Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ACTC To: Public Agencies, Amador County Clerk, and Interested Parties Project Title: Amador County Regional Transportation Plan 2024 Update Lead Agency: Amador County Transportation Commission, 117 Valley View Way, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
Contact: Felicia Bridges, (209)267-2282 Email: [email protected] Review Period: May 3, 2024-June-1, 2024 Extended from June 1, 2024-July 19, 2024 The Amador County Transportation Commission (ACT) has prepared this notice to inform agencies and interested parties that it is releasing an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the Amador County Regional Transportation Plan 2024 Update.
Project Description:
As required by State law, the RTP is a program-level planning document to be updated and submitted to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans every five (5) years. However, the ACTC elected to adopt a 4-year schedule to better align with the 8-year Housing Element schedule that is required of local jurisdictions. The purpose of the RTP is to identify the region's short-term and long-range (20-year) transportation needs and to establish policies, programs, and projects designed to meet those needs: Additionally, projects that are included in the RTP are prioritized for funding through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which are then submitted to the CTC for programming every two (2) years as part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Providing Comments:
An extension of the 30-day public review period will occur from June 1, 2024-July 19, 2024. The IS/Proposed MND will be available for public review online at the following ACT website: https://actc- amador.org/plans
The IS/Proposed MND will also be available at 117 Valley View Way, Sutter Creek, CA 95685 during posted business hours.
Please email any comments on the IS/Proposed MND by 12:00 p.m. on July 19, 2024 to Felicia@actc- amador.org. After the review period closes, the ACT will consider adopting the IS/Proposed MND during a public meeting tentatively scheduled for August 1, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. We encourage you to check the ACTC webpage to confirm the date, time, and location of the ACT meeting at the following website:
https://actc-amador.org/calendar/
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
For the Amador County
2024 Regional Transportation Plan
Prepared by
Amador County Transportation Commission
117 Valley View Way
Sutter Creek, CA 95685
ACTC
DRAFT
May 2, 2024
Introduction
Project Title: Amador County Regional Transportation Plan 2024 Update Lead Agency Name and Address: Amador County Transportation Commission 117 Valley View Way Sutter Creek, CA 95685
Contact Person: John Gedney (209)267-2282
Project Location: Amador County, CA
Project Overview:
As the responsible agency for maintaining and implementing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Amador County Transportation Commission (ACT) has prepared an updated draft RTP 2024 update (which is considered a "Project" for the purposes of this study).
To ensure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Lead Agency (ACTC) is required to perform an Initial Study for the project. The purpose of the Initial Study for a project is to disclose significant environmental impacts and to identify mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts.
This study addresses potential impacts at a program level, while project-level impacts would be evaluated at the time the project is. In response to the findings within the Initial Study, and pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, the ACTC has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Project Description:
As required by State law, the RTP is a program-level planning document to be updated and submitted to the California Transportation Commission (CT) and Caltrans every five (5) years. However, the ACTC elected to adopt a 4-year schedule to better align with the 8-year Housing Element schedule that is required of local jurisdictions. The purpose of the RTP is to identify the region's short-term and long-range (20-year) transportation needs and to establish policies, programs, and projects designed to meet those needs. Additionally, projects that are included in the RTP are prioritized for funding through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which are then submitted to the CTC for programming every two (2) years as part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Environmental Setting and Project Location:
Amador County is located approximately 35 miles southeast of Sacramento on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. At approximately 593 square miles, Amador County is one of the smallest counties in the State of California.
The county's elevation ranges from a low of 250 feet in the county's western foothills to a high of more than 9,000 feet in mountainous peaks of the Sierra Nevada on the eastern boundary. The county is divided into two (2) physiographic divisions referred to as the "Foothills" and the "Upcountry" areas. The foothills contain most of the county's population which is concentrated within or around the county's five (5) incorporated cities: Jackson (County Seat), Sutter Creek, Plymouth, lone, and Amador City. The foothills also include several small communities such as Camanche, Buena Vista, Martell, Fiddletown, and River Pines. The higher Upcountry elevation of the county is largely typified by forested landscape, deep canyons, and sweeping ridge tops. The Upcountry area contains small unincorporated communities such as: Pine Grove, Volcano, Pioneer, Buckhorn, and Kirkwood. Areas outside of rural-residential ownership are predominately comprised of public and private forest lands that are typically managed for timber production or watershed and recreational values. The Upcountry area also contains numerous resorts and high-use recreational destinations such as: Bear River Reservoir, Silver Lake, and Kirkwood Ski Resort.
Amador County contains 121 miles of State Highways (arterial),which include State Routes 16, 26,49,88,104, and 124. In addition to approximately 474 miles of city/county local street/roads that interconnect with the State Route system. Of those 474 miles, 411 miles are county roads and 62 miles are city streets, of which approximately 189 miles are considered collectors.
Population:
According to the Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, Amador County has a population of 39,837 people. Between 2020 and 2023 there shows a 1.6% decline, and aside from a smail increase in the short- term population projections, the county is expected to approximately 40,000, there shows a decline (lower that current population) into the later stage of the 20-year horizon.
Due to the decline in population and traffic volumes on the Amador County regional Roadways, transportation improvements have become more focused primarily on the preservation and rehabilitation of the county's local roadways.
Tribal Consultation:
The ACTC consulted all three (3) Federally recognized tribal governments within the region at various points of the planning process of the RTP update. In addition, the tribes were provided with an electronic version of the Draft RTP. No tribes have commented.
Agency Approvals: The RTP is required to be adopted by the ACT at a public hearing. After adoption for the ACT board, the document must be submitted to the CTC and Caltrans.
Environmental Factors Potentially Impacted: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" are:
_Cultural Resources
_Aesthetics _ Agriculture Resources _ Air Quality _ Biological Resources _ _Geology /Soils _ Hazards & Hazardous Materials _ Hydrology / Water Quality _ Land Use/Planning _ Mineral Resources _ Noise Population / Housing Public Services _ Recreation _Transportation/Traffic _ Utilities / Service Systems ... Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project (mitigation measures) have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION was prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signed: Date:
John Gedney, Executive Director
Amador County Transportation Commission
Initial Study Checklist and Analysis
Checklist and Analysis:
The following Environmental Checklist and discussion of potential environmental effects were completed in accordance with Sections 15060 to 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and the revised Initial Study checklist, to determine whether the Project may have significant environmental effect. The degree of impact for each discussion topic is based on the following definitions:
• Potentially Significant Impact: An impact which could be significant and for which no mitigation has been incorporated. Such an impact would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
• Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: An impact which requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. For such impacts, proposed mitigation measures are identified within the Initial Study.
Less Than Significant Impact: An impact which is considered less than significant under the standards of CEQA.
• No Impact: An issue for which the Project would have no impact.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Aesthetics:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Would the project: b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state x
scenic highway?
Would the project: c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from a publicly accessible vantage x
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
Would the project: d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely x
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
DISCUSSION: Existing roadway rehabilitation projects contained in the RTP will not impact historic buildings, scenic vistas, or adversely impact day and nighttime views.
Agriculture and Forest Resources:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Would the project: b) Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Would the project: c) Conflict with existing zoning,
or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code x
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
Would the project: d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Would the project: e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland x
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION: Existing roadway rehabilitation projects contained in the RTP will not impact agricultural or forest land.
Air Quality:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan? x
Would the project: b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-attainment x
under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Would the project: c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? x
Would the project: d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
Discussion: Amador County is currently in non-attainment of State and Federal Ozone standards as well as State PM 10 standards.
PM 10 is primarily caused by wood burning, wind-blown dust and agriculture. Ozone is primarily generated from the Sacramento valley drifting eastward into the Foothills.
During roadway construction activities, increased levels of PM 10 can be adequately mitigated through mitigation measures adopted by the implementing agencies in accordance with applicable guidance.
MITIGATION MEASURE AIR-1: The implementing agency will review individual RTP projects prior to implementation in accordance with applicable local, regional, state, or federal procedures.
Biological Resources:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or NOAA Fisheries?
Would the project: b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California x
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Would the project: c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Would the project: d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Would the project: e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Would the project: f) Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
x
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion: All of the proposed projects in the RTP are designed as 'edge-line to edge-line' roadway rehabilitation projects. As such, no disturbances to the environment beyond the existing roadway pavement is expected.
Cultural Resources:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource x
pursuant to §15064.5?
Would the project: b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological x
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Would the project: c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of dedicated x
cemeteries?
Discussion: All of the proposed projects in the RTP are designed as 'edge-line to edge-line' roadway rehabilitation projects. As such, no disturbances to the environment beyond the existing roadway pavement is expected.
Energy:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Result in potentially
significant environmental impact due to wasteful, x
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during project construction or
operation?
Would the project: b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Discussion: The RTP's goals and policies encourages the use of materials and systems that reduce waste and improve energy efficiency.
Geology and Soils:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning x
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong x
seismic ground shaking?
Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: iv) x
Landslides?
Would the project: b) Result in substantial soil
x
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Would the project: c) Be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Would the project: d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building x
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Would the project: e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where x
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Would the project: f) Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological resource or site or unique x
geologic feature?
Discussion: The RTP proposes roadway rehabilitation projects that may have specific impacts on geology and soils that will be addressed on a project-by-project basis by implementing agencies. If any individual project has potential for impacts to geology and soils, the mitigation measures listed below will reduce impacts to a less than significant degree.
MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1: Temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, sediment basins and traps, geofabric, and sandbag dikes) to be implemented as appropriate.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may x
have a significant impact on the environment?
Would the project: b) Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion: The RTP contains goals and policies to encourage programming of shovel-ready roadway rehabilitation projects. These projects will not induce additional vehicle traffic. However, during construction activities, project-level environmental analysis should implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-1: Consistent with Appendix F of CEQA Guidelines, implementing agencies should identify and reduce energy consumption during construction through the following measures:
• Promote efforts to recycle materials
• Promote the use of alternative fuels or energy systems • Minimize energy consumption, increase water conservation, and reduce solid waste Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through the routine x
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Would the project: b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Would the project: c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
Would the project: d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites
X
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Would the project: e) For a project located within
an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
Would the project: f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Would the project: g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of x loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion: The RTP projects will not create hazards nor produce hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground x
water quality?
Would the project: b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that the project x
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Would the project: c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i)
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
Site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide x
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? x
Would the project: d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
Would the project: e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
Discussion: The RTP lists several bridge rehabilitation projects have been programmed during previous cycles. All of these projects have undergone detailed environmental analysis at the project-level.
Appropriate mitigation measures for each project have been identified and adopted to bring impacts to a less than significant level.
Roadway rehabilitation projects proposed for funding through this RTP cycle are limited to existing edge- line to edge-line pavement extents. As such, construction related activity may impact existing hydrology and water quality systems. Projects advanced for funding will undergo specific analysis of appropriate hydrologic mitigation practices prior to and during project implementation.
MITIGATION MEASURE HYD-1: During project development, implementing agencies will take steps to identify and reduce potential impacts to hydrology and water quality systems due to construction activities.
Land Use and Planning:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Physically divide an
established community? x
Would the project: b) Cause a significant x
environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion: Over its 20-year horizon, the RTP plans for rehabilitation of existing roadways and will not impact established communities.
-
Mineral Resources:
[QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource that
x
would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
Would the project: b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally important mineral resource
x
recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion: The RTP does not contain projects that would impact existing mineral resources in the County.
Noise:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project result in: a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in the local x
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Would the project result in: b) Generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
Would the project result in: c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or x
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion: Construction of roadway rehabilitation projects will likely produce potential noise impacts.
Specific environmental analysis will be conducted as individual projects are advanced. Typical project- level mitigation measures limit work times to daytime hours, install temporary sound barriers, phase ground disturbing activities, apply noise reduction techniques, etc.
MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE: The implementing agencies shall take steps to identify and reduce the effects of construction on the roadway system throughout the construction period.
Population and Housing: Less Than No
Potentially Less Than Significant Impact
significant Significant Impact
QUESTION with
Impact Mitigation
Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure?
Would the project: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion: "No Impact" determinations in this section are based on the scope, description, and location of the proposed projects. Potential impacts to Population and Housing are not anticipated because the projects do not involve activities that would encourage population growth or displace housing or people.
Public Services: Less Than No
Potentially Less Than Significant Impact
Significant Significant Impact
QUESTION Impact with
Mitigation
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?
Police protection? X
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
Discussion: "No Impact" determinations in this section are based on the scope, description, and location of the proposed projects. Improvements to roadway pavement condition will actually have beneficial Impacts to Public Service providers.
Recreation:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse x
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion: "No Impact" determinations in this section are based on the scope, description, and location of the proposed projects.
Transportation/Traffic:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project: a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, x
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Would the project: b) Would the project conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section x
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Would the project: c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Would the project: d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? x
Discussion: The RTP is a long-range programmatic planning document for Amador County that contains goals and policies to efficiently deliver construction-ready roadway rehabilitation projects in the County and its incorporated cities. No induced travel will be generated through implementation of the Plan. All proposed projects will be screened on an individual basis.
Tribal Cultural Resources:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Discussion: ACT continues to include tribal governments in the transportation planning process through regularly-scheduled meetings as well as ad-hoc discussions of specific issues. In addition, all three (3) Federally recognized tribes in Amador County were contacted during the RTP update process.
Adoption of the RTP will not have a significant impact on tribal resources.
Utilities and Service Systems: Less Than No
potentially Less Than Significant Impact
Significant Significant
Impact
Impact with
QUESTION Mitigation
Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant x
environmental effects?
Would the project: b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Would the project: c) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
x
capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Would the project: d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise x
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
Would the project: e) Comply with federal, state,
and local management and reduction statutes and x
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion: The 2024 RTP is focused on rehabilitation of existing roadways that may have existing utilities and service systems in need of repair. These utility and service system repairs would be performed concurrently with roadway repair and evaluated on an individual basis at the time the specific project is advanced for development.
Wildfire:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
If located in or near state responsibility areas or Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
Mitigation
zones, would the project:
f located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair x
an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project: b) Due to slope,
prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project: c) Require the
installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, X
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project: d) Expose people or
structures to significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Discussion: Projects in the RTP will improve emergency evacuation efforts by repairing roadways and improving traffic circulation.
Mandatory Findings of Significance:
QUESTION Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal x
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the x
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on x
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: The RTP is a long-range planning document that includes policies to help guide implementation of transportation improvements for the Amador region. Categorical environmental concerns are highlighted. Specific environmental impacts are studied in greater detail throughout the individual project development process.
Preparers:
Report Author: Amador County Transportation Commission
Attachment 1- Comments and Responses:
Amador County Regional Transportation Plan
Draft
Technical Appendices
May 2, 2024
Prepared By:
Amador County Transportation Commission Staff
ACTC
2024 Amador Comt Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Appendices This page intentionally left blank
2024 Amador Comme Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Techmcal Appendices
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A: Regional Transportation Plan Checklist 1
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ...7
Appendix C: Public Involvement Procedures for Transportation Planning ..13 Appendix D: Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted. ..23 Appendix E: References Consulted..... ..26
Appendix F: RTP Public Workshop Analysis ...29
Appendix G: Traffic Volumes and Method for Determining LOS .. 30 Appendix H: City and County Local Road Improvement Projects ..33 Appendix I: Average Annual Percent Truck Traffic ..36
Appendix J: RP Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures; System-Wide Alternative Ranking…................ ..38
Appendix K: RTP Project Criteria and Performance Measures-Project Prioritization List. 40 2024 Amador Counn: Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Appendices This page intentionally left blank
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Appendices ili Appendix A
Regional Transportation Plan Checklist
(Completed May 02, 2024)
Name of MPO/RTPA: _Amador County Transportation Commission Date Draft RTP Completed: May 2, 2024
RTP Adoption Date:
What is the Certification Date of the Environmental
Document (ED)? August 20", 2015
Is the ED located in the RTP or is it a separate Separate Document document?
By completing this checklist, the MPO RTPA verifies the RTP addresses all of the following required information within the RTP.
Regional Transportation Plan Contents
General Yes! Page #
No
Does the RTP address no less than a 20-year planning horizon? (23 CFR 450.322(a)) Yes P. 40-49
2. Does the RTP include both long-range and short-range strategies actions? (23 CFR part Yes P. 59-63 450.322(b))
3. Does the RTP address issues specified in the policy, action and financial elements Yes P. 55-90 identified in California Governinent Code Section 65080?
4. Does the RTP address the 10 issues specified in the Sustainable Communities Strategy Not (SCS) component as identified in Government Code Sections 65080(b)(2)(B) and an MPO
a. Identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building Not an
MPO
Not
b. Identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices Yes/ Page #
No
c. Identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of Not the regional housing need for the region pursuant to Government Code Section an 65584? (MPOs only) MPO
d. Identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the Not region? (MPOs only) an
MPO
e. Gather and consider the best practically available scientific information Not regarding resource areas and farmland in the region as defined in subdivisions an (a) and (b) of Governient Code Section 65080.01? (MPOs only) MPO f. Consider the state housing goals specified in Sections 65580 and 65581? Not (MPOs only) an
MPO
g. Utilize the most recent planning assumptions, considering local general plans Not and other factors? (NIPOs only) an
MPO
h. Set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when Not integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures an and policies, will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and MPO light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the ARB? (MPOs only) i. Provide consistency between the developinent pattern and allocation of Not housing units within the region (Government Code 65584.04(i)(1)? (MPOs an MPO
Allow the regional transportation plan to comply with Section 176 of the Not federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7506)? (MPOs only) all MPO
4. Does the RTP include Project Intent i.e. Plan Level Purpose and Need Statements? Yes P.9
5. Does the RTP specity how travel demand modeling methodology, results and key Not assumptions were developed as part of the RTP process? (Government Code 14522.2) an (MPOs only) MPO
Consultation/Cooperation
1. Does the RTP contain a public involvement program that meets the requirements of Title Appendix C 23, CFR part 450.316(a)?
2024 Amador Coumn Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Tecluical Appendices 2 Yes/ Page #
No
Did the MPORTPA consult with the appropriate State and local representatives P. 19-21 including representatives from environmental and economic communities; airport; Yes Appendix D transit; freight during the preparation of the RTP? (23CFR450.316(3)(b))
3. Did the MPO RTPA who has federal lands within its jurisdictional boundary involve the Refer to the 2015
S.P.E I. R.
federal land management agencies during the preparation of the RTP? Yes
4. Where does the RTP specity that the appropriate State and local agencies responsible for Yes P. 19-21 land use, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation and historic P. 23-39 preservation consulted? (23 CFR part 450.322(g)) Appendix D Did the RTP include a comparison with the California State Wildlife Action Plan and (if Yes Refer to the available) inventories of natural and historic resources? (23 CFR part 450.322(g)) 2015 S.P.E.L.R.
