Runner was relatively constant from 2010 to 2019 with an annual average of over 1.1 million riders. The Gold Runner service experience a decline in ridership due to the COVID -19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 and continues to see impacts today. However, as of 2024 the service is operating at 84% of pre-pandemic ridership and has had the fastest ridership recovery of any Amtrak service in the state.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 66 The Gold Runner service annual ridership in FY 24 by station is listed in Table 3-11. Hanford is one of the most heavily trafficked stops on the Gold Runner, consistently ranking among the top ten stations in ridership. The Hanford Amtrak station recorded 129,465 boardings and alighting in FY 2024. The Corcoran station recorded 21,640 passenger boardings and alighting in FY 2024.

FIGURE 3- 34 : RIDERSHIP OVER TIME, GOLD RUNNER, 2007 -2024 Source: Amtrak Year End Ridership Fact Sheet

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 67 TABLE 3- 11 : GOLD RUNNER RIDERSHIP BY STATION FY24

STATION
TOTAL

RIDERSHIP
(BOARDINGS
AND

ALIGHTINGS)

ANTIOCH-
PITTSBURG 33,639
BAKERSFIELD 389,746
CORCORAN 21,640
EMERYVILLE 392,000
FRESNO 309,895
HANFORD 129,465
LODI 2,654
MADERA 26,412
MARTINEZ 254,586
MERCED 133,208
MODESTO 101,714
OAKLAND 237,938
RICHMOND 183,421
SACRAMENTO 699,279
STOCKTON 272,141

TURLOCK -
DENAIR 30,546
WASCO 24,244
GOLD
RUNNER
TOTAL

RIDERSHIP
3,185,084
* Since each trip contains two endpoints, total ridership is equal to half of total boardings and alighting’s.

Source: Amtrak Fact Sheet

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 68

FIGURE 3- 35 : HANFORD AMTRAK STATION RIDERSHIP, 2013- 2024 Source: Amtrak Year End Fact Seet

CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL
Construction continues on a 119 -mile segment of high -speed rail through the San Joaquin Valley.

The Central Valley portion, 171 miles, is currently under construction from Shafter to Madera.

Testing on this initial segment is slated to begin in 2028.

Kings County is in Construction Package 2-3. The planned station is near Hanford and is designed to serve the Hanford/Visalia catchment area and construction along the section has already begun.

KCAG is committed to advocating for policies and transit service that benefit and serve the residents of Kings County and neighboring Valley communities. A map of current construction and the planned alignment is located below in Figure 3-36.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 69

FIGURE 3- 36 : CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL CENTRAL VALLEY SEGMENT PLANS Source: California High Speed Rail Authority

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 70

GOODS MOVEMENT
This section examines ways to ensure that the transportation network in Kings County efficiently supports the needs of the region. Freight and commodities are efficiently transported through Kings County and the region. The two transportation modes of railroads and freight trucks are considered.

Special attention is given to the needs of the agricultural industry in moving its products.

ASSUMPTIONS OF GROWTH AND DEMAND
Ground Transportation Demand
1) Since the pandemic, supply chain woes have underscored the need to ensure adequate capacity in intermodal goods movement. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) forecasts a 20-yr (2023-2043) baseline economic growth outlook of 1.0% and 2.1% growth in annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for combination and single unit trucks, respectively. Roughly one-third of the state’s Gross State Product (GSP) relies on freight -intensive sectors, and support of these sectors is vital to the long- term economic health of the state and of Kings County . As the pandemic recovery began, the trucking sector has steadily outpaced pre-pandemic volumes, and continue a pattern of slow and sustained growth, as shown in Figure 3-37.

FIGURE 3- 37 : ESTIMATED ANNUAL TRUCK VMT, KINGS COUNTY 2013 -2024 Source: Caltrans Public Road Data, 2013-2024
2) Kings County's agricultural economy will continue to generate a strong demand for adequate truck and rail facilities to move farm products to processing plants, markets, and ports.

3) Figure 3-38 shows top farm produce by percentage and Table 3-12 shows the top farm products by value in the county.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 71 4) The vast quantity of agricultural products needing to be shipped in Kings County will contribute to a higher proportion of trucks on Kings County roadways relative to other counties in Kings County.
5) Truck routes ( Figure 3-39 through Figure 3- 43) are specifically designated to carry heavyweight commercial and industrial vehicles through and around a city with minimum disruption to auto traffic and annoyance to residential areas. Truck routes are generally established on arterial and collector st reets that provide direct access from regional routes to industrial areas within each community.