6. Did the MPO RTPA who has a federally recognized Native American Tribal Yes P. 19-20 Governments) and or historical and sacred sites or subsistence resources of these Tribal Appendix D Governments within its jurisdictional boundary address tribal concerns in the RTP and develop the RTP in consultation with the Tribal Goverments)? (Title 23 CFR part 450.316(c))
7. Does the RTP address how the public and various specified groups were given a Yes P. 19-21 reasonable opportunity to coment on the plan using the participation plan developed Appendix C under 23 CFR part 450.316(a)? (23 CFR 450.316(i)) & D
8. Does the RTP contain a discussion describing the private sector involvement efforts that Yes P. 19-21 were used during the development of the plan? (23 CFR part 450.316 (a) Appendix C & D
9. Does the RTP contain a discussion describing the coordination efforts with regional air Not an quality planning authorities? (23 CFR 450.316(a)(2)) (MPO nonattainment and MPO maintenance areas only
10. Is the RTP coordinated and consistent with the Public Transit-Human Services Yes P. 25-28 Transportation Plan? P. 46-47
P. 62,69,70
P. 81
Appendix E
11. Were the draft and adopted RTP posted on the Internet? (23 CFR part 450.322(j)) Yes http://www. acte-
amador.org
2024 Amador Conn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Tecimical Appendices 3 Yes! Page #
No
12. Did the RTP explain how consultation occurred with locally elected officials? Not (Government Code 65080(D)) (MPOs only) an
MPO
13. Did the RT outline the public participation process for the sustainable communities Nor strategy? (Government Code 65080(E) (MPOs only) an
MPO
Modal Discussion
1. Does the RIP discuss intermodal and connectivity issues? Yes TP. 25-91
2. Does the RTP include a discussion of highways? Yes P. 25-91
3. Does the RIP include a discussion of mass transportation? Yes P. 25-91
4. Does the RTP include a discussion of the regional airport system? Yes F:331
5. Does the RIP include a discussion of regional pedestrian needs? Yes
6. Does the RTP include a discussion of regional bicycle needs? Yes P. 25.91
7. Does the RTP address the California Coastal Trail? (Government Code 65080.I) (For NA MPOs and RTPAs located along the coast only)
8. Does the RTP include a discussion of rail transportation? Yes P. 25-91
9. Does the RTP include a discussion of maritime transportation (if appropriate)? NA
10. Does the RTP include a discussion of goods movement? Yes P. 25-91 •
2024 Amador Coun Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices Programming/Operations
Yes! Page #
No
1. Is a congestion management process discussed in the RTP? (23 CFR part Not 450.450.320(b)) (MPOs designated as TMAs only) an
MPO
2. Is the RTP consistent (to the maximum extent practicable) with the development of the Yes P. 39 regional ITS architecture?
3. Does the RTP identify the objective criteria used for measuring the performance of the Yes P. 19 transportation system? P. 55-63
Appendix J
4. Does the RTP contain a list of un-constrained projects? Yes P. 73-76 Table
5_ Tiers IIIII
Financial
1. Does the RTP include a financial plan that meets the requirements identified in 23 CFR Yes Tp.9 part 450.322(f)(10)? P. 65-88
2. Does the RTP contain a consistency statement between the first 4 years of the fund Yes P. 65-88 estimate and the 4-year STIP fund estimate? (2006 STIP Guidelines, Section 19)
3. Do the projected revenues in the RTP reflect Fiscal Constraint? (23 CFR part Yes P. 59 450.322(f)(10)(ii)) P. 65-88
4. Does the RTP contain a list of financially constrained projects? Any regionally Yes P. 72 significant projects should be identified. (Government Code 65080(4)(A)) Table S- Tier I,
5. Do the cost estimates for impleinenting the projects identified in the RTP reflect "year of P. 72-76 expenditure dollars" to reflect inflation rates? (23 CFR part 450.322(f)(10)(iv))
6. Atter 12: 11.07, does the RTP contain estimates of costs and revenue sources that are Yes P. 65-90 reasonably expected to be available to operate and maintain the freeways, highway and transit within the region? (23 CFR 450.322(f)(10)(i))
Does the RTP contain a statement regarding consistency between the projects in the RTP Yes P. 66 and the ITIP? (2006 STIP Guidelines section 33)
8. Does the RTP contain a statement regarding consistency between the projects in the RTP Yes P. 66 and the FTIP? (2006 STIP Guidelines section 19)
Does the RTP address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the identified Not TCMs from the SIP can be implemented? (23 CFR part 450.322(t)(10)(vi) an (nonattainment and maintenance MPOs only) MPO
2024 Amador Coumr: Regional Transportation Plan, Drafi Technical Appendices 5 Environmental
Yes! Page #
No
Did the MPO/RTPA prepare an EIR or a program EIR for the RTP in accordance with NO See 2015 CEQA guidelines? S.P.E.I.R
Does the RTP contain a list of projects specifically identified as CMs, if applicable? NA Does the RTP contain a discussion of SIP conformity, if applicable? (MPOs only) Not an
MPO
Does the RTP specify mitigation activities? (23 CFR part 450.322(f)(7)) Refer to 2015
S.P.E.I.R
See MND
5. Where does the EIR address mitigation activities? See 2015 S.P.E.I.R/
MND
Did the MPO RTPA prepare a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration Yes SEE MND for the RTP in accordance with CEQA guidelines?
Does the RTP specify the TCMs to be implemented in the region? (federal Not nonattainment and maintenance areas only) an
MPO
I have reviewed the above information and certify that it is correct and complete.
(Must be signed by MPO/RTPA Date
Executive Director
or designated representative)
ohn Gedne Executive Director
rint Nam Title
2024 Amador Coumn Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Tecluical Appendices Appendix B
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
The Glossary of Tenns and Acronyms is organized in three parts:
(1) General
(2) Road and Highway Classifications
(3) Transportation Funding Programs
(1) General
ACTC (Amador County Transportation Commission): The ACT is established under requirements of State Government Code Section 29535 and is composed of three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors and three members appointed by the City Selection Committee. The functions of the Transportation Commissions are essentially:
1. development and yearly accomplishment of the Overall Work Program (OWP);
2. development and maintenance of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP);
3. administration of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) according to the Transportation Development Act (TDA);
4. preparation of a biennial Regional Transportation Inprovement Program (RTIP);
5. on-going, multimodal transportation planning;
6. administration and implementation of various projects and programs needed to carry-out the RTP's policies and priorities.
ADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic): A measure of the amount of traffic being generated from a source, utilizing a route or corridor, and or arriving at or through a destination or point.
AT (Amador Transit): AT is a joint powers entity that includes Amador County and the Cities of Amador City, Lone, Jackson, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek. AT began operation in December 1976 with funding provided from SB 325, the Local Transportation Fund. AT provides public transportation service on a regular schedule to each city in the county, as well as the Upcountry area, and a conunuter service to down town Sacramento.
Caltrans (The California Department of Transportation): The State level department responsible for oversight of the statewide multi-modal transportation system, maintenance of the State Highway System, and other related tasks as assigned by the State Government.
Caltrans' System Planning: Section 65086 of the State's government code requires Caltrans to perform long-rang State highway system planning.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): State law (Public Resources Code 21000 etseq.) requires that every public agency in California assess the environmental impacts of every discretionary plan, program, and project that it sees to undertake. Further, the State Clearing House has promulgated rules and guidelines for the orderly processing and review of environmental documents (CEQA Guidelines).
CSS (Context Sensitive Solutions): An approach to planning, designing, constructing and maintaining transportation facilities including highways through communities that utilize innovative and inclusive approaches that integrate and balance community, aesthetic, historic and environmental values with transportation satety, maintenance, and performance goals. The term "historic" is used herein to signify those communities established before the 20 century generally and during the Region's "Gold Rush" era specifically. (Sce also Caltrans' Director's policy concerning Context Sensitive Solutions available at ACTC office.)
2024 Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Ippendices 7 CTC (California Transportation Commission): The CTC is an 11 member state commission appointed by the Governor and charged with advising and assisting the Legislature and the Administration in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for transportation programs in California. Special responsibilities include adopting a STIP, preparing the Biennial Report to the Legislature concerning significant transportation issues, and evaluating the proposed State transportation budget.
IRRS (Interregional Roadway System): The IRRS is a series of interregional state highway routes outside of Urbanized Areas, that provides access to and between the state's economic centers, major recreational areas, and urban and rural regions.
ITIP (Interregional Transportation Improvement Program): The ITIP is a list of projects nominated by Caltrans for STIP funding by the California Transportation Commission. ITIP projects are to include capacity increasing projects on interregional routes and or transit facilities generally outside of urbanized areas. The ITIP has a four year planning horizon and is updated every two years by the CTC.
ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems): ITS is the application of advanced sensor, computer, electronics, and communications technologies and management strategies to increase the safety and efficiency of the surface transportation system.
ITSP (Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan): The ITSP describes the framework in which the State will carry out its responsibilities and fund projects pursuant to the ITIP.
LOS (Levels-of-Service): A qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade, "A" through "F" , corresponding to progressively worsening traffic conditions, is assigned to an intersection or section of roadway.
MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century): MAP-21 in the title of the 2-year Federal Transportation Funding Bill that was signed into law in 2012, which set forth a number of changes in transportation finding and related guidance on transportation planning and the use of certain performance measures to assess the effectiveness of both.
NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act): NEPA is Federal legislation which creates and environmental review process similar to CEQA but pertaining only to projects having Federal involvement through financing, pennitting, or Federal land ownership.
OWP (Overall Work Program): Annual work programs that are prepared by local transportation commissions for the purpose of applying for State Planning Funds and other available financial resources toward the continuous update and improvement of regional transportation plans and the transportation system.
PA&ED (Project Authorization and Environmental Document): This is known as the first phase (for constructing a State highway project). It includes a report about the project and adoption of environmental documents to satisfy both CEQA and NEPA.
PCI (Pavement Condition Index): An engineer's method for measuring the condition of a street or road using numbers 1 through 100 where 100 is the best possible condition.
PEIR (Programmatic Environmental Impact Report): CEQA requires that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared if a plan or project could have a significant affect on the environment or cause substantial public controversy. Special provisions of CEQA allow preparation of a "Program EIR" which is applicable for purposes of Amador County RTP Updates.
PS&E (Plans, Specifications, and Estimates): This is generally known as the second major milestone in delivery (construction) of State highway projects. PS&E are details of design required to refine project cost estimates, conclude right-of-way acquisitions, and issue bid documents to contractors for construction.
PSR (Project Study Report): The PSR is a preliminary report required to establish definition (purpose and need) including preliminary design factors, cost estimates, community and environmental concerns, etc. A PSR is required for funding State highway projects in the STIP. A PSR "equivalent" is required for funding local projects in the STIP
"Reasonable to Meet Criteria": The criteria used to determine if an identified unmet transit need is reasonable to meet using TDA funds as established by the RTPA pursuant to Section 99401.5 (c) of the State Governinent Code.
2024 Amador Couns Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Tecimical Appendices 8 RTIP (Regional Transportation Improvement Program): Document adopted biennially by RTPAs to present transportation improvement funding nominations to Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission.
RTP (Regional Transportation Plan): The transportation planning document, required by Section 65080 (et. seq.) of the State Government Code" , directed at the achievement of a coordinated and balanced "regional transportation system" within the area of responsibility of the recognized RTPA.
RTPA (Regional Transportation Planning Agency): The regional transportation planning agency established by Government Code Section 29532; the RTPA in Amador County is the ACTC.
SB 45 (Senate Bill 45; Chapter 622, Statues of 1997, KOPP): SB 45 mandated major transportation reform legislation impacting many areas of transportation planning, funding, and development. Most specifically it combined numerous transportation "pots of money" into the STIP program and apportioned funds 75%% to the regions (RIP) and 25% to Caltrans (IIP).
SPEIR (Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Report): CEQA requires that a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Report be prepared for an update to a "project", as defined under CEQA, if only minor changes are proposed or if new information has become available that was not known at the time a prior PEIR was certified. These provisions in CEQA allow for preparation of a Supplemental PEIR, for purposes of routine RTP Updates.
SSTAC (Social Services Transportation Advisory Council): The SSTAC is an advisory committee to the ACTC on matters pertaining to the transit needs of transit dependent and transit disadvantaged persons. The SSTAC's input shall be considered in and made an integral part of the Commission's annual "unmet transit needs" hearing and findings process. The composition of the SSTAC, the terms of SSTAC appointments, and precise responsibilities of the SSTAC are found in the Public Utilities Code.
TAC (Technical Advisory Committee): The Technical Advisory Committee is advisory to the Commission on all matters relating to regional transportation planning including the development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and the Overall Work Program (OWP). The TAC consists of the County Director of Public Works, County Land Use Director, the City engineers, and planning directors of each of the cities within the county, or, in the case of cities having no such technical staff, any other person designated to serve on behalf of that city, the Manager of AT, the Manager of the Amador County airport, a representative from Caltrans District 10, and the area Highway Patro! Commander. Other city, County and Caltrans staff members may attend and participate in TAC meetings. The TAC meets at least annually but no more than quarterly as needed.
TDM (Transportation Demand Management): TDM refers to policies, programs, and actions that are directed toward decreasing the use of single occupant vehicles. TDM can also include activities to encourage shifting or spreading peak travel periods.
TSM (Transportation Systems Management): Short-range improvements to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system; includes traffic engineering, public transportation, traffic regulations, pricing structures, bicycle usage, and operational improvements not requiring construction of additional Unmet Needs Hearing: Hearings that are required to be held annually by the RTPA to determine whether or not there are any unet transit needs that can reasonably be met before TDA funds may be used for streets and roads purposes (see Section 99401.5 and 99401.6, California Government Code). (2). Road And Highway Classifications
Local Roads: Local roads constitute the rural mileage not functionally classified as arterial or collector.
The rural local road system should have the following characteristics:
1. Serves primarily to provide access to adjacent land
2. Provides for local circulation and connectivity within a community, as well as travel over relatively short distances between communities, as compared to collectors or arterial systems.
Major Collector Roads (Routes): Major collectors should:
2024 Amador Coman Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Appendices
1. provide service to any County seat not on an arterial route, to the larger towns not directly served by the higher road systems, and to other traffic generators of equivalent intra-county importance, such as consolidated schools, shipping points, County parks, important mining and agricultural areas, etc.
2. Link these places with nearby larger towns or cities, or with routes of higher classification
3. Serve the more important intra-county travel corridors.
In Amador County the "Major Collector" system consists primarily of the major County roads and SR 104.
Minor Collector Roads (Routes): These routes should:
1. Be spaced at intervals, consistent with population density, to collect traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a collector road
2. Provide service to the remaining smaller communities
3. Link the locally important traffic generators with their rural hinterland.
Minor Arterial Highways (Routes): In Amador County the "Minor Arterial" system consists basically of most State highways, although, as the County grows, some new or existing County roads may achieve minor arterial status. Minor arterials constitute routes whose design should be expected to provide for relatively high overall travel speeds, with minimum interference to through movement.
Principal Arterial Highway (Route): In Amador County, includes only State Route 88 and SR 49 between Jackson and Martell, designated as principal arterials. Principal arterials are routes of state and regional significance whose design should provide for relatively high travel speeds with minimum interference to the through movement.
(3). Transportation Funding Programs
ATP (Active Transportation Program): The ATP is intended to fund various pedestrian and bicycle improvements and safety programs. This funding is awarded by the California Transportation Commission through a cyclical, competitive selection process administered by Caltrans.
CNIAQ (Congestion Management and Air Quality): CMAQ funds are Federal funds made available to "non-attainment" counties, those counties that do not achieve Federal air quality standards. CMAQ funds may only be used for a specific transportation improvements that will reduce air pollution by automobiles and other vehicles.
FLAP (Federal Lands Access Program): The FLAP provides funding for transportation facilities that provide access to various Federal lands such as those administered by the National Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Parks Service, etc. Funding from this program is awarded by a "Programming Decisions Committee" comprised of FHWA, Caltrans, and local agency representatives through a cyclical, competitive selection process.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration): The FTA is a component of the U.S. Department of Transportation that is responsible for administering the Federal Transit Program under the Federal Transit Act as amended. The FTA provides funding for transit and transit planning purposes.
HBP (Highway Bridge Program): The HBP is a grant program whereby Caltrans provides Federal funds to cities and counties for repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and or preventative maintenance of bridges on arterials, collectors, or local roads.
HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program): HSIP is a grant program whereby Caltrans provides Federal funds to cities and counties for specific safety related projects on eligible county roads and city streets.
IP (Interregional Improvement Program): Under the STIP reforms of SB 45 the IIP is funded with 25°. of State highway account revenues. They are programmed through the STIP consistent with Caltrans ITIP.
LTF (Local Transportation Funds):
A form of TDA funding, which is derived from 1 4 cent of the state sales tax.
PPM (Planning, Programming and Monitoring): PPM usually refers to a percentage of STIP funds that may be used for "planning, progranning, and monitoring" purposes. Under SB 45 RTPAs were given increased responsibility for programming better transportation projects for funding and then monitoring their successful construction according to clear milestones and cost estimates. 2024 Amador Counn Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Teclmical Appendices 10 RPA (Rural Planning Assistance): RPA funds are provided to rural counties out of the Caltrans budget on an annual basis for purposes of carrying out transportation planning activities as approved in the annual OWP.
RIP (Regional Improvement Program): Under the STIP reforms of SB 45, the STIP now consists of two broad programs, the RIP and IIP. The RIP is funded from 75%% of the new STIP funds, divided by formula among fixed county shares. Each county selects the projects to be funded from its county share and its RTIP.
RSTP (Regional Surface Transportation Program): RSTP funds are Federal funds passed through the State of California to RTPAs. In rural counties the State has a policy whereby these Federal funds may be exchanged for State dollars which can be used for a broader range of transportation purposes.
SHA (State Highway Account): The SHA is the State's primary source for funding transportation improvements. Revenues from State fuel tax, truck weight fees, and Federal highway funds are deposited into the SHA. The SHA provides funding for (1) Caltrans maintenance operations capital outlay support, etc., (2) the STIP, (3) the SHOPP, (4) Caltrans Local Assistance, (5) etc.
SHOPP (State Highway Operation and Protection Program): A state program to rehabilitate and improve safety and operational characteristics on the SHS. SHOPP programs are not included in the STIP and are not counted against county minimums.
SP&R (State Planning and Research): SP&R funds are transportation planning funds generally available only to urbanized areas cities and counties. Some SP&R funds may be made available to rural counties usually in the form of competitive grants for special purposes.
STA (State Transit Assistance Fund (also STAF): These are funds derived from the public transportation account which are apportioned to counties for transit purposes.
STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program): A biennial CTC adopted 7-Year program and state funding document listing major projects to be funded from state transportation funds. The STIP represents the CT's statement of intent for allocation of funds from the IRRS, FCR, sound wall and intercity rail programs.
The STIP is adopted by the CTC by April Ist of even numbered years. This document includes costs by category and fiscal year of implementation. In Amador County, only IRRS and FCR programs are currently eligible for funding in the STIP.
TDA (Transportation Development Act): A pool of funds from a 1/4°o of the 6° general sales tax established by SB 325 for local transportation purposes, e.g., community level bus service, bikeways, transportation planning, and streets and roads. TDA funds can be spent on streets and roads if and only if there are no reasonable unmet transit needs.
2024 Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Tecimical Appendices This page intentionally left blank
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Appendices 12 Appendix C
Public Involvement Procedures for
Transportation Planning
Adopted September 15, 2004
Amended January 15, 2015
Amended April 6, 2023
Introduction
The Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and its member agencies (Amador County and the cities of lone, Jackson, Sutter Creek, Amador City, and Plymouth) are responsible for deciding transportation policies and adopting transportation plans and programs to carry out these policies.
The ACT's Public Involvement Procedures document is intended to give public officials, local agency staff persons, and the public information about how best to include public participation in the regional transportation planning process. The Public Involvement Procedures contain the ACT's current policies as well as implementation measures to improve public involvement in the transportation planning process.
The federal government has provided seven planning factors in the Transportation Equities Act for the 21st Century. These factors are used to help guide the ACT's Public Involvement procedures. • Support economic vitality, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
• Increase safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
• Increase accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight. • Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life.
• Enhance integration and connectivity of the transportation system across and between modes, for people and freight.
• Promote efficient system management and operation.
• Emphasize preservation of the existing system.
The ACT maintains a long history of encouraging and facilitating public involvement in the planning process. The 2004 Public Involvement Procedures (amended in 2015 and again in 2023) expands and clarifies this commitment. It is the ACT's objective to provide full access to public records and public documents, to help explain these documents and the planning processes surrounding them whenever 2024 Amador Conn Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Teclical Appendirs necessary, to encourage participation in public meetings and to involve public input in all transportation planning decisions.
The ACT's objective in developing the public involvement process is to be proactive, to provide timely public notice, to provide full public access to information, and to provide early and continuous opportunities for public input.
It is the ACT's desire that citizens in Amador County and its cities assist in determining the values, goals, objectives, and programs for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Furthermore, it is the ACT's desire that citizens of Amador County and its cities participate in establishment of the General Plan Circulation Elements for Amador County and its cities and that these Circulation Elements remain consistent with the countywide RTP. It is also the ACT's goal to provide adequate information to, and solicit input from, historically under-served communities within Amador County (i.e., elderly, minority groups, youth, disabled, and lower-income people).
Background
The regional transportation planning process was initiated by State law throughout California in 1972 (AB 69). The ACT was designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Amador County in that same year. A primary responsibility of the ACT is to adopt and update the RTP for the Amador County region in accordance with State law. The ACTC is also responsible, with city and County input, for determining the priorities for all proposed new transportation facilities on regional roads (State highways) shown in the RTP. The highest priority projects are then submitted for State or federal funding through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Each year the ACTC prepares an Overall Work Program (OWP) within which it uses planning funds provided by the State and federal government for carrying out planning studies and implementation programs in support of the RTP and the RTIP. Included in these planning and implementation efforts, the ACT has worked with Caltrans, the County, and the cities to maintain General Plan Circulation Elements for Amador County and each of the cities inside Amador County.
Related Regulations
ISTEA/TEA 21
The ACTC has traditionally maintained a "open door" policy concerning public involvement. Public involvement in the transportation planning process took on an increased emphasis when Congress passed the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Federal regulations to implement ISTEA called for a proactive public involvement process. The process must respond not only to the requirements of ISTEA, but also those of related federal acts, such as the Clean Air Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) succeeded ISTEA after September 30, 1997. TEA-21 is the federal legislation which authorizes a balance of federal highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs. The bill was signed into law on June 9, 1998, and covers the period from October 1, 1997 through September 30, 2003. TEA-21 builds on the initiatives established in ISTEA. It continues most of ISTA's programs and policies including the necessity for enhanced Public Involvement Procedures.
2024 Amador Counh Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Techmical Appendices 14 The Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950-54962)
The Ralph M. Brown Act governs the meetings and actions of governing boards of local public agencies and their created bodies. Requirements of the Brown Act also apply to any committee or other subsidiary body created by a governing board, whether permanent or temporary, whether decision- making or advisory.
The Brown Act sets minimum standards for open meetings and public access to them, location of meetings, posting notice, agenda distribution, and public input. The public agency may adopt reasonable regulations ensuring the public's right to address the agency, including regulations to limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony. The ACTC and its standing committees all adhere to Brown Act requirements including proper notice, access, and the ability to address the ACTC and its committees.
Due to time constraints, unscheduled comments by the public may be limited to five minutes in length during any ACTC or committee meeting, however, the agency encourages interested citizens to provide written comments, particularly if the comments are too long to be presented within three minutes time. Citizens that are unable to attend meetings may submit their comments in writing to staff. Staff will then present the comments to the ACTC or the applicable committee.
Americans with Disabilities (ADA)
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) stipulates involving the community, particularly those with disabilities, in the development and improvement of services. All events held for programs or projects with federal aid that are open to the general public must be made accessible to everyone, including the disabled.
ACTC is in compliance with the ADA by having accessible formats, public meetings, and public hearings.
ACT also consults with individuals from the disabled community and by including representatives from or for the disabled and transportation disadvantaged on the ACT's Special Services Transportation Advisory Council.
Title VI and Environmental Justice (EJ)
Under Title VI and related statues, each federal agency is required to ensure that no person is excluded from participation, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, or religion. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the intent of Title VI to include all programs and activities of federal-aid recipients, sub recipients and contractors whether those programs and activities are federally funded or not.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) stressed the importance of providing for "all American's safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically pleasing surroundings", and it provides a requirement for taking a "systematic, interdisciplinary approach" to aid in considering environmental and community factors in decision-making.
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA) was intended to inform governmental decision-makers and the public about potential environmental effects of a project. CEQA was also 2024 mador Coumn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 15 intended to identify ways to reduce adverse impacts, offer alternatives to the project and disclose to the public why a particular project is approved.
This approach was further emphasized in the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1970, which established further basis for equitable treatment of communities being affected by transportation projects. It requires consideration of the anticipated effects of proposed transportation projects upon residences, businesses, farms, accessibility of public facilities, tax base, and other community resources.
On February 11, 1994, the President of the United States signed Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The Executive Order requires that each Federal agency shall, to the greatest extent allowed by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect human health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and adverse" effects on minority and low-income populations.
In April 1997, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued the DOT Order on Environmental Justice to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations to summarize and expand upon the requirements of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.
The Order generally describes the process for incorporating environmental justice principles into all DOT existing programs, policies, and activities.
In December 1998, the FHWA issued FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations that requires the FWA to implement the principles of the DOT Order 5610.2 and E.O. 12898 by incorporating environmental justice principles in all FHWA programs, policies and activities.
The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a memorandum Implementing Title VI Requirements in Metropolitan and Statewide Planning on October 7, 1999. The memorandum provides clarification for field offices on how to ensure that environmental justice is considered during current and future planning certification reviews. While Title VI and environmental justice have often been raised during project development, it is important to recognize that the law also applies equally to the processes and products of planning. The appropriate time for FTA and FHWA to ensure compliance with Title VI in the planning process is during the planning certification reviews conducted for the Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and through the statewide planning finding rendered at approval of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The Federal Highway Administration considers three fundamental environmental justice principles:
• To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low- income populations.
• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process.
• To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.
2024 Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Teclmical Appendices The ACT's Public Involvement Procedures are one means of helping to achieve environmental justice, through outreach activities that make the transportation-planning process responsive to the needs of all segments of the Amador County population including those possibly impacted by any transportation planning or funding decision. For example, outreach activities included in the ACT's Public Involvement Procedures include provisions for additional public notification tools, such as participation in radio television programs, display ads, and workshops. As another example, ACTC will provide transit service to ACT and ACT committee meetings upon request to serve the disabled or transportation disadvantaged individuals.
As the RTPA serving Amador County, the ACT implements and integrates the principles of environmental justice into its transportation planning process. This involves enhancing public participation in planning and development procedures. It ensures the benefits and burdens of our transportation investments are distributed fairly. ACT will use census information, where necessary special studies, and always public input, in determining whether a particular population of people are receiving and inordinate number of government funded projects that negatively impact their neighborhoods, communities or areas. ACT will also use this method to evaluate whether or not a particular population of people are receiving their fair share of transportation projects resulting in appropriate improvements to their neighborhoods, communities, or regions.
Native Americans are also protected under Title VI and Environmental Justice laws and outreach efforts to the Tribes are considered to be an important part of a comprehensive public involvement process.
Indian Tribal Governments must be consulted with and their interests considered during the development of RTPs and RTIPs. There are three federally recognized tribes in Amador County: the Jackson Rancheria Band of Mi-Wuk Indians, the lone Band of Miwok, and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians. ACT strives to develop government-to-government working relationships with each of these tribes. ACT directly contacted with all three tribal governments for input when developing the 2004 RTP Update. ACTC has worked with representatives of the Jackson Rancheria in development of the 2004 RTP Update. Representatives of the Jackson Rancheria have been appointed to the ACT's Technical Advisory Committee to assist ACT in promoting environmental justice to maintain and improve the environment, the economic equality and community character.
ACTC Committees:
The following is a description of each of the ACT's current standing committees. Separate, special task, "ad-hoc" committees may be established from time to time to accomplish specific purposes. All ACT meetings and all ACT standing committee or ad-hoc committee meetings are open to the public.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): The Technical Advisory Committee is advisory to the Commission on all matters relating to regional transportation planning including the development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and the Overall Work Program (OWP). The TAC consists of the County Director of Public Works, County Land Use Director, the city engineers, and planning directors of each of the cities within the county, or, in the case of cities having no such technical staff, any other person designated to serve on behalf of that city. The Manager of AT, the Manager of the Amador County airport, a representative from Caltrans District 10, and the area Highway Patrol Commander are also members of ACT TAC. In 2003, the Jackson Rancheria, the Amador County Unified School District, and the Amador County Sheriff's emergency response representative were also invited to join the ACTC TAC. Other city, County and 202+ Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Appendice, Caltrans staff members may attend and participate in TAC meetings. The TAC meets at least once per year, in January, to review mid-year progress on the annual OWP and to recommend programs or projects for the next year's OWP.
Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC): The SSTAC is an advisory committee to the ACTC on matters pertaining to the transportation needs of transit dependent and transportation disadvantaged persons. The STAC's input shall be considered in and made an integral part of the Commission's annual "unmet transit needs" hearing and findings process. The composition of the SSTAC, the terms of SSTAC appointments, and precise responsibilities of the SSTAC are found in the Public Utilities Code.
Administrative Committee: The Administrative Committee, which consists of Chairman and Vice Chairman, meets as necessary to review matters relative to administration and management of the ACTC and AT. The Administrative Committee may take recommendations to the full Commission or Board about agency administration or management.
Personnel Committee: Each year the ACT Chairman appoints two Commissioners to serve on the Personnel Committee. The Personnel Committee conducts annual review of management employees.
They also meet to review and provide recommendations to the full Commission about other personnel matters as warranted.
Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Oversight Committee: The Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Oversight Committee meets no less than once per year to oversee and guide implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning collection and expenditure of regional traffic mitigation fees. The committee consists of one representative from each participating city, the County, and the ACTC.
Ad Hoc Committees: The ACTC Chairman may appoint Commissioners to serve on "Ad Hoc" advisory committees which are established to serve short-term, temporary special purposes. The RTP Update oversight committee or consultant selection committees are examples of ACT Ad Hoc committees.
As amended into the policies below, it is the Commission's intention that all advisory committees will be appointed by the ACT and will provide regular feed back to the Commission regarding the task it has been assigned to advise upon.
ACTC Public Involvement Policies and Implementation Program Policies:
1. No person shall be denied participation in ACT meetings and activities unless specific instruction to the contrary are provided by ACT legal counsel.
2. The ACTC is a "public service" agency which maintains an "open-door" policy with respect to public involvement. The ACT office is open for public visitation during normal working hours and normal working days. Citizens are encouraged to visit the ACT offices and ask questions or express concerns regarding issues associated with regional transportation plans, programs, or projects. All citizens will be treated in a courteous and professional matter by ACT staff. 2024 Amador Count: Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendice, 18
3. The ACTC maintains an "open-file" policy wherein all documents in the ACT office are subject to public review except those that are deemed confidential as they relate to employee or personnel matters and except those that may be deemed "off limits" by specific advice of the ACT's legal counsel. All ACT public documents that are requested for public review shall be viewed in the presence of a member of ACT staff. No original ACT documents or files should leave the ACTC office. ACT may recoup actual costs for providing copies of file documents per public request. "Loaner copies" of ACT publications or library documents may be provided. Persons requesting to own an ACTC publication or document may be charged the cost to produce the publication or document that is requested. The request shall not be denied.
4. Near the beginning of every ACT meeting, an agenda item shall include "public matters not otherwise on the agenda". The ACT Chairman uses this time to allow any member of the public to address the ACT on any subject. This may be limited to five minutes at the Chairman's discretion. ACTC discussion of such items should be limited. No ACT decisions can be made on any item not specified on the agenda; public matters not on the agenda that require a decision may be agendized for decision at a future ACT meeting.
5. Any member of the public may place an item on the ACT agenda for consideration. Such items should be presented to the ACT Executive Director no later than one week prior to the respective ACT meeting date. The ACT generally meets on the first Thursday of each month. Agenda items should be submitted before the third Wednesday of each month. Some items needing response, comments, analysis, etc., may need to be submitted up to two weeks prior to the meeting depending on the item's complexity.
6. All ACTC meetings will be held in ADA compliant facilities.
7. The ACTC does not, at the present time, perceive a need for bilingual services. If a request is made for language or interpretive services, the ACT will endeavor to provide these services as necessary to fulfill the intent of complete public involvement in public policy matters.
8. Any meeting of the ACT or an ACT standing committee that is not held on the regular ACTC meeting day (9:00 a.m. on the first Thursday of each month, 117 Valley View Way, Sutter Creek, CA) will be advertised by public notice placed in the legal advertising section of at least one newspaper of general circulation in Amador County. Any "public hearing" scheduled by the ACTC will also require public notice regardless of whether it is at the regular ACT meeting time and place or not. All notices of public meetings or hearings shall include the following:
• Date, time, and place of public meeting/hearing
• General explanation of the matter to be considered
• Offer of public transportation service to those who cannot otherwise attend (citizens will be requested to provide Amador Transit with 24-hour notice if public transportation service is needed)
9. The ACT will provide thorough background reports and listed recommendations for all meeting agenda items. Extra copies of the complete agenda report will be available at every ACT meeting.
Members of the public can request to receive copies of the complete agenda or any part of the 2024 Amador Counn Regional Transportaton Plan, Draft Teclurical Appendice: 19 agenda. A fee may be charged for the ACT to recoup direct costs in providing extra agenda material per public request.
10. ACTC staff will maintain a mailing list of persons who desire to be kept informed about progress or activity associated with any ACT project or program. ACTC staff will provide progress reports and other relevant documents to persons on the mailing list to keep them informed about the project(s) of their concern.
11. ACTC complies with RTP guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines when the guidelines recommend or require a specific public meeting, hearing, and notification requirements pertaining thereto.
12. ACT may form special (ad hoc) project "oversight committees" for the development of all RTP Updates and for the development of all special plans, projects, or programs necessary to complement or implement the RTP Update. Although the oversight committees are temporary committees that meet for a special purpose, all oversight committee meetings will be open to the public. The Chairman of any oversight committee may announce during the meeting that public involvement will be limited to public observation of the meeting; that opportunities for public comments or questions may be limited while the committee carries out its work. In cases where public concerns or public controversy may exist, one or more members of the public representing the public's concerns may be appointed to the oversight committee. In any such case, committee work should conclude with findings and recommendations that will be presented before the ACTC, the County, the city, or another body of government for consideration and made available for public review and comment before any final decision is made. All ad hoc advisory committee's will be appointed by the ACT and will provide regular feedback to the Commission regarding the advisory task it has been assigned with.
13. Meeting agendas and minutes are made available to the public upon request. Agendas are always posted at meeting locations. Seventy-two-hour notice and posting is provided before all regular meetings of the ACTC. Twenty-four-hour notice and posting is provided for all special ACTC meetings, planning committee meetings, or ad-hoc committee meetings. Per the Brown Act, any person may request a copy of the agenda or a copy of all documents constituting the agenda packet of any meeting of the ACT to be provided by mail before the subject meeting. That request is valid for the calendar year in which it is filed and must be renewed following January 1 of each year. The ACT may establish a fee for mailing the agenda or agenda packet, which fee will not exceed the cost of providing the service.
14. Public hearings will be held prior to a decision point as a formal means to gather citizen comments and positions from all interested parties for public record and input into the decision-making process. ACTC hearings are required for the adoption of major plans, programming of money and for the annual Unmet Transit Needs analysis. Notices for public hearings will be published in a general circulation newspaper. ACT will accept prepared comments from the public during the period between the notice and hearing date. These comments will be considered part of the public record. Also, during this period, ACT will accept questions and provide clarification on issues raised by the public.
2024 Amador Counts Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Techmical Appendices 20
15. Non-traditional approaches, such as radio advertising, direct mail and posted flyers will be used to encourage involvement of the under-served and transit dependent in project development and public workshops.
16. ACC will provide news releases or communicate with reporters working for local newspapers, radio stations, or television in the effort to provide public information and insight about ACTC business or particular plans, programs, or projects.