FIGURE 3- 38 : KINGS COUNTY FARM PRODUCE PERCENT OF TOTAL VALUE 2024 *Note that numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding error Source: Kings County Agricultural Crop Report, 2024

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 72 TABLE 3- 12 : KINGS COUNTY LEADING FARM PRODUCTS* BY VALUE

*Excludes timber
Source: 2024 Kings County Agricultural Crop Report
Air Cargo Demand
1) Kings County will generate relatively little demand for air cargo transportation . The regional cargo airfield is in Fresno County at the Fresno Yosemite International Airport. There are no major cargo airfields in Kings County . Additional information on aviation in the county is included in the Aviation section.

Rail Cargo Demand
1) The rail network in Kings County, shown in Figure 3-44, consists of approximately 67 miles of mainline and branchline railroad over which two railroad companies operate. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline runs north-south through the county, and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad runs east-west on the leased Coalinga Branchline formerly operated by Union Pacific Railroad (UP).
2) Railroad companies will continue to seek abandonment of service on unprofitable rail lines.

Freight previously shipped by rail would be shipped by trucks, increasing truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and emissions.

PRODUCT VALUE
LIVESTOCK & POULTRY PRODUCTS $ 813,677,000
FRUIT & NUT CROPS $ 716,646,000
FIELD CROPS $ 406,505,000
LIVESTOCK & POULTRY $ 241,622,000
VEGETABLE CROPS $ 224,693,000
APIARY PRODUCTS $ 21,233,000
SEED CROPS $ 20,930,000
TOTAL $ 2,445,306,000

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 73

FIGURE 3- 39 : KINGS COUNTY OVERSIZE TRUCK ROUTES
Source: KCAG

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 74

FIGURE 3- 40 : AVENAL TRUCK ROUTES
Source: City of Avenal

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 75

FIGURE 3- 41 : CORCORAN TRUCK ROUTES
Source: City of Corcoran, County of Kings

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 76

FIGURE 3- 42 : HANFORD TRUCK ROUTES
Source: City of Hanford

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 77

FIGURE 3- 43 : LEMOORE TRUCK ROUTES
Source: City of Lemoore

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 78

FIGURE 3- 44 : KINGS COUNTY RAILROADS
Source: KCAG

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 79

GOODS MOVEMENT STUDIES
San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement Study (2013)
The eight RTPAs within the central San Joaquin Valley, in conjunction with Caltrans and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ( SJVAPCD), have completed a study to improve the understanding of truck transportation of commodities within and through the Valley. The study was completed in three phases; the first phase of the study, completed in 2000, focused on documenting the freight transportation system and identifying existing issues and problems of regional goods movement planning within the Valley; the second phase of the Study described the development of a model tool to forecast truck movement within and through the San Joaquin Valley; the third phase of the Study provided improvements to the San Joaquin Valley truck model and integration with local models.

The truck model is intended to forecast truck trips and vehicle miles traveled, analyze air quality and emissions from heavy-duty trucks, impacts of congestion on major truck routes, and safety and road maintenance issues associated with truck activity. This model will provide an analytical basis for evaluating the benefits of transportation investments that impact the movement of goods in the San Joaquin Valley.

San Joaquin Valley Interregional Goods Movement Plan (2013) The San Joaquin Valley Interregional Goods Movement Plan (2013) was developed to take the next steps in the progression and implementation of the region’s freight transportation vision . The Interregional Goods Movement Plan identified 50 priority projects categorized by regional north - south highway capacity, east -west connectors, local “last mile” connectors, modal capacity for expected flows (rail and air cargo capacity increase or upgrades to support new freight flows), economic development opportunities, inland ports, and strategic programs.

This effort focused on developing actionable project recommendation s and implementation plans.

This study confirmed that goods movement -dependent industries remain the foundation for many local area economies within the San Joaquin Valley, providing over 44% (564,000) of the region’s jobs in 2010. Projected growth by 2040 estimates over 813,000 new jobs throughout the region.

The growing industries and population of the San Joaquin Valley will therefore increase demand for freight services. Freight volumes are projected to grow from 500 million tons in 2007 to almost 800 million tons by 2040. Goods movements will continue to rely heavily on trucks, and it is anticipated that by 2040, roughly 93% of all commodity movement will be transported by truck.

San Joaquin Valley I-5 / SR 99 Goods Movement Corridor Study (2017) Completed in 2017, the San Joaquin Valley I -5 / SR 99 Goods Movement Corridor Study builds on prior studies and focuses primarily on the two main corridors that carry the highest truck volumes in the Valley. The study analyzes truck traffic patterns and freight facilities to better understand deficiencies that affect goods movement in the region. The analysis found that trucks are the primary mode of transportation for the agricultural, food, and beverage industries carrying over 97 percent of these commodities.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 80 Strategic programs and corridor improvements were explored to assess goods movement benefits, such as shifting truck traffic from SR 99 to I-5 to improve efficiency on SR 99 which passes through urban centers. This study resulted in identifying corridor and connector projects that would improve economic efficiency, alleviate mobility and safety related goods movement issues, and support the growth of agricultural and industrial land uses . Road-to-rail shifts and technological advancements (e.g., truck platooning) were highlighted as future opportunities that should be monitored.