17. The ACTC developed and maintains a website. The website contains meeting agendas, announcements, planning documents, related links to other informational or helpful websites, requests for electronic meeting notifications, contact information, and a variety of other information intended to make public outreach and involvement easier.
18. Amador Transit (AT) should provide for public notices to be visually displayed on AT buses.
19. If ACTC receives significant written and/or oral comments on the draft transportation plan (including the financial plan) as a result of the public involvement process or the interagency consultation process required under the United States EPA's conformity regulations, ACT shall include a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of such comments in its final plan and TIP.
2024 Amador Com Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Appendices 21 This page intentionally left blank
2024 Amador Counh Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Tecimical Appendices 22 Appendix D
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted
Amador County: Anne Kel-Artinian, City Council City of Amador City-.
Brian Oneto, ACT alternate/ District 5 Board of Supervisors- kelarbrian.anne-gmail.com bonetouamadorgov.org Bob Stimpson, City Council City of Jackson- Chuck Beatty, Planning Director- [email protected] [email protected] Chuck Iley, County Administrative [email protected] Bree Wilder, Public Works City of lackson- wider ci.jackson.ca.us Connie Vaccarezza, Public Health Director- Carl Simpson, City Manager City of Jackson- [email protected]
Dave Sheppard, Airport [email protected]
Frank Axe, District 4 Board of Supervisors- [email protected] Dan Epperson, City Council City of lone- depperson "sheplobal.net Hermenia Perry, Air Pollution Control Officer- Dan Lafontaine, Cityof Sutter Creek- hperrvwamadorgov.org [email protected] leff Gardner, Director of Solid Waste- gardnerwamadorgov.org 9. Dan Riordan, ACTC board/ City Council City of Sutter Creek- lennifer Burns, Clerk of the Board- burns: amadorgov.org driordan cityofsuttercreek.org
10. Ton Hopkins, Director of General Services- hopkins" amadorgov.org 10. Dave Groth, City Council City of Amador City-
11. Patrick Crew, ACTC Chair/ District 1 Board of Supervisors- [email protected] pcrew@ amadorgov.org 11. Dominic Atlan, City Council City of lone- [email protected]
12. Richard Forster, ACT board/ District 2 Board of Supervisors- 12. Dous Sim, City Council City of Plymouth-dsim etyofplymouth.org amadorgov.org 13. lack Mitchell, City Council City of Ione-mitchell_ione-ca.com
13. Richard Vela, Director of Public Works- [email protected] 14. leff Sutherland, Planning City of lone-
14. Anna Shrode, Health Educator- [email protected] ioneplanneradenovoplanning.com
15. Gail Abbott, Personal Services Coordinator- [email protected] 15. Tim Swift, City Council City of Sutter Creek- apartsman%@gmail.com
16. Terry Sanders, Veteran Services Officer- [email protected] 16. John Alfred, Police Chief City of [email protected]
17. John Georgette, City Clerk City of [email protected]
17. Jason Navarre, Lieutenant Sheriff's Department- 18. Toyce Davidson, City Clerk City of Amador Ciry:
navarreaamadorgov.org [email protected]
18. Mark Hopkins, Engineer Public Works- mhopkinse amadorgov.ors 19. Margaret Roberts, City Manager City of Plymouth-
19. Ion Plasse, County appointed Citizen at Large for ACT board- [email protected] nobull82658agmail.com 20. Sandy Staples, City Mayor, City of Amador City- [email protected]
Cities: 21. Stacey Rhoades, City Council City of lone- srhoadescrone-ca.com Amy Gedney, City Manager City of Ione [email protected] Steve McLean, ACT board/City Council City of Jackson- smcleankici.jackson.ca.us
2024 Amador Comn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Teclmical Appendices 23
23. Susan Bragstad, ACTC hoard/City Council City of Amador City- 4. CaISTA- media@ calsta.ca.gov [email protected] 5. Craig Baracco, Executive Director Foothill Conservancy:
24. Susan Feist, City Council City of Sutter Creek- sraugsfoothillconservancy.org [email protected] 6. Chris Kalton, Director Amador Senior Center-
25. Tom Dubois, City Manager City of Sutter Creek- [email protected] [email protected] 7. Dave Eisenhauer, KVGC [email protected] Denise Cloward, ATCAA- [email protected]
Dian Nguyen, Executive Director SICOG-nguyeniasjeog.org Tribal Consultation: 10. Doreen Schmidt, Area 12 Agency on Aging- [email protected]
1. Adam Dalton, Chairperson Jackson Rancheria Casino- 11. Elizabeth Thompson, Common Grounds Senior Services:
adaltoncjacksoncasino.com [email protected]
2. Rhonda Morningstar Pope Chairperson Buena Vista Band of Miwok 12. Tim Guidi, [email protected] Indians- [email protected] 13. Karyn Gregorious, Director of Are of Amador-
3. Robert Stevens, Housing Director lone Band of Miwok Indians- [email protected] [email protected] 14. Kate Murphy, AȚ[email protected]
15. Larry Nunez, Victory [email protected] Caltrans:
[email protected] Lori Halvorson, Nexus Youth Services- [email protected] Eric Mather, Deputy District Director Administration District 10- Michelle Siefer, Victory Village- [email protected] eric.mathere dot. ca.gov 19. Nina Machado, First 5 Amador- [email protected] Diane Guerra, District 10-diana.guerra dot.ca.gov 20. Stephen Hartmann, Nexus Youth Services- shartmann @nexusy fs.org Grace Magsayo, Acting District Director, Caltrans District 10- 21. Susan Peters, Amador Water Agency- speters @amadorwater.org jot.ca.gov 22. Suzie Reynolds, KVGC radio-suzze kvgcradio.com
5. Gregoria Ponce, Chief Office of Rural Planning District 10- 23. Tammie Crabtree, Operation Care- [email protected] [email protected] 24. Tara Parker, Nexus Youth Services- [email protected]
6. Mark Samuelson, Deputy District Director Planning- 25. Thomas Denney, Area 12 Agency on Aging- [email protected] mark.samuelson/@dot.ca.gov 26. Victory Village- [email protected]
7. Paul Bauldry, Caltrans District 10-paul.hauldry-dot.ca.gov 27. Specialty Granules- [email protected]
28. Aces [email protected]
Amador Transit: 29. Amador Air District- [email protected]
1. Maggie Amarant, General Manager- maggie amadortransit.com
2. April Miller, Mobility [email protected] Consultants:
leff Baxter, Mauntenance-jeffsamadortransit.com 1. Amanda Konieczka-akonieczkawdokkenengineering.com
2. Dave Robinson - [email protected]
Additional Agencies: Gary [email protected]
1. Amanda Amato, Community Compass- LeeAnn [email protected] aamator"thecommunitycompass.com Mark Thomas- [email protected]
2. Betty Mann, ATCAA-bmarwatcaa.org Matt Griggs- [email protected] Brian Bennett, Valley Mountain Regional Center - bbennettoymrc.net Matt Ospital- [email protected] Mike O'Connor- [email protected]
2024 Amador Coumn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendice: 24
9. Nanda Gottiparthy-nanda.gottiparthy sngassociates.com Interested Individuals:
Andy Byrne [email protected]
Bill [email protected]
Boh and Paula Leitzell-bp [email protected]
Bob Currall - [email protected]
Bruce Baracco- [email protected]
Carl Baker - [email protected]
Carol Emerson - [email protected]
Crystal Enyeart - [email protected]
Evatt [email protected]
10. Gary Reinoehl - [email protected]
11. Giner Rolf- [email protected]
12. Greg [email protected]
13. lan [email protected]
14. Tim Conklin- [email protected]
lim Ulm- [email protected]
16. John [email protected]
Ion Colbum - jone @att.net
loy [email protected]
Kathy Allen- [email protected]
Karen [email protected]
Karen Dickerson- [email protected]
22. Keith Sweet- [email protected]
Ladair Morgan- [email protected]
Les Clark- [email protected]
Linda Reedy - [email protected]
Lynn [email protected]
Marilyn Lewis- [email protected]
Marilyn Nutter- [email protected]
Mark Bennett - [email protected]
30. Mark Manly- [email protected]
31. Mel [email protected]
32. Tim [email protected]
33. Tom Infusino- [email protected]
34. Tom Swett- [email protected]
35. Vaughn lackie- [email protected]
36. Wanda [email protected]
2024 Amador Comn Regional Transportation Plan: Draft Technical Appendices Appendix E
References Consulted
Amador And Alpine County Systemic Safety Analysis Report, prepared by Mark Thomas, May 2018 Amador and Calaveras Needs Assessment for Extreme Weather and Natural Disaster Prevention and Response Strategies, prepared by ACTC, ECORP Consulting, and R.E.Y Engineers, 2021.
Amador County Westover Field Amador County Airport Layout Plan Update Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Westover Field, 2019
Alpine County 2020 Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by Green Dot Transportation Solutions 2020
Amador County Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan 2020-2024, AMMA Transit Planning, 9069 Van Buren Blvd. Suite 114-378 Riverside, CA 92508, June 2020.
Amador County Demographic Profile, prepared by California Department of Finance, Sacramento, CA, 2023
Amador County General Plan: Planning Department, October 2016 Amador County Long-Range Transit Development Plan; Final Report, prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., Tahoe City, CA, adopted by ACT February, 2013 Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan, October 2017 Amador County 2015 Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by ACTC, De Novo Planning Group, Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc., Kittleson & Associates, Inc., Dokken Engineering Inc., Omni Means, Inc., CH2M Hill Inc., August 2015
Amador County Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Annual Report; prepared by the Amador County Transportation Commission, Sutter Creek, CA, Fiscal Years 2022/23 Amador County Short-Range Transit Development Plan, prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., Tahoe City, CA, adopted by ACTC, June 2014
Amador County Traffic Mitigation Fee Nexus Plan; 2000 - 2025, prepared by the Amador County Transportation Commission, March, 2005
Amador Transit TDA Triennial Performance Audit, prepared by Moore and Associates, November 2022.
2024 Amador Coumn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 26 Calaveras County Regional Transportation Plan 2021-2041; Final Report, prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants INC. 2690 Lake Forest Road, STE C Tahoe City CA 96145 October, 2021 Caltrans District 10 District System Management Plan, prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Stockton, CA, September, 2012
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, prepared by the California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA, amended February, 2010
California 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, prepared by the California Transportation Commission, Sacramento, CA, January 2017
California 2024 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, prepared by the California Transportation Commission, Sacramento, CA, January 2024
California Transportation Plan 2050; prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, February 2021
California Road System- Functional Classification Map, 2023 Caltrans https://dot.ca.gov/programs/research-innovation-system-information/office-of-highway-system- information performance/functional-classification
California Traffic Census Program- Caltrans, 2021 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic operations/census
Central Sierra Zero-Emission Vehicle Readiness Plan, Prepared for Tuolumne County Transportation Council, September 2019
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, California State Transportation Agency, July El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan; 2010 - 2030; prepared by and for the El Dorado Transportation Commission, Placerville, CA, adopted November, 2010 Regional Planning Handbook, A Reference Manual for Administering Overall Work Programs, Regional Transportation Plans, and Regional Transportation Planning Funds, prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, November 2017 State and County Total Population Projections, 2010-2060, State of California, Department of Finance, Report P-1 (County), Sacramento, CA, January, 2023 State and County Population Projections by Major Age Groups, 2010-2060, State of California, Department of Finance, Report P-1 (Age), Sacramento, CA, January, 2023 State and County Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, 2010-2060, State of California, Department of Finance, Report P-1 (Race), Sacramento, CA, January, 2023 2024 Amador Counn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendice:
Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2022 and 2023, State of California, Department of Finance, E-1, Sacramento, CA, May, 2023 StreetSaver MC's Pavement Management System, https://app.streetsaver.com/ Transportation Development Act Statutes and California Codes of Regulations, prepared by Caltrans, Sacramento, CA, updated July 2018
2020 United States Census, prepared by the United State of America Census Bureau, Washington, District of Columbia, January, 2020
2024 Amador Counn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 28 Appendix F
RP Public Workshop Analysis
ACTC Initial RTP Workshop #1: Top Priority Goal
Ranking Poll
SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH
ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY & COMMON SENSE PLANNING
SUPPORT COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY
REDUCE CONGESTION
IMPROVE/MAINTAIN SAFETY
PRESERVE/MAINTAIN EXISTING LOCAL STREET & ROADS
FUNDING
ACT Initial RTP Workshop #1: Combined Goal
Weighting
SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH
ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY & COMMON SENSE PLANNING
SUPPORT COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY
REDUCE CONGESTION
IMPROVE/MAINTAIN SAFETY
PRESERVE/MAINTAIN EXISTING LOCAL STREETS & ROADS
FUNDING
2027 Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 29 Appendix G
Traffic Volumes and Method for Determining LOS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
a. Traffic Count Database
As part of the 2010 Regional Traffic Model development process, roadway traffic counts were acquired in order to validate and calibrate the base year model. In addition, beginning in 2011, ACTC authorized development of a traffic count data base that could be used as a resource by ACTC, its member agencies, and the development community. Development of this data base entailed harvesting intersection turn-movement and roadway segments counts from all traffic impact studies on file at ACTC. Published Caltrans counts for the State Highway System were also recorded. For intersections and roadway segments, available traffic counts from 2006- 2013 were considered generally valid for use. This is based on an analysis of state highway traffic trends experienced between 2006 and 2012 (2012 being the most recent published data available from Caltrans). Due to the recession and the slow economic recovery that followed, no significant traffic growth was observed during this period. Traffic volumes have either decreased slightly or remained generally the same for almost all locations. As such, older counts within this period could still be considered generally reflective of existing traffic conditions where more recent traffic volumes were not available. b. Calculating Roadway Segment LOS; The LOS Workbook
To determine Level of Service (LOS) for roadway segments, roadway characteristics are surveyed and inventoried. These include a given roadway's number of lanes, functional classification, urban or rural location, whether or not it has a center median or left-turn channelization. As shown in Table 1, these characteristics help determine a roadway's threshold capacity, which is used to determine its LOS. A roadway's threshold capacity is essentially the volume of traffic that it can carry within a given range of operations (eg. LOS "A", LOS "B", LOS "C", etc.). Based on these roadway characteristics and threshold capacities, a series of Excel spreadsheets containing various formulas is used to compute LOS for selected roadways. These Excel spreadsheets, collectively called the "LOS Workbook", are used to calculate roadway Levels of Service by comparing existing and forecast traffic volumes with the threshold capacities for each roadway. This analysis essentially compares the amount of traffic that a given roadway is designed to carry at a certain Level of Service with the amount of traffic it is actually carrying under existing conditions and is anticipated to carry in 20 years.
If a roadway is carrying or is expected to carry more traffic than it was designed to, then its threshold capacity is or will be exceeded and it will have a deficient LOS. For evaluating the potential traffic impacts of new development, one would essentially add project-generated trips to the existing roadway volumes identified in Table 1 to determine if any related threshold capacities would be exceeded. If a roadway's threshold capacity would be exceeded and its LOS lowered, then it could be determined that the new trips added by a development project would trigger a LOS deficiency on the Regional Transportation System and thereby require mitigation pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This process summarizes the more technical methodologies contained in the ACT's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. 2024.4mador Counn Regional Transportation Plan: Draft Techmal Appendices 30 Level of Service analysis for roadway segments is based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Operational Methodology and analyzed under average-daily conditions. Approximately 144 roadway segments were analyzed for the 2015 RTP Update (see Table 1). c. Calculating Intersection LOS
Similar to roadway segments, the lane-configuration, control-type, and turning-movement counts for each of the region's intersections are inventoried and analyzed within the micro- scale operational software platform called SYNCHRO. The primary determinant for intersection LOS is delay, or the amount of time it takes a vehicle to cycle through or make a given turning movement at an intersection. Intersection operations were based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Operational Methodology and were analyzed under peak-hour For the purposes of the RTP, Excel tables containing the traffic volumes and LOS discussed above were transferred into a GIS database to create user-friendly maps using a color scheme to graphically illustrate the appropriate LOS grade for all roadways and intersections. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 31 This page intentionally left blank.
202+ Amador Counh Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 32 Appendix H
City and County Local Road Improvement Proiects
LOCAL PROJECTS-INELIGIBLE FOR REGIONAL FUNDING UNLESS AMENDED, APPENDIX- G Royanue
2024 Cost Local
Estimate Impact Othar
Location Priest Lianton Descriptisa Timo Frame' (1,000a) S61 HUTA Foes Sourcos'
30.005
French 3r: 20
30 301
Jodhana Gato Pd Widen shudders resunate ste 30 353
dure gas send cries a
51 738
5183:131 S0 274
Jainson Summi Si 20.209
Sub-Totst
9123-1:70 kip StoR
...3x
Amate Cir Pest Cite 30 OUT
went Cras cocks 00 63:
32 175
3D dare to Ma Bradd
Sister Chat Propen Or Hont 3242t0 Dard Cord Rascast: estates fonteres 8'8 nts Croud Brone di trest donate 3i: Mare: 31 Retracted to host ta: ands f icni East his Shreed west of are Showi Vided see ACT
Hence: - 30 179
-
Isna
tame rares simants
Wolanca 5r from 5010-010 5°124
ita:
20 17S
ica= 2A Dray 900: 31) 20 315
son: BS0R02102
1E00 i2a 30 253
West case Be montane. 230o a 70 35 718
Most herite Soca
30 731
$1a 615
Five mus
...1
Eng. :
d alle taining 1620,
c :: 3
1020120
35 155
•% 10. 25 31397
Lice wast igning soul wan 20 153
33 g1-
s1a e0g
Coon. MR SERG SERG 00091
30 505
we Fate is 20000 332 52 13 1
danna Creamy
Cи0i: Come: 32 20 NO
Courty 30 323
30 ResRenP0303:1 32 39u
Sire Rigod se0 star deputag descen 2034030 3010
10g/319 %
2024 Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Tecimical Appendices 33 I Can locus area (0 15.719)
County 2eмa Vista 20
:0623
County Stare Vise Au 2 2400
10031
Court Bunter He 20 © Panders Cra
1%3% 39 270
Bib: Cuc:22aP00W0013
30 023
County But: Mt20! Chica (NA 10) y *0 07a
Choar ala la in to diod to
1% 39 x: 10022
Com Parry/ 3000 450 72 B0x000032840 23379
3079
Congears Pay Curia ignos and 27273
Carmies: Read 3 Cars PA 10 10:
Coni. Concer: Rei 33M52 :30r5
County Catchen Rest @ Pa: 3 Car agreene
County Cemeter: Rend lem Can Pargio s arglen Ra
11410
Comance Raed hem Pa1310:2
Corely 200.10 10 SHi
Courty 91OLM1:3
66S0
Courty Drago see @Ver Chose
30074
Diunt; Coronate Red Wine Cross Fore: 2ace T0 339
10.300
Chonly
21 943
Corny Moron: Molenss
3223
Carde ond from Pl00m 302 49y009
22230
Cour
301:9
1 30i y: 3010
1%0x
Counte CoMing Hand Reate 0 20la/2 cro
Come 25023:00:0:0 30 149
1% 201 y SO 223
Raptors srige 10 070
"winty Fiddletona Ro tom PAI00 to 183
1i 301 21 313 010
County Fro Mée Dr PM Bndge Gd 'Rad Ri: 8 Mi.: Creek
1% 3 X 200:
County Forest HiRd from PAiDOte 1 14 parade PA: 303114
1% 20%
Gredch Rd from PM c to Old Ace Pad 13 390
Hale Ra: Fiddletown Rd ntersection impror: '..t: 30 109 140E
Male Road 2 fry Creek 15 10130 30301
County Mate Rasd from PM 00 a 38
(/ 301 %
Jackson Gate 2 PM 09 Guardss 20230
County Jacison Vasey RoMans PAt 00 ts 122 35 350
110222
Lambert Rosa 00l0 32 pgrade team PM 0 040 3 30
23.20 County Latrobe rd @ 14to Indian Creok Enogo Teard Rat Crony Latroberd § Crimines Finage Sere Wak 14%:
10=302
county Latrobard from PM 0 0 0 5 63 Lipgrade PM 3 0 1: 5.33 35 300 (•1. 101
Canny Laimace Ra Snage metai te im guad:?;
30 019
i cranu 102 al:000 intersection mos. /eco. sut: 30 310
County 'parade
3A. 30122 32 330
County NY Runch Ro Drainage mps
1: 0212
County Old Royc Ro Orainage lacsity 1% 2y
County Upgrade aganst food (2 maj
10029
County Onato Ro Wesl End el Shoto Raugo Rd Intersecton improvemenis 13023
Coumy Osuom Rd
Brage metal beam quard rad
Courty ¡Oust, Rosd Mom PAt 00 to 0 17 Upgrade
~ Profects were approved for programmung unrough 2024 RTIPIRSIP Recieved rebreurshment uncing for thes secton 180 cy RIMF OC 1BO by Cakians 2024 Amador Count Regional Transportanion Plan: Draft Technical Ippendices 34 County PG / Voicano Ra Irom PM 0 0 10 30 ¡Remove obstacles SO 783 (0%- 20) yr
County PG / Volcano Rd Bodge replacement (%-20) yr
County PG V Ad / Pioneer intersection improvemenis $O 075 County PGY Rd / Proneer trom PM 0 0 to 25 ¡Upgrada
(%. yr $1367
County PG/Nolcano Rd @ Nutchall More Ro Badge mogr S0 103 (0% 20) yr
County Pronetr Ra/Voicono Replaca bodge near quarry
(%. 20) yr $i 120
County Quartz Mit Rd E @ Ranchena and Stale creeks New bridges (11. 20) yr $1494
County Quartz Mr RdE from PM 00 lo 506 (Upgrade (/- 20) yr $3 779 County Rams Mom Grada from Shake Rudge to Volcano
(Upgrada {% 20) yr 32 151
County Rage Road @ Toma Lane Dranage (+/- 20) yr 30 000 Counly Shake Rage Rd from Suller Creek 1o SR 38 Upgrade $14 939 County Shako Ridge Rd Pone Guich Ro
he con moreos
30 149
Shenandoah Pd from 01 mY o Fodietown Rd 1002
County ira of Bell Ru Upgrade
(%. 20) yr 51 494
County Shenandoah School Rd / Shenandoan Rd Intersection Improvernents (/- 20) rz S0 299 County Stonor Rd from PM 0010 29- Upgrade
1 + 20) ye $1 494
County Stony Crees / Buena Vista Rd intersection Improvements (0% 20) .1 So 149
County Stony Creek Rd trem PM 0 0 to 10 17 Upgrade (•1. 20) .. $7 $69 County Sutter - lone Rd @ Jackass Creek Andge/Cuivert amps 30 149 (/• 20) ./
County Sutter Creek Rd @ Sutter Crock Replaco bridge
(%. 20) yr SO 223
County Sulter Crack Rd trom PAt00 to 116 Overiay (1. 20) yr $0 639 County Sulter Creek Rd Item PAl 00 to 117 Ungrade (%. 20) vr So 739 County Sutlar Creek Rd irom PAt 10 2 10 115 Guard rod S0 023 (/- 20),
County Tabeaud Ra/ E Canion Rd
intersecton Improvements (%- 20) , SO 149
County Tabeaud Rd from ACWA Canal to Timber Riago Rd Reconstruct (%. 20) yr 52 589
Courty Tabeaud Rd from Tember Ridge to SA 38 Upgrada (% 20) yr 30 149 Courly ¡upgrade
(% 20) yr $0 103
County ¿Turner Ro iF our new andges
(% 20) yr 31 658
County Tumer ed from PA1 0 0 10 2 22 Ungrade 1% 20) y
50 1 39
County Tyter rd Brege metal beam guzed rad (1% 20) yr 30 ass County Tyfer 1o trom Pas 0 0 105 C6 ¡Upgrado
(%. 20) yr $3 779
County West Canton ¡Upgrade to two lanes (%. 20) ,r $1 429 County Walang Road Guard rad (%- 20) yr 30 075
County Widow Creek Ra from SR 16 to SR 124 jUpgrade
0% 201 mr 33 547
County-63 /Latrobe Road Corndor (Sinor pavement repairs culverts ma and overlay and indee replacement (•1-15) $3 196
Sub-Totel 5134 135
Total $176 180
2024 Amador Coumn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 35 Appendix /
Average Annual Percent Truck Traffic
Route Location Percentage Trucks *
SR 16 JCT. RTE 124 SOUTH 7.70
SR 16 CENTRAL HOUSE. JCT. RTE 49 7.60
SR 26 JCT. RTE. 88 6.10
SR 49 JACKSON, SOUTH JCT. RTE 88 9.20
SR 49 JACKSON, SOUTH JCT. RTE 88
SR 49 MARTELL, NORTH JCT. RTE 88 WEST
SR 49 MARTELL, NORTH JCT. RTE 88 WEST
SR 49 SUTER CREEK, JCT. RTE 104 WEST
SR 49 CENTRAL HOUSE, JCT RTE 16 WEST
SR 49 CENTRAL HOUSE, JCT RTE 16 WEST
SR 49 AMADOR/EL DORADO COUNTY LINE
SR 88 JCT. RTE. 124 NORTH
SR 88 JCT. RTE. 124 NORTH
SR 88 WEST JCT. RTE. 104
SR 88 JCT. RTE. 49
SR 88 JCT. RTE. 49
SR 88 PINE GROVE, RIDGE ROAD
SR 88 PINE GROVE, RIDGE ROAD
SR 88 JCT RTE 26, RED CORRAL RO
SR 88 JCT RTE 26, REO CORRAL RD
SR 104 IONE, JCT. RTE. 124 NORTH
SR 104 TONE, JCT. RTE. 124 NORTH
SR 104 IONE. JCT. RTE. 124 SOUTH
SR 104 JCT. RTE. 88
SR 104 JCT. RTE. 88
SR 104 SUTTER CREEK, JCT. RTE. 49
SR 124 JCT. RTE. 88, IONE SOUTH
SR 124 IONE. WEST JCT RTE 104
8.00 SR 124 TONE, WEST JCT RTE 104 5.00
2024 Amador Count: Regional Transportation Plan; Drafi Technical Appendices 36 This page intentionally left blank.
2024 Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 37 Appendix J
RTP Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures; System-Wide Alternative Ranking Performance Measures; Analysis of System-Wide Alternatives System-Wide Performance Measures
Plan Functional Improved Evacuation Average Daily
Alternatives Classification Routes Traffic
(1) No Project Low Low Low Low Low
(2) Expand
Existing Low Low Low Medium Low
Highways
(3) Emphasize
Local Road High
Rehab. & High High High High
Maint.
(4) Implement Low Low Low Low LOW
Multi-Modal
'irculation
Improvement
Program
(tA)
Financially Low Low Low Low Low
Unconstrained
(+B)
Financially Medium High High High High
Constrained
"High" means the alternative generally does satisfy the Desired Outcome. "Medium" means that the alternative somewhat satisfies the Desired Outcome. "Low" means that the alternative generally does not satisfy the Desired Outcome. 2024 Amador Comn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Techmical Appendices 38 Appendix K
RP Project Criteria and Performance Measures- Project Prioritization List 2024 RTP Project Prioritization
Prolect Priorilization: Eviluation Crilera Performates Measures, and Ranking (sligh: 5. Medium = 3, Low: 1)
Pavemont
Proj. it Dao :riptse Cist Est. Condition ¡Functional ¡Prorect DUEL
County-En Rega teed Been Rong Gold Road to Cry
44 12,407 Major C. ICON primary
:a37 230:an 3r-85 49 to Church Si
28 6,700 Minor A CON
Rest Reia from Fuge View Dave lo Ridge .29
Freause Recd Meat:) 10?02
56 12.407( I Major C. ICON primary 27.
20: 174
10 4,381 Major C CON primary _27.
puny 22 Ridge and lem fine Frontage Road Wan
to Running Ged Road) 10 501
60 12.403 Maor C. CON prima:
Ridge Rend am Samar Road to Ridge View
Oma) :03.30
43 7.751 Major C ¡CON primary 20
Beller Crash can Stewanted elect-field to reith 49
12 3001 33 2,500
Minor A CON
Comply Susa V Ha Mad Mom Bichy Creek Roost
(Water Rarea; 10 B05) 31 4 707 Major C CON
primary
Amader Cal
31 277
27 1,877 Minor A (CON i primary 25
Couniy 33 Rico Posein 3f33 le Cimat Rosy
12 I3Si 64 7.751 Major C ICON
primary 24
editon Road ifrom Has Road to Sea"
32 300l 535 CON
.35 Major C ¡primary 23
Courty-e Endia Tales As fam Buckare Costo
Bonnera Count) 30 350 21 1,162 ¡ Mator C • CON (primar/ 23 County -35
520) 3,870
¡ Major C ¡CON primary 23
Coanty 253
hoose to Caren Resuy 2033 30
2,855 Major C (CON primary 23
eaten Gild Bond
303331
24 3.633 Major C (CON alternate 23
County-s
20.:78 44 2.505
Minor A CON primary 23
) to 500719) t0 300 43 1.877 Minor A
CON prima. .23
Shake Rage Read trem Oneto Read tonst
3 740 32 1.162
Major C CON primary .22
(County-s Shade Raga Road Wiem Ouche Micuna 1 R223
(Easte Siego Dera) 0932 1 162
Major C CON primary 22
Costis-2 Shake Rage Read ic Parasrosa Tree
la, = Dino) 30.323 10 1132 Major C
CON primary
En Race Had tron Fores Pond to
Woodeng Had Crel $0 s7: 29 1 163 Major C (CON
conica ¡primary
iSa. 13 38 1.183 Major C CON 22
Junt 250 primari
Compass Padery Moralen Canen Pensio
Coal ta ra Road; 33 2.335 Major C CON 22
Come 53 San a Red 10om FAi 3010 2 D8205 primary
(County! rel 30 38. 42 Major C
.370 ¡CON 32.
(Such Resol 20.101
Major Cl ¡CON primary 21
Shake Rare Read tire Postem Rout in
10 /73 33
1.133 Major C /CON primary 21
3 3231 4707
37 Maor C iCON i primary .21.
County 257 Comarche Paray Moid fem Coal Mina
Rests Gosha Vate Ready 31 503l 1,033
Major C (CON pnmary ..21
Count, 55 2:735l /CON
53 3,370 Major C 21
Sandy a Mood ram 3 351 32 7505
Say ca 1O 310! 40 3320 ¡ Major Ci CON
primary 21
ICowp-3.
contain Read canst 43 1.232 ! Major C CON 20.
Come 53 Radishes tom Bes man sameets
Fordz: 10 703 44 502 Major C ICON
Lomas: -30.
10021
Deste Read really 45 1,1÷2 Major c.l pomary 20
CON
Paranora tradi 3: 02-1 43
1.133 Major C.! ICON [primary 20
Eat on Rod ten Cater Could
333 41
1.133 L Major CL ICON primary 20
Most 3 Mar pas
2024 Amador Counn: Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Techncal Appendices 40 County a Shaka Rage Road from Wagon Wessi Days lo
Farnadga Rosd) E0 536
60 1,162 Major C CON 20
County-1 Naw Vert Ranch Rosd Cordo: (lem Ciry
(Limits to Pl 1 3) 30 325 1946
30 Major C DON _pimary 20
County 55 Sharadesh Roed firem Steiner Road (W) 10
Ouruin Aazal 811773
55 3,870 Majp C ICON 20 $39.629
гр74 chigan Bar Road (Tan County Line to
SO 847 2,080
53 Major C CON (pamary 20
Sulla/ Crisk Goghs Flat Rose Man Sursel to cry limus
32 3001
39 2.500 Major C CON bilemnate 20
County 32* Fiddlain Road (irom Quart: Mounten Reed
Herto lo AM $ 2) 50 728 55 1,982 ISON
. pamary 19
County-50
Reservcbon Road) $1 199 1.844
66. CON
Couniy 253 Comancha Paway Nor (lien 24 1 510
30 325j 59 2,855 Mager C (CON pimary 18
County-2 Dimax Rosd rem Crose Rozd is SR23)
31 001
29 (CON allernale 19
County-52 Pedalewn Read fom Shinandesh Read to Fal
31 630฿ 82 1,252 Major Cl (CON
pomary 18
(Counsy-i
(Coventry Court 30 305 55 1,946 Major C COM 18
Surer Cross Suter Hit Pord Eureka Reed to Old Ridge
Rose 27 1,000 Major C CON recom 18
Sulta: Croake
$1 300 66 Local
County 35 4,000 CON pamary 17
Senanceon Rosd lifem PA 0 75 to Stainer
32 033 98
3,370 Major C CON pimary 17
(Prymout Snenardoss Poad- lem Roundabout io caly
amite $1 300 30 3,370 Major C. CON 17
primary
Tessed Road item Ps 172 to AWY 36)
S1 100
57 Major C (CON pomary 17
County: 7i
20 302) Major C
33 2,080 CON pomary 17
Couniy -i Naw York Ranch Road Cornder rem Covanty
; cunt to Rudge Roa 30 347 71 1,915 Major C prmany 17
ICON!
Pons Secremenio rom blarket lo Jnelso
30 1:3 31 Major C 17
Sulli Cras (CON
$0 010) 53 recom
3.500 Major C (COM 17
County-so
31 161
88 1,844 Major C CON pomary
Eouniy-250 Comancha Parkway Morth (irom Counly Ling ic
30 3253
80 2,355 Major 9 ICON Ipomary 16
Sulter Cisex
312001 38 Major C (road
County-= Dima: Read then Riga Read to Chasa Road) CON 16 30 S60 55 Major C. alternala
CON 15
Counly-52
32 3901 47
(Sheke Rudge Rosd) 527 Major C. (CON primary 15
Sullar Orser Church Siresi-Man Si io cry hmis
30 575฿ 55 2,500
bisjor C. COM road 15
Fryncsin
30.:00 73 1,200 Minor.C. (COM primary 13
Flymeuth old sacramanto Resu Cly Amis io Latess 37 C00
1.746 :Minor.C CON (pariant
2024 Amador Comnn Regional Transportation Plan: Draft Technical Appendices 41 This page intentionally left Blank.
2024 Amador Comn Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical Appendices 42 2024
Amador County
Regional
Transportation Plan
AMADOR COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ACTC
This page left intentionally blank
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
-
Amador County Regional Transportation Plan
Administrative Draft
May 2024
Prepared By:
The Amador County Transportation Commission
COMMISSION MEMBERS COMMISSION STAFF
Patrick Crew, County of Amador John Gedney, Executive Director Steve McLean, City of Jackson Terri Yakesh, Administrator John Plasse, Citizen at Large Cindy Engel, GIS Coordinator Susan Bragstad, City of Amador City Felicia Bridges, Administrative Analyst Richard Forster, County of Amador
Dan Riordan, City of Sutter Creek
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
CHAPTER / SECTION PAGE
INTRODUCTION ...8
1. Authority and Organization.. ... 8
2. RTP Update - Purpose and Need 9
3. Environmental Setting.... 12
4. Regional Transportation System... 14
5. Population And Demographics..... ... 14
II. PLANNING PROCESS.... .19
1. The 2024 RTP Update 19
2. Public Involvement 19
3. Interagency and Tribal Consultation 19
4. Coordination With Other Plans .... 20
5. Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Report., 20 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS .23
1. Regional Roadways 23
2. Local Streets and Roads 24
3. Transit 25
4. Aviation 29
5. Pedestrian / Bicycle 29
6. Goods Movement - Rail / Trucking... 30
7. Air Quality 33
8. Safety... ....37
9. Emergency Preparedness... ...37
10. Intelligent Transportation Systems... 39
IV. FUTURE CONDITIONS.. ...40
1. Introduction.. 40
2. Assumptions 40
3. Population 42
4. Land Use 44
5. Regional Roadways..... 44
6. Local Streets and Roads 46
7. Public Transit 46
8. Aviation.... 47
9. Pedestrian / Bicycle 48
10. Goods Movement - Rail / Trucking .. 48
11. Alternative Strategies. 49
12. Air Quality 49
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 2 V. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS..