San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement Sustainable Implementation Plan (2017) The San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement Sustainable Implementation Plan was developed in tandem with the San Joaquin Valley I-5 / SR 99 Goods Movement Corridor Study and completed in 2017.

The Plan reviewed STAA truck routes and parking needs, including the identification of first and last mile connectors within freight hubs. Priority rural corridors were also identified using the FAST Act criteria for Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFC). A list of priority rural corridors was developed and included routes were SR 41 and SR 198 with access to agriculture. With a growing demand for freight- related analyses, a review of the truck model was also conducted to explore available options for updating the existing Valley truck model.

California State Rail Plan (2024)
The 2024 California State Rail Plan considers the state’s rail network as a key component of movement of goods. The Plan notes the shift of freight from truck to rail will reduce capacity strain at airports and freeways, therefore reducing congestion on th ese modes of travel. Additionally, rail can support goods movement from ports and allow for increased efficiency in moving goods from ports instead of trucks and will minimize health impacts to nearby communities.

California Freight Mobility Plan (2023)
The California Freight Mobility Plan includes peak hour truck parking space by Caltrans District, in the Central Valley, there is a truck parking supply of 3,249 and a demand of 2,797 therefore leaving approximately 14% surplus of truck parking is availabl e in the Central Valley. The Freight Mobility Plan anticipates that truck miles traveled is anticipated to increase 20% by 2040, especially in the Central Valley.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 81

SUMMARY OF GOODS MOVEMENT ISSUES
Deterioration of Highways
Given that Kings County experiences such a high level of truck travel, its streets and highways are subject to rapid deterioration and failure. City, county, and state road crews are well aware of this fact; most of their work involves repairing fatigued pavements. Roughly 60 cents out of every local transportation dollar in Kings County goes to road maintenance. Special attention must be given to the regional routes to keep them in a serviceable condition and to avoid major reconstruction costs.

Existing overweight truck fines are not devoted to enforcement of truck weight regulations, or the maintenance and rehabilitation of roads needed due to overweight truck damage. Legislation to increase truck weight penalties in order to provide added revenue for funding enforcement and road repair needs should be pursued. The amount of any penalty should relate to the damage done to the road and the cost of the repair.

Oversize Trucks
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 authorized the use of longer, wider trucks on designated highways. In Kings County, I -5, SR 41, SR 43, SR 137, and SR 198, and SR 269 are designated oversize truck routes. The act also allowed trucking companies to establish terminals off the designated routes. While the law did not change the present 80,000 lb. limit, overloading of the vehicles is expected. The trucks' wider turning radii can lead to congestion problems in urban areas.

Local officials have expressed concern over the impact that the trucks will have on state and local roads in Kings County. Policies have been adopted to regulate local access points, routes, terminals, and infrastructure improvements.

Truck Parking
The safe operation of large trucks requires sufficient rest on the part of truck operators. KCAG and Caltrans are interested in the safe shipment of goods. Ensuring that truckers have enough places to park and at intervals where safe parking is accessible is vitally important. Regional coordination on the issue of truck parking is ongoing.

Traffic Congestion
Due to their large size, trucks lead to reduced capacity on rural highways and to congestion on local streets. Each local agency has designated important collectors and arterials as "truck routes." Local street systems, however, are highly stressed by trucks because of their thinner pavements and base.

Congestion results when large trucks attempt to maneuver on narrow urban streets with cramped intersections and on-street parking.

Cooperative efforts are needed between the trucking industry, the driving public, and local officials to assess the impacts that trucks have on local streets and to create regulatory guidelines for trucks in urban areas. Most of the cities will be phasing out truck routes through residential neighborhoods as the area population increases.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 82 Port Access
Because many of Kings County's agricultural products are destined for world markets, efficient freight access at California's export points must be ensured. While the nearest ports to Kings County are in Northern and Southern California, private and state officials should determine solutions to reduce rail and truck congestion at the ports.

Rail Crossings
At-grade rail crossings produce several undesirable consequences:
lengthy delays of local traffic at certain times; safety problems where automatic grade protection devices have not been installed; and unnecessary roughness which slows traffic and causes congestion. Ways to remedy these challenges should be identified, discussed, and solved by the local jurisdiction and the railroad company. Grade separated crossings are the ultimate fix but are expensive and geometrically challenging or infeasible in many locations. All jurisdictions within Kings County that have at-grade rail crossings should look to improve the operation and safety of their crossings.