1. Introduction
2. Alternatives 51
3. Analysis.... .52
VI. POLICY ELEMENT.
1. Introduction...
2. Policy Changes Since The 2015/ Re-adopted 2020 RTP
• Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Measures
Preserve/Maintain existing local streets and roads.. 56 Encourage efficiency and Common-Sense Planning. ..56
Improve Safety and Reduce Congestion.. 56
VII. ACTION ELEMENT .59
1. Introduction 59
2. Regional Project Listing 59
Project Criteria and Performance Measures 60
4. Annual Work 61
VIII. FINANCIAL ELEMENT .65
1. Introduction. 65
2. Funding Opportunities and Projected Revenues 65
3. List of Regional Roadway Improvement: 69
7. Summary of Costs, Revenues, and Shortfall 77
Financial Strategy 87
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REPORT (Separate Document) 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 3 1 Organizational Structure. 11
2 Environmental Setting.. .. 13
Regional Transportation System; Function Classification .. ... 15 2024 Existing Transit Routes........ .. 27
2023 Amador Transit Dial-A-Ride Service Area Service Area.. ..28 6 2024 Existing Truck Route Designations ..32
7 Isolated Rural Attainment Areas Map. ...36
8 Amador County Evacuation Areas and Evacuation Routes ...38 2024 Amador County Regional Transoortation Plan; Draft
A8L20
1. Amador County Population Totals.. 16
2. Comparison of Amador County and State of California Demographic Data.. . 17
3. Amador County Population Projections... .. 43
4. Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures. ...61
5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers.. ...72
6. Summary of Costs, Revenues, and Shortfalls .. 84
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 5 Decreal Aupers 223
(Separate Document)
A. Regional Transportation Plan Checklist
B. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
C. Public Involvement Procedures for Transportation Planning D. Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted
E. References Consulted
F. RTP Workshop Analysis
G. Traffic Volumes and Method for Determining LOS
H. City and County Local Road Improvement Projects
1. Average Annual Percent Truck Traffic
J. RTP Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures-System-Wide Alternative Ranking K. RTP Project Criteria and Performance Measures-Project Prioritization List 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 6 This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
1. AUTHORITY AND ORGANIZATION
The regional transportation planning process was initiated throughout California by state law in 1972. In that year, the Amador County Transportation Commission (ACT) was designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the Amador County "Region". The term Region as used herein refers to both the geographic boundaries of Amador County and to the six following jurisdictions collectively, which are all represented by the ACTC: Amador County and the cities of Jackson, lone, Sutter Creek, Plymouth, and Amador City. Pursuant to state law, the ACT's six Commissioners are comprised of three members appointed by the Amador County Board of Supervisors and three members appointed by the City Selection Committee. Together, these Commissioners represent the transportation interests of Region as a whole.
As the state-designated RTPA for Amador County, the ACT's primary responsibilities encompass the three following areas, which are further elaborated on in subsequent sections of the RTP.
Transportation Planning
The ACTC is responsible for maintaining and implementing a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that is developed in accordance with guidelines published by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
The RTP identifies and prioritizes the transportation improvement projects and programs that are needed by the Region, based on technical analysis and input from the cities, county, and the public. The ACTC carries out the RTP's projects and programs through individual Work Elements that are identified in its annual Overall Work Program (OWP).
Transportation Programming
The ACTC is also required to program and allocate the funding that it receives in order to benefit the Region as a whole. The ACTC also uses the RTP to establish policies and priorities for the use of these funds in order to help the cities and county complete regionally-significant transportation improvement projects.
Transportation Development Act Administration
The ACTC is also designated as the Local Transportation Commission responsible for administration of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) in the Region. This responsibility requires the ACT to administer an annual Unmet Transit Needs Hearing process, as well as to allocate and provide fiduciary oversight for the quarter-cent local sales tax Local Transportation Funds (LTF) it receives from the state.
In addition to these "core" statutory responsibilities, the ACT also provides the following "expanded" services on behalf of the Region in order to help ensure the timely completion of its projects and to maximize its use of all available funding opportunities. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 8 Project Development and Delivery
The ACTC is actively involved with helping its partners develop and deliver the Region's priority transportation improvement projects. The ACTC has accomplished this both by assisting the cities and county's Public Works Departments to resolve "critical path" problems needed to accelerate the delivery of regionally-significant improvements and by directly completing capital improvement projects itself, when needed.
Traffic Impact Analysis and Mitigation
The ACTC also provides technical assistance, when requested, to the cities, county, and Caltrans in order to identify potential impacts to the Regional Transportation System that might result from proposed development projects, as well as from the cumulative growth resulting from local land use plans. This function helps to identify adequate mitigations needed to alleviate those impacts. This assistance helps to create the implementation strategies needed to carry out required mitigation measures, which often requires coordination between numerous parties.
As shown in Figure 1, the ACTs organizational structure includes several standing advisory committees, as well as various ad hoc advisory committees that are convened for specific purposes or projects, as needed. The ACT includes the following five positions: Executive Director, Administrator, Administrative Analyst, Administrative Assistant and a Geographic Information System (GIS) Coordinator. The ACTC is also supported by specialized consulting firms that provide various professional services, when needed.
2. RTP UPDATE - PURPOSE AND NEED
State law requires that the RTP be updated and submitted to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) every five years. Though updates are required every 5 years, in 2018, the ACT elected to adopt a 4- year schedule to better coordinate with the 8-year Housing Element cycle required of local jurisdictions.
The purpose of the RTP is to identify the Region's short-term and long-range transportation needs and to establish policies, programs, and projects designed to meet those needs. Regional transportation improvement projects that are included in the RTP and are prioritized for funding through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) are then submitted to the CTC for programming every two years as part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Projects that are proposed for funding through other sources, such as state or federal competitive grant programs are submitted according to the requirements of individual programs. In either case, improvement projects proposed for funding must typically be identified through either a local or regional transportation planning process, such as the RTP.
The RTP needs to be updated in order to demonstrate progress made towards implementing the previous plan to reflect any changing conditions, and to determine if changes are warranted to the ACT's policies, 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 9 programs, and projects for the next 20 years. Lastly, the RTP needs to be updated to maintain compliance with the CC's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for RTPAs. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 10 Board of
Committee (3 Supervisors (3
Appointees Appointees)
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Caltrans District 10|
Amador County Transportation Director Ex-officio
(non-voting)
Commission
Social Services
RTMF Committee Commit advisory Transportation Adhoc Committees Advisory Couneil
Figure 1. Organizational Chart
ACT Executive Director-
John Gedney-DBELO
385 20 257-228 neatek, CA
Amador.org
Fiscal Officer Transportation Administrative GIS Administrative Planner Analyst Coordinator Assistant
Vacant, aFTE a frie Bridges,. Vacont, 1 FTE Vacant, 1 PTE 11 The 2024 RTP Update is consistent with all relevant state and federal transportation planning requirements. Consistency with these requirements is summarized in Caltrans' Regional Transportation Plan Checklist, which is included in Appendix A. Because transportation planning has become fairly technical and the use of acronyms is common, a Glossary of Terms and Acronyms is contained in Appendix B.
3. IENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
As shown in Figure 2, Amador County is located approximately 35 miles southeast of Sacramento on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Amador County is part of California's historic Mother Lode region, which was first settled by non-Native Americans during the early 1850's Gold Rush era. Many of the Region's roadways, especially those in historic cities such as Sutter Creek, Amador City, and Jackson were laid out by these early miners and settlers. At approximately 593 square miles in size, Amador County is one of the smallest counties in the State of California.
The county's elevation ranges from a low of 250 feet in the county's western foothills to a high of more than 9,000 feet in mountainous peaks of the Sierra Nevada on the county's eastern boundary.
Geographically, the county can be divided into two physiographic divisions referred to locally as the "Foothills" and "Upcountry" areas. The lower elevation foothill areas in the western portion of the county are typified by rolling hills with extensive rangelands and oak woodlands. The Foothills contain most of the county's population, which is generally concentrated within or around the county's five incorporated cities: lone, Amador City, Plymouth, Sutter Creek, and Jackson (the County Seat). The Foothills also contain several other small, rural communities such as Camanche, Buena Vista, Fiddletown, and River Pines.
Another important foothill community, Martell, is an unincorporated area between the cities of Sutter Creek and Jackson that is generally being developed as a commercial and industrial "Regional Service Center" by Amador County. The higher elevation Upcountry area in the eastern portion of the county is largely typified by a forested landscape that is bisected with steep canyons and sweeping ridge tops. The Upcountry area contains several small, unincorporated communities, such as Pine Grove, Volcano, Pioneer, Buckhorn, and Kirkwood, as well as large tracks of rural-residential housing that are dispersed throughout the area. Upcountry areas outside of rural-residential ownership are predominately comprised of public and private forest lands that are typically managed for timber production or for watershed and recreational values. Most non-residential lands Upcountry are owned by industrial timber companies such as Sierra Pacific Industries or are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. The Upcountry area also contains numerous resorts and high-use recreational destinations such as Bear River Reservoir, Silver Lake, and Kirkwood Ski Resort.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 12 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Amador County
Figure 2. Environmental Setting
Amador City
Coral -
Creek
Amador County
LEGEND
turna Vista - Stace Highnays
Courty: Cay Local Rose:
Crecis
fate Bodies
• Urneciperates Communacies
Incorporated Cry Limes
County Bouncas
13 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
ACTC generally considers the "Regional Transportation System" to be comprised of State Highway System (arterials) and regionally-significant city/county roadways (major and minor collectors), as well as other modes of transportation. The state highways serving the Region include State Routes 16, 26, 49, 88, 104, and 124. These arterial and collector routes are separated into different functional classifications, or "classes", based on the kind of travel they are intended to serve, as well as various design characteristics such as passing availability, lane width, and shoulder conditions. Arterial routes have been historically expected to provide sufficient capacity to allow for relatively high overall travel speeds with minimum interference to through movement. However, many arterials throughout the Region also serve as local "main streets" for several incorporated cities and historic communities such as lone and Pine Grove. The term "historic" is used herein to signify those communities established before the 20th century generally and during the Region's "Gold Rush" era specifically. The Region's collector routes provide access to incorporated communities and major rural residential areas throughout the Region. These routes typically carry lower traffic volumes and require lower travel speeds due to sharp curves, narrow shoulders, and limited sight distance.
Within this Regional Transportation System, there are approximately 121 miles of arterial state routes and approximately 474 miles of city/county local streets and roads that interconnect with the State Highway System. Of these city/county roadways, approximately 411 miles are county roads and 62 miles are city streets, of which approximately 189 miles are considered collectors. Figure 3 depicts the Regional Transportation System utilizing the Caltrans California Road System Functional Classification map. • 5. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
The rate of population growth in Amador County has not been consistent. In the 2020 RTP (2015 readopted RTP), the population showed a 3.5% decline in overall population between 2010 and 2013 due to the recession of 2008. Since then growth has been sporadic in the region. The majority of growth has occurred in the cities of lone, Plymouth, and Jackson. Currently development in those locations has slowed. The comparisons in Table 1. show the population counts from the 2020 census and the 2023 Department of Finance (DOF) population, which does show a 1.6% decline in population. As discussed in the Future Conditions section (Chapter V), the Region's population is also forecast to near approximately 40,000 but shows decline into the later stage of the 20-year horizon.
Table 2. shows the demographic characteristics of Amador County's population and compares them with the characteristics of the entire state, as reported in the 2020 U.S. Census. This data shows that the Region comprises approximately 0.1% of the State's total population, contains over twice the percentage of residents age of 65 or older, and just over half the percentage of minors than the state at-large. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 14 Figure 3. Regional Transportation System; Functional Classification Other Fisy or Expiry Omer Prncipal Arenal idlinor Artera! - Major Collector Mmo: Collector interstate Local
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 15 Table 1: Amador County Population Totals
Location 20202 20233 Percent Change
Amador City 200 193 - 3.5%
lone 8,767 8,772 1%
Jackson 4,958 4,938 - 4%
Plymouth 1,012 1,062 4.7%
Sutter Creek 2,646 2,590 - 2.1%
Unincorporated Area 22,891 22,282 - 2.7%
Amador County (Total) 40,474 39,837 - 1.6%
Notes: This figure includes approximately 3,863 individuals in Mule Creek State Prison.
Source: "U.S. Census Bureau (2020) Census 2020 Demographic Profile Summary. 3 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percen hange - January 1, 2022 and 2023 Sacramento, California, May 202:
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Table 2: Comparison of Amador County and State of California Demographic Data Demographics Amador County California
Total population 1 39,837 39,538,223
Persons per household 2.30 2.90
Persons under 18 years of age 16.7% 21.3%
Persons 65 years of age and older 31.3% 16.6%
White 76.8% 41.2%
Hispanic 14.9% 39.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.4% 15.4%
Black 3.1% 7.1%
Native American 1.9% 3.6%
Median household income $65,187 $78,672
Notes: This figure includes approximately 3,863 individuals in Mule Creek State Prison.
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2022 and 2023 Sacramento, California, May 2023. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 18 RODESS
1. THE 2024 RTP UPDATE
For this RTP Update, ACT began reviewing the previous plan in August 2022. In March and April 2023, the ACTC held public workshops to review the previous plan and evaluate the direction of this next update.
Through these workshops ACTC determined that the goals and policies need to shift away from the multimodal aspects, which was high priority of the previous RTP based on over projections of population growth, to the investment of preserving and rehabilitating the local streets and roadways. While not the only goal, repairing and maintaining the transportation infrastructure of Amador County is the primary goal and objective for the next 20 years. This shift has come about due to relatively flat population in the region which results in no major traffic volume growth needing mitigation. Rather, attention is on the current infrastructure to enhance the safety and reliability of the roadway system. It is apparent that while there are many other regional goals, those additional goals will not be met without ensuring the roadways are brought back to a state of good repair. These local streets and roads serve as lifelines for the residents of Amador County and visitors alike. Understanding the funding shortfall to the region, ACT has taken the necessary step to ensure these roads continue to provide access to homes, employment, goods movement, visitors, and to provide safe corridors for emergency responders.
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The public involvement undertaken as a part of the RTP Update, as discussed below, was guided by the ACT's adopted Public Involvement Procedures for Transportation Planning (see Appendix C), obtainable through the monthly ACT board meetings, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) meetings.
Through the planning process, ACT allowed for public involvement through both in-person and a call-in option due to changes in public participation requirements following the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Additionally, ACTC provided press releases to the Region's media outlets and through social media (ACTC Facebook page) in order to advertise public input opportunities. Numerous progress reports outlining the relevant issues being considered were also made publicly available through the ACT's regularly scheduled commission meetings and made available on the ACT website.
3. 3 INTERAGENCY AND TRIBAL CONSULTATION
As required by the CT's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, the ACT undertook efforts at interagency consultation as a part of the transportation planning process During the completion of the 2015 RTP Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SPEIR), ACT's consultant performed a required comparison between the RTP's potential environmental impacts with the state's Wildlife Action Plan and inventory of natural/historic resources. As the projects included for 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
completion in this 2024 RTP are considered Categorically Exempt or are projects under the previous plan, all analysis from the 2015 SPEIR are still accurate to reference.
ACTC staff included both elected and staff representatives appointed by Caltrans, the county, and all five cities through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC). At various points throughout the planning process, the ACT also consulted with the Amador County Air Quality Control District, the county airport, Amador Transit, city/county Public Works Departments, various Caltrans functional units, all three federally-recognized tribal governments within the Region, and companies within the private sector such as transport of mining materials and waste management as they yield a substantial amount of truck traffic on the county's roads. Meaningful efforts were undertaken to ensure consistency with cities' and county's General Plans as well.
4. COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS
The ACT is also required to coordinate its RTP Update planning process with other relevant planning documents and to ensure consistency in both analysis and outcomes to the greatest extent feasible. As shown in Appendix E, References Consulted, ACT incorporated inputs from other plans in developing the RTP Update, including, but not limited to those listed below. • The General Plans and transportation improvement programs of Amador County and all five cities.
• The Regional Transportation Plans of surrounding counties. • Caltrans' various planning and programming documents such as the following: California Transportation Plan, Goods Movement Action Plan, Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan, 10-Year State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP), Smart Mobility Framework, - Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, and District 10 Transportation System Management Plan, as well as various Transportation Concept Reports and Department policy directives on issues such as "Complete Streets" and "Context Sensitive Solutions". • The Amador County Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, 2020 Response Strategies, 2021
• Central Sierra Zero-Emission Vehicle Readiness Plan, 2019 • Systemic Safety Analysis Report, 2018
• The Amador Countywide 2017 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan. • Tribal transportation plans, where available.
SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) must be prepared for a plan which is "reasonably expected to result in potentially significant environmental effects, if implemented".
The projects proposed for completion on the Tier I regional project listing for the next 20-year horizon are determined to be Categorically Exempt (2017 RTP Guidelines). The Tier II regional project listing does include carry-over projects from the previous RTP update. Although not proposed for funding over the 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 20 next 20 years, those projects could potentially be amended into the Tier I listing. Those Tier I projects were previously analyzed under the 2015 RTP SPEIR and if amended, those projects may require project- level environmental analysis to be performed by the project sponsor. As such, ACTC has determined an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepared and circulated with the Draft RTP. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 21 This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 22 EXISTINe CONDITICTS
REGIONAL ROADWAYS
Funding constraints and increased costs of construction have continued to limit the Region's ability to fund the majority of necessary improvements which have created significant deterioration to the majority of roadways throughout the county. This has resulted in safety concerns going unaddressed and level of pavement condition deficiencies throughout the existing Regional Transportation System.
Traffic Volumes
In order to determine existing traffic volumes on regional roadways, ACT acquired traffic counts at certain locations throughout the Region in 2019 using StreetLight Data, a new technology utilizing mobile devices in the measurement of travel time and select link studies. Accessing the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts through the StreetLight Data program, the highest ADT volumes on the Amador County road network were located on State Routes 49 and 88, ranging from approximately 15,000-20,000 vehicle per day. While the local street and roadway network's highest ADT volumes were on the Ridge Road corridor with 12,407 recorded for the Ridge Road/Old Ridge Road segment. Additional locations with relatively high volumes include: Latrobe Road (6,464), Shakeley Lane without SR 104 (5,700), the Buena Vista Corridor (4,700), Argonaut Lane (4,800), and Shenandoah Road corridor (3,800). Relatively low traffic volumes exist in the areas of Amador City, Fiddletown, and Volcano.
Level of Service
The ACTC created two Level of Service (LOS) standards for the Region with adoption of the 2015 RTP (readopted in 2020); LOS D was established as the acceptable threshold for "developed communities" and LOS C was established as acceptable for "rural areas". The LOS for roadways is typically analyzed under "average-daily" conditions, whereas LOS for intersections has been historically analyzed under "peak- hour" conditions. These are the standards currently maintained for safety purposes by Caltrans as well.
California's Senate Bill (SB) 743, passed in 2013, enacted a shift in how the transportation impacts of development projects must be evaluated and mitigated. SB 743 eliminated the requirement to count traffic delay (measured using LOS standards) as an environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 required that a new metric be adopted when evaluating those impacts, to better align with state climate policy and sustainability goals. The new metric in state-level guidance is vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The overall level of auto use, as measured using VMT, is more closely related to carbon emissions and air pollution than local traffic levels are. While congestion remains a concern within Amador County, the 2024 RTP's goals have shifted the planning emphasis to local roadway reconstruction and rehabilitation improvements. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 23
2. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
In 2012, CSAC coordinated with local public works agencies across California in order to complete the Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which cataloged and updated any information available on existing pavement conditions throughout the state. Where recent information was not available, this study extrapolated current surface conditions by comparing historical data with the typical rate of deterioration for comparable roadways. According to this study, the average county-wide APCR for the Region at that time was 33, which ranks as the worst-rated surface conditions in the state. The study also noted that approximately $383 million in funding would be needed within ten years to rehabilitate Amador County's local pavement conditions to acceptable levels. In addition to these pavement costs, the study also identified another $2 million required for ancillary components and $7 million required for preventative maintenance on local bridges, bringing the total cost of deferred maintenance in the Region up to $392 million.
However, the cities and county did each receive various amounts of unanticipated, one-time funding at different points over time. As noted below, this funding resulted in limited improvements at certain locations with "very poor" to "failing" surface conditions. • In 2006, ACTC successfully lobbied for local jurisdictions to receive funding through the State's Proposition 1B program for local road maintenance and improvements. As a result, Amador County received $1,152,210 in funding and all five cities received $400,000 each, as the minimum threshold established for small jurisdictions with limited road miles. This funding was used to perform surface maintenance at each jurisdiction's discretion, such as pavement overlays and seal-coats at their highest priority locations.
In 2008, ACT also acquired funding for Sutter Creek, Amador City, and Amador County through Relinquishment Agreements related to completion of the SR 49 Bypass in order to maintain the relinquished roadway and bridges in a state of good repair". Through this agreement, Amador City received $2,050,460, Sutter Creek received $3,049,600, and Amador County received $960,000 in funding from the STIP and SHOPP programs. In addition to these relinquishment funds, both Amador City and Sutter Creek also received $2,588,175 and $3,092,000 respectively in Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds for rehabilitation of the bridges on Old Highway 49 Then in 2015, ACT completed an analysis of existing pavement conditions throughout the region, on behalf of four cities while the County and City of lone performed their own analysis. Staff used the Pavement Management System (PMS) which is a management tool that local agencies use to monitor the pavement conditions within their jurisdictions to prioritize the expenditure of resources on their maintenance programs. This system rates the overall surface conditions on a scale of 1 to 100, with higher scores reflecting better surface conditions. At that time the study found that the collective Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for all county roads and city streets was less than 65 out of 100, which was deemed "less than satisfactory".
Since then ACTC utilized updated pavement management data from 2019 in the StreetSaver program to review the most recent PCI data available. The data reveals the average PCI level for the local street and roads on the Tier 1 listing is 44, which is the primary reason the ACT board has focused great attention towards the rehabilitation of the County's roadways to restore the infrastructure to a state of good repair. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 24 Most recently, the ACTC used the goals and objectives of the 2024 RTP by applying the new criteria and performance measures to determine the top four (4) local road rehabilitation projects to be approved for funding in the 2024 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
Beyond the Region's routine, preventative, and/or deferred maintenance needs, the 2024 RTP also includes a list of 129 local roadway improvement projects proposed by the cities and county (see Appendix H). These projects would cost a total cost of approximately $176 million to implement within 20 years.
This list of local road improvements (eg. curve corrections, intersection upgrades, and safety improvements planned for various collector routes) is based upon accident information, citizen complaints, or other observations made by local public works staff over the years. These local projects are separate from the regionally-significant improvements that have been planned by the cities and the county, which are included in the RTP's Regional Roadway Capital Improvement Program.
3. TRANSIT
While there are several social service transportation providers in the Region that serve specific clienteles, Amador Transit (AT) is the only transit service that is available to the general public. AT provides a fixed - route shuttle service between Sutter Creek and Jackson. As well as services to lone, Plymouth, and Upcountry. Dial-A-Ride (DAR), a curb-to-curb service for passengers qualified under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines is provided in Jackson, Sutter Creek, Pine Grove and more recently expanded to lone and Plymouth. DAR also allows for a ¾-mile deviation off the fixed route service upon request in order to serve ADA-qualified riders (service area map-Figure 5). Additionally, AT also runs a commuter route between Amador County and downtown Sacramento, which provides interregional access for housing, jobs, critical services, and access to other destinations. The commuter route runs twice daily Monday through Friday and travels along SR 16, making stops in Rancho Murieta, and continuing on to Sacramento to expand access to key destinations such as: Sacramento International Airport, Downtown Sacramento, Sacramento State University, and the Amtrak station. AT's existing transit routes are shown in Figure 4. AT operates the Sutter Hill Transit Center's Transfer Station and Park and Ride. Amador Transit also provides a Mobility Management program to assist patrons with trip planning and service utilization.
Additionally, in the event a natural disaster occurs in Amador County, Amador Transit can be made available for transportation of evacuees.
The ACTC maintains a Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (STAC), as required by the State's Transportation Development Act (TDA). The SSTAC advises ACT in efforts to enhance coordination between AT and the various "special-needs" transportation providers operating in the Region. SSTAC also assists ACT through the Annual Unmet Transit Needs Process, in accordance with TDA regulations, to assess the unmet transit needs in Amador County. Through this process, various expansions of the DAR service have been implemented over the years. Additional service providers that operate in the county are shown below.
• Amador County Unified School District provides school bus service for students. • Amador County Shuttle Service provides airport shuttle service. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 25 Frontier Cab is the region's closest taxicab company
• Blue Mountain Transit is a private van service based in San Andreas that provides charter service to the ARC program in Sutter Hill, the Community Compass Program in Jackson, and other locations.
• STARS provides services to cancer patients and transportation for cancer treatment inside and outside of the county.
• Amador Rides is a volunteer driver program to assist individuals with healthcare related transportation.
• The ARC of Amador provides transportation service for some of their programs. Some developmentally-disabled clients receive transportation through the program with Amador Transit's DAR and fixed-route services.
• New Beginnings provides services to people visiting the Mule Creek State Prison in lone. • Calaveras Connect transit (the Calaveras County public transit service) provides Direct Dial-A-Ride services to the Sutter Hill Transit Center in Sutter Creek and Jackson area Monday-Friday and to Jackson and the Pine Grove corridor on Wednesdays.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 26 Amador Station
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Plymouth
City Park
Mace Meadows
Sugar Pinos
+— Sacramento Shell Station
Demartini Rd
Drytown
Pioneer
Post Office
Amador City
Ridge Rd Pine Grove
Garden Red Figure 4: 2024 Existing Transit Routes
Center Comral
Sutter Creek s Jackson Fish Town s
Sutter Hill Rancheria
Transit Center
lone Rollingwood Dr
Hoalth & Kennedy Routes
Human Services Martell Meadows Apts
Dalton 1 - Sacramento
Sutter Ln 2 . Up Country
Josie's Place Apts Walmart
Porkovich Park 4 Sutter Amador 3. Plymouth
W. Marlette St Hospital
7- lone
& DepotRd Scottsville Dr SA - Sutter Creek - Jackson Shuttle Jackson 5B- Suller Creek -Jackson Shuttle
Connection Point to lone Route
Connection Point to Upcauntry Route
City Limits
The Oaks
Buena Vista
Amador Transit 2023 Dial-a-Ride Service Area
Fiddletown.
Plymouth
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Drytown
Amador City Grove
Figure 5: 2023 Amador Transit Dial-A-Ride Service Area
Sutter
Creek
* Transit Center
Martell • Transit Stop
Road
- Major Road
Jackson
State Highway
Fee for each Zone
Zone 1 52
Zone 2 $3
Zone 3 S4
Zone 4 S5
..:Amador County
28 Buena
Vista
4. AVIATION
Westover Field, located in the Martell area, is the only public airport serving Amador County. Westover Field is owned and operated by Amador County and is managed by an Airport Manager, under supervision of the county's General Services Administration. There is also an Airport Advisory Committee appointed by the county Board of Supervisors to oversee and assist with airport matters.
The airport is classified as a "Class B-1" facility by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It can handle most small general aviation aircraft (under 12,500 pounds gross weight and 49-foot wingspan). It is situated at an elevation of 1,694 feet above sea level and includes a runway of 3,400 feet in length and 60 feet in width. The airport accommodates both visual flight-rule and instrument flight-rule approach procedures. According to the 2019 Airport Layout Plan Update and Narrative Report, the Terminal Area Forecast data shows zero percent annual growth rate. Total operations and based aircraft at the airport are projected to remain stable at 25,000 and 120, respectively. However based on airport management records, a total of 87 private aircraft were based at the airport in 2023. This included 83 single engine aircraft, 3-twin-engine aircraft, and 1 helicopter. In addition, Westover Field serves as a staging and supply point for emergency response and related support purposes. There is no commuter or airline reliever service to this airport at this time.
5. PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE
A small percentage of the Region's population walks as their means of transportation for short distance trips (e.g. work, shopping, etc.), as well as their means of exercise. Formal pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and crosswalks are largely limited to developed communities, Central Business Districts (CBD), and some newly-developed commercial and residential areas. However, in most areas of the county, paved sidewalks do not exist and the widths of most roadway shoulders are typically insufficient to be considered formally adequate for pedestrian purposes. Therefore, pedestrians in rural areas typically share the road with automobiles.
Similarly, a small percentage of the Region's population uses bicycles in lieu of automobiles for short to medium-distance trips. Few designated bicycle facilities currently exist in Amador County.
In 2017 ACTC completed the Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan in order to identify and prioritize various pedestrian and bicycle improvements throughout the Region. This document also serves as the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA) Transition Plan for Public Rights of Way for the cities and county. This plan focuses on implementing cost-effective improvements at priority locations within developed communities, particularly in high-conflict areas or where inter-connectivity can be established through sidewalk gap closures. ACT anticipates providing updates to this Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan in FY 2024/25.
ACTC, as required by law, sets aside 2% of its available Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues with the intention to implement the Region's priority pedestrian and bicycle improvements to enhance mobility and increase access without the increase of hazardous air pollutants.
In 2022, ACT worked with the City of Jackson on a grant application through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) that would have constructed undercrossing at three (3) bridges and create pathways for 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 29 pedestrians that otherwise have to use a crosswalk on the main corridor (SR 49) through Jackson with a consistent heavy flow of traffic. Though unsuccessful at obtaining that ATP grant funding, the city is expected to receive a High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) pedestrian beacon at the crosswalk on SR 49/88 adjacent to Mel's Diner and the Busi Municipal Parking Lot.
6. GOODS MOVEMENT - RAIL / TRUCKING
Until 2005, the Amador Foothills Railroad operated an on-call freight service between lone and Martell in order to serve the former Georgia Pacific lumber mill. In 1996, the mill and railroad were sold to Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), which subsequently initiated the process of "abandonment" (i.e. the permanent end of service and relinquishment of right of way) so it could remove the section of track between SR 88 and SR 49 in Martell in order to redevelop its property in that area. By October of 2009, the entire track north and east of the Martell grade crossing of SR 88 was removed, thereby ending rail service to Martell.
In October of 2010 the historic segment of tracks between lone and Martell was officially transferred from Sierra Pacific Industries to both the Amador County Historical Society and Recreational Railroad Historical Society jointly for the sum of one dollar. However, recreational use of the remaining tracks by private parities is not considered as either "public transportation" or "goods movement" within the scope of the RTP. Therefore, the only existing rail service available to Amador County is limited to a commercial freight line between the City of Galt and the industrial mineral resource operations such as those of Specialty Granules Inc. near the City of lone. This "short-line" freight service between lone and Galt is approximately 27 miles long and is currently used by the Union Pacific Railroad for freight three days per week. While limited in scope, the existence of this private, short-line rail connection does divert the heavy trucking associated with the mining industry, thereby reducing the impacts of wear and tear on the State Highway System.
Limited freight service by rail means that heavy trucks handle almost all of the goods movement entering, exiting, and transiting through Amador County. According to Caltrans' vehicle classification counts, truck traffic consists of five to nine percent of average-daily traffic on the Regional Transportation System (see Appendix I). In order to determine the percent of heavy trucks traffic within the total volume of a given roadway, Caltrans maintains a program of continuous truck-count sampling throughout the entire State Highway System. The resulting counts are adjusted to an estimate of annual average daily truck traffic by compensating for seasonal influence, weekly variation, and other variables that may be present.
In 1982, the federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) established certain operating standards related to the length of heavy trucks based on their "king-pin to rear axle" (KPRA) distance, which represents the length between the hitch-point, or king-pin, of the trailer to the center-point of its rear axle. The STAA also established a "National Network" of major goods movement routes where these longer trucks can operate safely. Based on these standards, Caltrans created "Terminal Access" and "Service Access" designations for California's State Highway System. Terminal Access routes are roadways that do not have sharp curves or other constraints that would conflict with the maximum KPRA distances of STAA-length trucks, thereby allowing them to operate freely. Service Access routes allow STAA-length trucks to operate one-mile off the National Network in order to reach their delivery points. Two additional designations known as the "California Legal Network" and "California Legal Advisory Routes" have also 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 30 been established for routes that do not meet STAA standards. These standards limit the maximum KPRA of trucks that can legally operate on them based on their turning radiuses and the curvatures found on these roadways.
Since 2004, Caltrans revised or otherwise clarified the designations below for the State Highway System in Amador County
The portion of SR 49 from its intersection with Main Street in Plymouth all the way to the City of Jackson was upgraded from a California Legal Route to a full STAA Terminal Access route. • It was clarified that all but one turning movement at the SR 104/49 intersection in Sutter Hill, the southbound right turn from SR-104 onto SR-49, meets STAA standards. • It was clarified that all turning movements at the SR 49/88 intersection in Jackson meets STAA standards.
In addition to these standing designations, Caltrans may also issue special permits, upon request, for "oversized loads" to travel specific routes, provided that the cargo in question meets certain qualifying conditions. In granting these special permit requests, Caltrans' Office of Truck Services will compare the dimensions of a particular load with the specifications (e.g. height, length, weight, etc.) of various routes available to choose from in order to find the specific route or combination of routes that will allow it to safely reach its destination. For example, Caltrans has historically issued oversize-load permits for the use of SR 88 in Amador County when individual cargo loads exceed the posted height restrictions that exist on US 50 due to the numerous overpasses that exist on that route.
Figure 6 demonstrates which of these designations apply to Amador County's Regional Transportation system. This map shows that, while standard California Legal length trucks (28 feet, 6 inches per trailer, 38 to 40 feet maximum KPAR, and 65 to 75 feet maximum overall length) are allowed to travel throughout the Region's arterial State Highway System, STAA trucks (48 to 53 feet maximum trailer length and 38 to 40 feet maximum KPRA) are not. For example, STAA length trucks traveling eastbound from Sacramento on SR 49 are not allowed to travel north of the City of Plymouth. Similarly, STAA length trucks traveling eastbound from Stockton are not allowed on SR 88 east of the City of Jackson. Also, while southbound STAA length trucks are able to travel on SR 49 between Plymouth and Jackson, they are not allowed to continue further south of Jackson and must detour onto SR 88 and then onto SR 12 in order to reach Calaveras County.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 31 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Figure 6: 2024 Existing Truck Route Designations
funer Crech
LEGEND
ISTAA, Terminal Access
Califorma lEgal Advisory Roul
California Legal Network
— Stale Highways
Counıy/Cityrtoeni Rosds
Incorporated City Lets
C County Roundary
32 Lastly, STAA length trucks cannot legally access the City of lone. Further, it should be noted that some California Legal Advisory routes cannot safely accommodate California Legal length trucks due to sharp turns and narrow roadway widths. Although California Legal trucks are allowed to travel on these segments unless otherwise posted, drivers are still legally responsible for any damages incurred if they cross over the centerline or drive onto shoulders, curbs, or sidewalks. This caution is particularly pronounced in the City of lone where it is reported that heavy trucks regularly cross over their travel lane when making the sharp turn at the corner of several intersections on Main St.
7. AIR QUALITY
Responsibility for air quality planning in California is shared between a variety of agencies at the federal, state, regional and local levels. Some of these agencies have actual regulatory authority, while others are responsible for developing and implementing plans, policies, programs, and/or projects that are aimed at reducing air pollution. Further, there are both federal and state air quality laws that must be adhered to; the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 and the California Clean Air Act of 1988. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency responsible for setting both National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that states must attain and federal vehicle-emission and fuel-economy standards that industry must comply with. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead state agency responsible for establishing state standards (which are generally more stringent than federal standards) and for ensuring the state's compliance with both federal and state requirements. The Amador Air Pollution Control District (AAPCD), or "Air District", is the lead regional agency responsible for conducting air quality planning in Amador County, as well as for adopting strategies needed to improve air quality and ensure the Region's compliance with federal and state standards.
Both the federal and state Ciean Air Acts recognize that compliance with established standards should primarily be planned for at the state and regional levels. This is because addressing air pollution problems often requires a special understanding of regional and local industries, geography, housing patterns, and transportation issues. Accordingly, CARB has divided the state into various "air basins" and has adopted standards for each area. The Amador Air District is a part of the Central Mountain Counties Air Basin. The CARB is required to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the EPA that demonstrates how any "Non- Attainment Areas" within the state will reach "Attainment" status by identifying various actions such as the implementation of "transportation control measures" needed to improve air quality in those areas (i.e. transportation improvement projects that will benefit air quality). In preparing the SIP, CARB incorporates approved regional air quality plans, which are primarily the responsibility of air districts in non-attainment regions. The SIP then becomes the state's legal guide for implementation and enforcement of air quality improvements, where needed.
Previously in FY 11/12-14/15 Amador County was defined as a "Non-Attainment" area for air quality and was able to receive approximately $1.3 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding.
Then in 16/17 and 17/18 Amador County's classification was changed to "Maintenance" level and received no funding. More recently, due to new 2015 Federal NAAQS 8-hour ozone standards Amador County was re-classified as a "Marginal Rural Non-Attainment Area", as shown in the 2024 Regional Transportation 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 33 Plan Guidelines- Areas subject to conformity requirements (Figure 7), and again received $1.4 million in CMAQ funds. the Amador County Air District is not required to develop a Regional Air Quality Plan and the ACTC is not required to perform air quality "Conformity Analysis" for its transportation projects. However, there are other laws requiring consideration of potential air quality improvements and impacts in the regional planning process.