Improving rail crossings has only been addressed for passenger rail grade crossings. The California Transportation Commission adopted guidelines for the development of a statewide inventory and methodologies for prioritizing grade crossing improvements that would enhance public safety. Criteria used to prioritize improvements include factors like train speed and frequencies, traffic volumes, and accident history. These guidelines would only affect the BNSF rail lines and are currently being implemented.

National guidelines have asked for the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC). The deadline for implementing PTC was December 31, 2020. Per the Federal Railway Administration, PTC prevents train-to-train collision, unsafe high speed, increases worker safety, and movements of trains through incorrectly set rail switches.

Transportation of Hazardous Waste
Hazardous waste can be transported by rail, small or large trucks, and possibly by air and pipelines.

Currently, and for the foreseeable future, the largest volume of hazardous waste is transported by large trucks.

In King’s County, there is a Class I waste facility located in Kettleman Hills which draws trucks carrying hazardous materials from all western states. The presence of these vehicles alone increases the probability of spills. The Kings County Area Plan for Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response document details the protocols for handling hazardous spills. The Kettleman Hills Waste Facility is required to submit reports of spills to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Many of the counties within California import hazardous waste to Kings County for treatment, storage, and disposal at the Waste Management - Kettleman Hills facility. Over the past 10 years,

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 83 Kettleman Hills facility received approximately 600,000 tons of hazardous waste a year. While current transported levels are much lower, it is anticipated that if expansion permits are approved, then shipments of hazardous waste would increase to historical levels.

Potential adverse effects associated with the transportation of hazardous waste can be partially mitigated by restricting roads available for hazardous waste trucking. The Kings County Area Plan for Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response includes a hazardous waste transportation plan that established policies that define preferred major and minor routes which connect to regional, state, and interstate highways and railroad systems. Caltrans recommends that specific hazardous waste sites should be located a minimum of one-half mile away from any state highway and that any access to a facility by county, city, or private road should be improved to provide a left-turn lane and any other improvement to reduce the possibility of an accident.

Railroad Abandonments
Railroad companies have ceased operating freight on several railroad corridors throughout the San Joaquin Valley due to low freight volumes and unprofitable lines.

KCAG prepared a “Rail Right -of-Way Inventory Report” in 1990 for Kings County as part of the statewide Commuter and Intercity Rail Right-of-Way Inventory. The following Table 3-13, lists the rail lines within Kings County and their status.

TABLE 3- 13 : RAIL RIGHT -OF -WAY INVENTORY
Source: KCAG

RAILROAD STATUS POTENTIAL

TRANSPORTATION USE
UP STRAFORD SPURLINE Abandoned (1996) Yes
BNSF MAINLINE Active Yes
BNSF VISALIA BRANCHLINE Abandoned (1994) Yes
BNSF LATON BRANCHLINE Abandoned Yes

SJVRR HANFORD

SUBDIVISION
Active; Previously UP Coalinga
Branchline/Southern Pacific
Branchline
Yes

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 84

AVIATION

OVERVIEW
General aviation aircraft and airports are essential to the viability and economy of communities and businesses in Kings County. Within Kings County, all public-use and private airports are utilized for General Aviation aircraft (i.e. smaller, recreational or business). There is no commercial airline passenger service within Kings County. Much of the flight activity in Kings County is germane to the county's dominant farming economy where aerial application aircraft make up a sizable portion of all business aircraft.

The majority of aircraft are based at the Hanford Municipal Airport and at a number of privately owned airstrips. Whereas past trends in Kings County have reflected decreased levels of general aviation activity since the 1960’s recreational flying “boom”, the contribution by general aviation airports to regional growth is expected to increase. The Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) forecasts an average annual growth of 1.0 percent in General Aviation hours flown nationwide over the next 20 years, according to the FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2021-2041, despite declining significantly during the COVID -19 pandemic. The FAA predicts demand increases as the economy recovers, with general aviation less affected than commercial aviation by economic measures used to contain the pandemic. While flight hours are expected to increase, a 20-year increase of only 0.1 percent is predicted for the general aviation fleet. Possible future trends, including a rise in transient corporate aircraft, or changes in future industrial and commercial land uses in Kings County, or a shift in the economics of small plane manufacturing could all conceivably impact Kings County.

According to the FAA Registry for aircraft, there are 141 General Aviation aircraft based in Kings County. Accommodating these aircraft are approximately 40 Basic Utility Airports and landing strips.

Except for the Lemoore Naval Air Station (LNAS), these facilities generally belong to one of three classes: 1) publicly owned airports, open for public use; 2) privately-owned airports, open for public use; and 3) privately-owned airports for private use only. This section examines the role of airports in each category, giving special attention to the role of public airports and how they fit into the larger picture of regional and community development.

ASSUMPTIONS AND INVENTORIES
1) Hanford Municipal Airport will continue to satisfy the largest single portion of General Aviation demand in Kings County. Private airports and airstrips serving the remaining agri-business and recreational aviation demand will continue to support the regional economy, making sustainability of general aviation airports increasingly important.

2) Figure 3-45 indicates airport facilities within Kings County.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 85 3) Table 3-14 provides descriptive data about several airports and airstrips within the region and Figure 3-45 shows the location of airports and heliports in Kings County. 4) The future of General Aviation activity in Kings County will be intricately linked to the expansion of the Hanford Municipal Airport as the principal public-use airport serving the County. 5) Figure 3-46 shows where aircraft are registered by address. As shown the majority of airplanes based within Kings County are based at Hanford Municipal Airport. 6) Hanford Municipal Airport is the only public aviation facility in Kings County and does not offer scheduled commercial flights. With the closure of the Visalia Municipal Airport to commercial flights in 2016, the Kings-Tulare County region will foreseeably need a new primary commercial service airport in the future.
7) Most commercial air passenger demand by Kings County residents will be satisfied by the Fresno Yosemite International Airport (IATA: FAT). The greatest interaction between Hanford air traffic in Kings County is with the Visalia Municipal Airport. The level and dependability of air passenger service from Fresno and Visalia airports have fluctuated as regional airlines end or begin service based on economic changes in the passenger airline industry, and with the closure of the Visalia Municipal Airport’s commercial flight services. As a result, a majority of people are forced to drive to farther cities, such as Los Angeles or San Francisco, to obtain direct air service to both domestic and international major cities. 8) The LNAS will continue to play an important role in national defense. LNAS will continue to expand and remain the prominent military air base in the Western United States. 9) As its primar y agricultural output relies on truck -based shipping, Kings County will generate relatively little demand for air cargo transportation.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 86

FIGURE 3- 45 : KINGS COUNTY AIRPORTS/HELIPORTS
Source: KCAG, FAA: https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 87

FIGURE 3- 46 : REGISTERED AIRCRAFT BY LISTED ADDRESS, KINGS COUNTY Source: FAA Aircraft Inquiry.

33%
32%
13%
8%
6%
8%
Registered A ircraft in K ings County
Le m o o r e & LNAS
Hanford
Corcoran
Stratford
A v enal
Other / out-of-county listed address

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 88 TABLE 3- 14 : KINGS COUNTY AVIATION FACILITIES 2 02 6

AIRPORT/OWNER
NAME
FAA
ID

ASSOCIATE
D
PLACE
TYPE
OF
USE
OPEN
TO
PUBLIC

RUNWAY DESCRIPTION

LENGTH WIDTH SURFACE

1. HANFORD
MUNICIPAL HJO Hanford Public Yes 5,179 75 Asphalt

2. CORCORAN
(H & G FARMS /

LAKELAND

DUSTERS)
43CN Corcoran Private No 3,800 50 Asphalt

3. SALYER FARMS
(J.G. BOSWELL) 24CL Corcoran Private No 6,815 75 Asphalt

4. LNAS REEVES
FIELD (U.S. NAVY) NLC Lemoore Navy No 13,502 200 Concrete

5. STONE AIRSTRIP
(W.T. STONE) 32CA Lemoore Private No 2,540 30 Asphalt

6. STONE LAND

COMPANY
(W.T. STONE)
36CA Stratford Private No 3,300 30 Asphalt

7. MACHADO

DUSTERS
CA05 Stratford Private No 2,600 60 Asphalt

8. WESTLAKE
FARMS 92CA Stratford Private No 3,600 50 Asphalt

9. AVENAL CA69 Avenal Private Yes 2,770 60 Dirt

10. JONES FARMS
(L.W. NEWTON) CA49 Stratford Private No 1,900 50 Asphalt

11. ADVENTIST

MEDICAL

CENTER HANFORD

HELIPORT
15CN Hanford Private No 48 48 Concrete

12. KINGS COUNTY
HOUSTON AVE.

HELIPORT
CN53 Hanford Private No 54 54 Concrete

13. HANFORD

COMMUNITY

MEDICAL CENTER

HELISTOP
4CL8 Hanford Private No 55 55 Concrete
TOTAL
*Excludes gliders, military, ultralight, and air taxi craft.

Source: FAA Airport Data and Information Portal.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 89 PUBLIC AIRPORTS: PUBLIC USE
Hanford Municipal Airport
The Hanford Municipal Airport is situated one mile southeast of the central business district of the city of Hanford. Serving the majority of aviation demand, the Hanford Municipal Airport is the only city-owned air facility in the County and will remain the most active public use, public airport for the foreseeable future. The airport is for general aviation and does not offer commercial flights.

Hanford Municipal Airport is located on 295 acres at 9½ Avenue and Hanford Armona Road. The City of Hanford acquired the site in 1950 by using Hanford general funds and a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant to develop the airport. Today, the non-towered facility consists of one runway that is 5,180 feet in length with a 75-foot-wide paved parallel taxiway, transient and based tiedown aprons, and medium -intensity runway lights. The runway is designed to accommodate aircraft with wingspans of up to 79 feet and speeds of up to 121 knots. The runway can accommodate larger aircraft on an occasional basis.

The airport also serves as a base for the National Weather Service to provide current and forecasted weather conditions in the area. An Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) may be reached 24-hours a day for up-to-the-minute weather information.

According to the Hanford Municipal Airport Master Plan (adopted 2010), approximately 70% of the annual aircraft operations will consist of itinerant operations. Annual operations are forecasted to reach 13,800 with 110 based aircraft by the year 2025.

PRIVATE AIRPORTS: OPEN TO PUBLIC USE
Avenal Airport
Located adjacent to the City of Avenal off State Route 33, the Avenal Airport is privately owned and operated by the Central Valley Soaring Club. Prior permission is required for public use of the facility.

The Avenal airport encompasses 83 acres which includes one runway consisting of compacted earth with some stabilization in fair condition. Noise impacts are not considered a problem at Avenal Airport as daily aircraft operations are too infrequent to contribute significantly to any airport noise problems for residents in the area.

PRIVATE AIRPORTS: PRIVATE USE ONLY
There are approximately 10 other aircraft landing facilities in Kings County. The majority of these smaller landing strips are used by aerial applicator aircraft, although several are use d for personal aircraft. These facilities range in size from 1,000 -foot unnamed and unpaved landing strips to somewhat larger airfields with asphalt and lighted runways. Among these, the Corcoran Airport is utilized for agricultural aerial applicator aircraft by private companies. Other privately-owned airports include a few heliports utilized by private farms, local hospitals, and the County fire department for emergency response.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 90

MILITARY AIR FACILITIES
Lemoore Naval Air Station
Commissioned in 1961, Lemoore Naval Air Station
(LNAS) is the Navy’s largest and only west coast
Master Jet base. LNAS’s mission is to support the US
Navy fleet carrier strike fighter squadrons. The base
hosts over 54 aviation tenants, including the
Commander Strike Fighter Wing, US Pacific Fleet. On
average, more than 210,000 flight operations occur
at LNAS each year.

SUMMARY OF AVIATION ISSUES

CALIFORNIA AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN
Kings County participated in a demonstration project to coordinate regional, state and federal aviation system planning with the development of the California Aviation System Plan (CASP) in 2020. This plan is a comprehensive review of public use airports in California and is intended to complement the California Transportation Plan 2050. The California Aviation System Plan (CASP) identifies airport system requirements based on forecasted operations and number of based planes, and presents an action plan to implement the system improvements.

Issues impacting the aviation community and how they impacted each airport were identified; aviation goals, objectives and policies were summarized; aviation funding resources and needs were described; airport profiles were developed to identify existing facilities and the role each airport had in the community or region; forecasts of based planes, flight operations, commercial service passengers and cargo were developed; needs were identified to accommodate the forecasts; and, an action plan was developed to meet those needs. Airport projects included in future Capital Improvement Programs will reflect a more focused and accurate view of the airport's role to the community it serves.

PUBLIC AIRPORTS: PUBLIC USE
Hanford Municipal Airport
Regional Economic Importance
The improvements to Hanford Municipal Airport facilities are tied to the airport's role as a beneficiary to Kings County's projected population and employment growth. Any improvements for Hanford Municipal Airport should be implemented for Kings County's economic benefit.

Area of Influence
It is the primary responsibility of County Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) to ensure that proposed land uses in the vicinity of airports are compatible with airport operations. The three

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 91 primary concerns for the ALUC are height restrictions to protect airspace around airports, reducing risk to the public from airport operation and accidents, and minimizing the effects of noise in the surrounding communities. Any project that falls within the boundaries of the airport’s safety zone must be reviewed and approved by the Commission. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) makes determinations regarding potential height and safety violations, and the California Code Regulations (CCR’s) contain noise standards governing airports and the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines. Planning airport improvement projects must comply with all regulations in addition to local zoning. With the changing of state law in 1993, county ALUCs were deemed optional, and Kings County decided that local zoning policies could adequately address airport/land use compatibility issues without an ALUC.

Both the City of Hanford and the County of Kings have utilized policies found in the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (KCALUCP) regarding land uses surrounding Hanford Municipal Airport. The KCALUCP provides airport zone designations for compatibility with land use development and establishes Compatibility Zones A, B1, B2, C and D to distinguish definitive zone dimensions and airfield criteria. Compatibility airport policies are used by the City of Hanford as the land use element of the Hanford Municipal Airport master plan to provide guidance for planning purposes.

Kings County and KCAG will continue to coordinate with the City of Hanford in order to promote further consistency in developing City and County land areas potentially affected by the Hanford Municipal Airport operations.

Hanford General Plan Update
The City of Hanford adopted its 2035 General Plan in April 2017, which added a new land use designation, Airport Protection, to promote the safe operation of Hanford Municipal Airport and protect its viability as a significant economic resource to the community by discouraging incompatible nearby land uses and densities, thereby reducing risk and nuisance to people and property. Allowable uses that are compatible with the noise, air quality, and traffic impacts associated with airports, such as aviation -oriented commercial and industrial uses, are encouraged near the airport whenever possible, such as agricultural and rural residential uses at very low densities. According to the Hanford 2035 General Plan, there are 638 acres of available land surrounding the Hanford Airport.

The Hanford General Plan requires the review of all new development in proximity to the Hanford Municipal Airport for compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements and compatibility with the Hanford Airport Master Plan standards. The General Plan also requires the evaluation of compatibility of airport uses, activities, and operations with all new development in proximity to the airport prior to approval and to protect sensitive uses, such as residences, schools, and hospitals from over-flight areas.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 92 PRIVATE AIRPORTS: OPEN TO PUBLIC USE
Avenal Airport
There are no facility changes or improvements to Avenal Airport planned in the foreseeable future.

The privately-owned airport is considered in the City of Avenal General Plan for aircraft noise and public safety. There are scattered residences in the airport sphere of influence, especially in the area immediately south of the runway. This area has been zoned agricultural and very low -density residential uses. However, there is presently no threat to these residences by aircraft operations with very light, infrequent air traffic and glider activities which produce very low noise impacts, if any. The City of Avenal and Kings County will continue to monitor any changes in land uses in the proximity of the airport.

PRIVATE AIRPORTS: PRIVATE USE ONLY
Corcoran Airport
Ownership
At the Corcoran Airport, Lakeland Dusters operates pistachio groves around the airport which at full growth would interfere with FAA regulations for public use, and Lakeland Dusters has no future plans to open to the public. Nearly all of Corcoran’s airport activity is by agricultural aircraft, and there is no long-range master plan that has been prepared regarding future use and development of Corcoran Airport.

Area of Influence
Adopted in November 2014, the Corcoran General Plan includes policies restricting development within airport approach zones to be compatible with airport operations. These policies limit development within 3,000 to 4,000 feet southeast of the end of the runway and restrict certain land uses within airport compatibility zones.

The City’s Circulation Element designates land uses around public and private airports compatible with the health, safety, environmental and economic concerns of the community and in conjunction with the KCALUP.

The City’s Land Use Element requires residential areas adjacent to the airport to meet certain setbacks and special soundproofing to ensure that exterior noise levels at the closest building façade do not exceed 65 dB Ldn and interior noise exposure of 45 dB Ldn or below. Mitigation measures such as compliance with performance standards of the Noise Element and the use of site design techniques for multi-family development are encouraged.

For aircraft overflight hazards, the Noise Element requires all projects within the impact area of the Corcoran Airport to the west of the community and the equivalent impact area around the Salyer Farms Airport to the east be evaluated for potential noise impacts from aircraft overflights based on the KCALUP standards. The City’s Safety Element further requires building and land use restrictions of the KCALUP for the Corcoran Airport be applied, as specified by the Airport Environs Overlay Zone and to the extent feasible, to the Salyer Farms Airport.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 93 Public Use Airport Planning Considerations
Kings County's exceptionally high ratio of aircraft to population is due to the intensive use of aircraft in the agricultural industry for aerial spraying and for business accounts. The land use discussions herein are meant to support local planning efforts and not usurp the authority of local jurisdictions.

Land use planning for agricultural airports must be considered using the following factors:
1) The need to prohibit new air facilities where there is a danger to neighboring land uses. In Kings County's agricultural zone districts, developers of new private airports must obtain Conditional Use Permits. Aircraft crash potential, night operations, and the use of toxic chemicals have constituted the principal issues of debate in county zoning cases. 2) Noise impacts from crop dusters cannot be measured accurately due to the seasonal and varying nature of chemical application spraying. Noise impacts are greatest in the vicinity of agricultural fields and not necessarily in the immediate area of airports. These impacts should be considered in local government's land use and public safety planning on a case -by-case basis.
3) Consideration of interference with other air facilities, especially LNAS military air operations. 4) The need to provide agricultural airstrips in close proximity to intensive farming areas, such as the Tulare Lake Basin.

MILITARY AIR FACILITIES
Lemoore Naval Air Station
Area of Influence
The Lemoore Naval Air Station (LNAS) airfield is configured by the Navy into three zones with varying hazardous potential. Extending 3,000 feet immediately beyond the runway is the Clear Zone, which has the highest potential for accidents. The Clear Zone is required for all active runways and should remain undeveloped. The Navy’s policy regarding the Clear Zone is to acquire sufficient real property interests in land within the Clear Zone to prohibit incompatible development with military aircraft operations. Outside of the Clear Zone lies the “accident potential zones” (APZs) and noise zones.

The LNAS prohibits both noise-sensitive land uses, such as homes and churches, and high occupancy- intensive uses, such as food stores or shopping centers.

Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study
To help ensure compatible development near its airfields, in 1978, LNAS prepared its Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study (AICUZ). In 2010, LNAS updated its AICUZ Program to a 2020 Plan to support Federal, State, and local planning efforts and to consider expected changes in mission, aircraft, operational levels, and other aspects within the ten -year horizon. The AICUZ Program outlines current and foreseeable land use compatibility issues associated with Lemoore Naval Air Station operations that may affect regional planning in Fresno and Kings Counties.

2026 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNIT IES STRATEGY • JULY 13, 2026 • 3- 94 Responsibility for land use and air base development decisions is shared between LNAS and local governments. Historically, military air facilities have influenced surrounding development patterns, which can affect regional infrastructure and transportation planning. The Navy intends to continue coordinating with planning agencies and local governments through outreach and intergovernmental reviews to support compatible development while preserving the defense mission.

Joint Land Use Study
A Final Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), released August 2011, was completed by local government partners in Fresno County, Kings County, and City of Lemoore, including LNAS, KCAG, and other agencies and interested parties, for use by local governments as a planning document to promote compatible land use around the LNAS base. Similar to the AICUZ but civilian -based in scope and application, the JLUS identifies current and foreseeable encroachment issues and provides recommendations for consideration and imple mentation in each jurisdiction’s general plan and the local planning process for land use development to promote compatibility between the civilian community and the military installation. Current plans are to apply for a U.S. Department of Defense Compatible Use and Installation Resilience grant in 2022 to develop a Compatible Use Study Report, Base Redevelopment Plan, Infrastructure Analysis and Recommended Improvements, and a Military Installation Resilience review.

For Kings County, the JLUS identifies land use objectives in the 2035 Kings County General Plan, Open Space Element, and Health and Safety Element. Primarily, the goal is to maintain open space areas near LNAS and underlying low level military airspace corridors and ranges to prevent significant impacts to residents by mission activities. Potential impacts of noise, smoke, and dust generated by ground and air operations, and by aircraft crashes or other operational accidents at or near the airfield, exist and can negatively affect the quality of life for people living near an airfield. This goal is met with objectives and policies to maintain a restricted land use buffer around the naval air station to prevent encroachment of incompatible land uses and engage in coordinated efforts to plan for long term operations and safety. By designating, as Exclusive Agriculture, a 3 -mile buffer surrounding the LNAS installation, applied as “Agriculture for Public Safety” territory, the potential risk to public safety is preserved over the long term and limits encroachment concerns and ensures compatible land uses near areas closest to flight operations. This zoning classification prohibits the creation of homesites on smaller (less than 40 acres) lots, agricultural p roduction is protected, and the operational integrity of the strategic installation is preserved.

The City of Lemoore, located east of LNAS, has no areas within the 3 -mile perimeter of the base installation. Currently, no land use compatibility issues associated with development near the boundary of LNAS exist. The City has both Agriculture and Light Industrial zones within the high aircraft noise contour, however both zone designations are compatible with conditions. The City of Lemoore created an Overlay Zone under the Navy's low-level flight path called the "Ground Control Approach Box", which lim its structure heights and requires noise mitigation building standards for future incompatible developments.

LNAS complies with stringent non-attainment air quality regulations administered by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The compliance program annually undergoes mandated federal, state, and local air district inspections in order for LNAS to continue operations.