• Under requirements outlined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public agencies (e.g. cities, counties, RTPAs, etc.) are required to perform air quality impact analysis prior to adoption of local or regional plans such as General Plans and Regional Transportation Plans that may have potential environmental impacts.
• In 2006, the State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The bill establishes a cap on statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sets forth the regulatory framework to achieve a corresponding reduction in statewide emissions levels. Given emissions from the transportation sector is the second largest contributor of GHG emissions, the passage of AB 32 was an important piece of legislation that affects transportation planning.
In 2008, the State Legislature also adopted Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, which set goals and established planning requirements for the state to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. SB 375 instructs the CARB to set regional reduction targets for emissions from passenger vehicles. In order to achieve these targets, SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs) to develop "Sustainable Communities Strategies" (SCS) that integrate transportation, land use and housing policies that can achieve the reduction targets set for their region. CARB is required to review and determine if a SCS would achieve the emission reduction targets established for its region, if implemented.
However, rural RTPAs are exempt from these requirements, so the responsibility for determining the strategies needed to achieve AB 32/SB 375 goals is left to Air Districts and the CARB, which complete regional air quality plans and the SIP.
• The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (Senate Bill 350) established clean energy, clean air, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, including reducing GHG to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The California Energy Commission is working with other state agencies to implement the bill. • The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) adopted the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) on July 12, 2021. The plan details how the state recommends investing billions of discretionary transportation dollars annually to aggressively combat and adapt to climate change while supporting public health, safety and equity. CAPTI builds on executive orders signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019 and 2020 targeted at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in transportation, which account for more than 40 percent of all emissions, to reach the state's ambitious climate goals. • AB 1279- The California Climate Crisis Act of 2021 which established the policy of the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; maintain net negative GHG 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 34 emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced by 85 percent below the 1990 levels.
In response to these various requirements, the ACT has implemented several strategies to improve air quality, while being tailored to the specific issues and interests of the Region. In prior years as a (CMAQ) funding recipient, funds were allocated to the Plymouth roundabout and ACT Teleconferencing Facility, in anticipation of an increasing use of electric vehicles into the future, the ACT installed two electric vehicle charging stations with construction of the Sutter Hill Transit Center's Park and Ride lot. This strategy simultaneously facilitates enhanced use of transit and/or carpooling, while providing an opportunity to improve air quality.
With the most recent round of CMAQ funding (FY 18/19-21/22), A total of $696,950 was exchanged with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, which allowed MTC to advance the delivery of CMAQ projects in their region, while reducing the risk to Amador County of losing their apportionment due to AB 1012 'use it or lose it' provisions. Allowing $442,000 of those STP funds and $696,555 of remaining CMAQ funds was allocated to the construction funding plan of the SR 88/ Pine Grove Corridor Improvement project. Lastly, $108,892 of RSTP funds were allocated to the City of Jackson for a level 3 charging station upgrade, one (1) hybrid electric vehicle, and one (1) electric vehicle purchase for the City Public Works Department.
In an effort to combat climate change through the reduction of GHG emissions the state plans to transition to a 'widespread' use of zero-emission Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs).
In 2019 ACTC participated in the Central Sierra Zero-emission Vehicle Readiness Plan prepared by Tuolumne County Transportation Council, which provided analysis towards electrification of vehicles, response to driver's needs, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions related to vehicle travel.
In FY 22/23, Amador Transit updated their fleet to include two (2) Toyota Hybrid vans to aid in the reduction of emissions for their transportation services. Currently ACT continues to work with local agencies and Amador Transit regarding more efficient bus route planning, potential fleet conversions, and the infrastructure to support them.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 35 Figure 7: Isolated Rural Attainment Areas Map
Final 2024 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for RTPAs Attamment - Unclassifed Area • Conformity Does
No: Apply
Man
Highways
AREAS SUBJECT TO CONFORMITY
REQUIREMENTS
bossed : 2/28/2022
DISCLANER
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 36
8. SAFETY
Transportation safety is a primary goal of this RTP update. In 2018 ACT completed a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) with Alpine and Calaveras County with the purpose to identify potential mitigation efforts for various safety concerns on the roadways and the analysis that could be utilized for grant funding opportunities. Data from this report highlighted the most frequent collision type was "hit object" and the most frequent factors contributing to those collisions were " wrong side of the road" and "unsafe speeds".
This data aligns with the region's topography as the roadways, aside from the state highways, are 2-lane roads that can be narrow, curvy, have limited sight distance, and minimal shoulders. Following the SSAR, staff with consultant support applied for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding on behalf of Amador County for the Running Gold Turn Pocket project and a street lighting project on SR 88 for the City of Jackson, in which the City of Jackson was awarded grant funding. An additional safety countermeasure recommended in the SSAR was countywide safety signage, however, the County declined that project.
In late 2018, ACTC amended the SR 88/104 intersection project into the Tier I regional project listing due to recent collision/fatalities at that location. Staff was prepared a perform a "locally-sponsored" Project Initiation Document (PID). However, Caltrans prepared a "State-Sponsored" PID which concluded either signalization or a round-a-bout at an estimated cost between $8-9 million to construct. Additionally, Caltrans analysis determined the project falls in the " 4B" category with minimal economic, social, or environmental significance. As such, Caltrans is not compelled to fund any future project development work.
9. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Amador County's largest emergency scenario is based primarily around evacuations due to wildfires and flooding. As such, there are various preparedness documents available, including the recently completed Amador & Calaveras Needs Assessment for Extreme Weather and Natural Disaster Prevention and Response Strategies. A highlight of this document are the community evacuation route maps that provide a description of the routes in each area with the appropriate designation for them i.e. evacuation highway, primary, alternate, not recommended, etc. The evacuation routes were developed in collaboration with Amador Fire Safe Council, Amador County Transportation Commission, CAL FIRE, Amador Fire Protection District, Jackson Fire Department, lone Fire Department and Sutter Creek Fire Department. Figure 8 shows the Amador Countywide evacuation route map with QR codes. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 37 This map provides an overview of the countywide road system and its abllity to serve Amador County the evacuation needs of Amador communities. It is not intended lo provide delalled E: 00:550
Evacuation Areas and Evacuation Routes directions for an actual evacuation, nor replace real time instructions given by emergency response personnel. Use evacuation area population numbers to understand the full Vattic impact on the roadways during an emergency, and GO EARLY AND SAFELY! In on actuel emergency and/or evacuation:
1) Follow the directions and instructions given by emergency response personnel Evacuation Areas have similar ingress and egress behavior. Population in each 1 Time vour ride to KNGE 1965 F5250 All for Intest urdates evacuation area (2010 Census) is shown.
Evacuation Routes were developed in collaboration with Amador Fire Safe Council.
Amador County Transportation Commission, CAL FIRE, Amador Fire Protection District Jackson Fire Department, lone Fire Department and Sutter Creek Fire Department. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Figure 8: Amador County Evacuation Areas and Evacuation Routes ican the OR ender brovicted
with one amst nines pantera
app to view each community.
PINE GROVE cnic man on your nhone
DIRECTIONS:
COUNTYWIDE
DOWNTOWN
Suaelation Route Status
38 Dinary - Evacuation Highway
Primary - ONE LANE ONLY Road
Alternate Evacuation Area
Clarera: Not Recommended City
Not Passable * County Boundary
-wow July, 2021
10. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
ACC worked with the Amador County Sheriff's Office in 2011 to complete installation of an Emergency Preemption System at all signalized intersections in the county in order to facilitate their safe and efficient response to critical situations in the region.
From 2019 to 2021, ACT reimbursed all five (5) local jurisdictions and the county in purchasing poll mounted radar speed signs in an effort to increase road safety. Additionally, Amador Transit utilizes various Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) forms such as: on-board security cameras to ensure safety for all passengers/drivers, an online Trip Planner tool to assist with route scheduling, and more recently an electronic farebox option (Venmo) to offer payment flexibility.
Currently, ACTC staff is collaborating with Caltrans on a potential pilot program for a Transit Signal Priority project for the Amador Transit fleet, continues to research advancements in demand-response software such as rider/driver mobile apps and on-demand scheduling. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 39
1. INTRODUCTION
Establishing future conditions for a 20-year planning horizon requires projections that are based on reliable sources of data. These projections are used to establish the foreseeable traffic demands and mobility needs that are predicted to face the Regional Transportation System in 2044. An analysis of these projections has typically been used to identify locations where future Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies are anticipated, as well as to highlight what other problems (e.g. deteriorating surface conditions, human mobility, safety concerns, etc.) that will need to be addressed in the future. Recent enactment of Senate Bill 743 in California changed the metric used to address California Environmental Quality Act requirements for traffic analysis from LOS to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).
These changing conditions and unforeseen circumstances affect projections over time. Assumptions based on past and present trends must also be made regarding the various challenges that the Region is anticipated to face over the next 20 years.
If the basis for the RTP's projections or assumptions changes significantly, then the RTP must be amended or updated accordingly.
2. ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions listed below were developed by the 2015 RTP Update Stakeholder Roundtable. They remain relevant:
• Averaged annually over 20 years, the population of Amador County will increase at a rate generally consistent with the California Department of Finance's estimates. • The county's population will continue to be disproportionate compared to employment causing continued inter-regional commuting.
• Changes in land use will occur as planned by Amador County and the Region's five incorporated cities.
• Petroleum fuels will continue to be available, but prices will escalate to between $4.00 and $8.00 per gallon.
• Because of the Region's rural geography and a shortage of viable alternatives, the automobile will continue to be the primary mode of transportation. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
• Recreation and tourism travelers from outside the area will continue to create significant traffic demands on the Regional Transportation System.
• Available transportation funding will continue to be largely inadequate to meet the Region's local road maintenance and improvement needs.
• Due to a lack of available funding, deferred maintenance will likely result in continued deterioration of local pavement conditions.
• Transit demand will continue to be cyclical and will fluctuate as influenced by a variety of factors. • Transit demands will likely increase as the Region's existing population ages. • Use of private aircraft will increase slightly, but no commercial service is anticipated.
Passenger rail service within and to/from the Region will remain infeasible and freight rail service will be limited to the lone area.
• Heavy trucks will continue to serve the majority of the Region's goods-movement and interregional freight shipping needs.
• There will continue to be curvature and turn-radius constraints throughout the Regional Transportation System that will limit the expansion of STAA Terminal Access. • There will be an increasing demand for alternative mobility services and modes of transportation such as vanpool/rideshare/volunteer driver programs, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, etc.
Due to the rising cost of petroleum fuels, there will be an increase in demand for alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fueling capabilities.
There will be an increasing need for intermodal connectivity and transfer opportunities between modes.
• Continuing funding constraints will require increased use of low-cost alternative strategies. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 41 • Air quality, transported pollutants, and corresponding emission control requirements will remain a potential concern.
These assumptions generally validate the projections and analysis discussed below. They are also generally consistent with the assumptions used in the other plans, studies, and sources that were reviewed in preparation of the 2015 RTP Update.
3. POPULATION
The Region experienced a decrease in its total population due to the economic recession that began in 2008. Since then growth has occurred but has been sporadic in the region occurring primarily in the cities of lone, Plymouth, and Jackson. Figures released by the California Department of Finance (DOF) in January of 2023 show that Amador County's population had decreased by an estimated total of 637 residents, approximately 1.6% of its total population, between 2020 and 2023. This resulted in a corresponding decrease in traffic volumes during this period. The Region's population is still expected to remain relatively flat with decline projected into the later stage of the 20-year horizon. According to DOF projections, Amador County's total population is expected to increase by 1,635 residents, 4.1%, by 2034, but decline overall (2024-2044) by 29 residents, or 0.1%.This reduced expectation for the Region's future growth reflects the board's decision to focus primarily on the preservation of local streets and roads, as there is no major growth expected in the County that would compel roadway mitigation efforts be prioritized for this RTP update. Unless, a project sponsor comes forward with a recommendation to amend a project on either the Tier Il or State Highway SHOPP candidate listings into the Tier I listing.
DOF projections do show that Amador County will likely continue to be affected somewhat by growth in adjacent counties and the state at-large. For example, according to the DOF, California's population is expected to increase by approximately 3.1% over the next 20 years. Similarly, the populations of San Joaquin and Sacramento counties are expected to increase by approximately 15.6% and 10.9% respectively. While Calaveras and El Dorado counties population is expected to decline by approximately
4.8% and 6.2% respectively over the next 20 years.
These projections show that demographic trends may continue to affect future transportation demands. • Approximately 31% of the Region's future population will consist of retirees (defined by age 65 and above). Within this age group, almost half will consist of seniors that are age 75 and above, who are more likely to need door-to-door transportation services. • Similarly, it is anticipated that the number of "transit dependent" individuals (including persons with disabilities, low-income persons, and members of households with no available vehicles, in addition to the elderly) will increase from approximately 10% to 12% of the Region's total population by 2044.
Based on these demographic trends, it is reasonable to assume that an RTP focused solely on serving the traditional single-occupant automobile may not adequately serve all of the Region's transportation needs. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 42 This suggests that demand for alternative strategies and specialized transit services could continue to grow over the next 20 years. Table 3 summarizes the estimated population of each jurisdiction based on these projections.
Table 3: Amador County Population Projections
County Population 2023 Population? 2034 Population 3 2044 Population 3 Amador City 193 199 193
lone 8,772 9,124 8,766
Jackson 4,938 5,143 4,934
Plymouth 1,062 1,127 1,061
Sutter Creek 2,590 2,696 2,588
Unincorporated 22,282 23,183 22,266
Total 39,837 41,472 39,808
Note:
* This figure includes approximately 3,863 individuals incarcerated in Mule Creek State Prison.
Sources:
January 202 in 203- Saner, citra, a 2on Estimates or ire, Counties, and the stare with Annual Percent Chonge - "State of California, Department of Finance, Report P-2A (County): State and County Total Population Projections, 2020-2060 Sacramento, California, July 2023.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 43
4. LAND USE
In order to determine how population distributes throughout the Region in the future, the ACTC consults regularly with all five cities and the county to gather information related to adopted and/or pending General Plans. Land use designations from these city/county General Plans help guide the development of future population forecasts.
Population projections performed for the 2015 RTP Update overestimated actual growth in the Amador region. As of January 1, 2023, Amador County's population total was 39,837 and represents a .7% decline from the year prior. While population is projected to rise to 41,472 in 2034, DOF projections show that by 2044, the County is expected to decline to a population of 39,808 which would be BELOW 2023 levels.
While prior future population forecasts overestimated residential growth for the RTP planning horizon, the anticipated pattern of residential and commercial growth anticipated for the 2024 RTP Update generally follows the trend estimates provided by UPlan modeling for the 2015 RTP Update as described below.
• The Martell area, which is identified in Amador County's 2011 Preliminary Draft General Plan as a "Regional Service Center", is expected to contain the largest proportion of future commercial, office, and industrial development. This suggests that new growth in the Martell area may create and/or contribute to significant traffic impacts as these particularly intense land-uses are developed, unless they are adequately mitigated
• Plymouth, lone, and the Upcountry area are expected to contain the largest amounts of future residential development. UPlan showed that this growth will largely be developed in relative proximity to the arterial State Highway System. This suggests that increasing traffic demands will be placed on regional facilities such as SR 49 and SR 88, which connect these outlying areas to key employment and service centers located in Martell and Jackson. This also suggests that communities located along main-street highway corridors such as Jackson, lone, and Pine Grove will continue to be impacted by the increasing traffic demands generated in these outlying areas. • The Region's wine industry will continue to grow, with the highest concentration of new wineries located in the Shenandoah Valley area.
In addition, the ACT also consults with federally-recognized tribal governments in the Region, as requested.
5. REGIONAL ROADWAYS
Amador County's regional roadways are deteriorating more rapidly than our local jurisdictions can handle.
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) results describe a roadway system in decline. ACTC Commissioners approved revised Goals and Policies for the 2024 RTP Update that focus on Local roadway rehabilitation projects as its clear and highest priority. While traffic congestion and Level of Service are also included as goals and policies, the ACTC recognizes the combination of static population growth and regulatory mandates and places these as secondary objectives.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 44 Observations on current traffic patterns and foreseeable trends from extensive public outreach remain pertinent:
• Approximately 32 percent of all traffic in the Region will be attributable to traffic with either an origin or a destination outside Amador County.
• Approximately 8 percent of all traffic in the Region will be attributable to traffic passing entirely through Amador County.
• Conversely, only 60 percent of the Region's traffic will be attributable to traffic with both an origin and a destination entirely within Amador County.
• There is general consistency between the growth patterns and travel patterns, as well as increasing traffic volumes and LOS deficiencies that were identified in the 2004 RTP and those identified in the 2015 RTP.
• The greatest increases in traffic volumes and decreases in LOS are projected to occur on the arterial State Highway System and on key major collectors such as Ridge Rd. and Shake Ridge Rd. that are generally consistent with the deficiencies experienced under existing conditions.
Specifically, 10 currently deficient roadway segments will deteriorate further and 6 additional roadway segments and 1 additional intersection will become deficient by 2035. These affects are particularly concentrated along various highway corridors that act as "bottlenecks" in the system, such as in Pine Grove, Martell, and Jackson. In addition to increasing traffic volumes, this congestion is a result of the environmental, right of way, community-acceptance, and funding constraints that have limited the construction of large by-pass and capacity-expansion projects since adoption of the 2004 RTP.
The location of projected LOS deficiencies generally corresponds with the Region's future growth patterns, as discussed above. This suggests that new development will create and/or contribute to significant traffic impacts throughout the Region, unless they are adequately mitigated. Given that the Martell area is projected to receive most of the Region's commercial and industrial development, this also suggests that an increased supply of work-force housing within walking distance and/or transit service of this Regional Service Center could significantly reduce regional traffic congestion and the need for related roadway investments. Such an approach is supported by Policy CM-3.5 contained in Amador County's 2011 Preliminary Draft General Plan, which reads, "Promote land use patterns which place residents near activity centers and essential services to reduce the need for frequent automobile travel."
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 45
6. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
City and county staff expect to continue receiving insufficient funding for local road maintenance needs over the RTP's 20-year planning horizon. Therefore, they expect that local pavement conditions will continue to deteriorate. This assumption is supported by the Region's most recently performed study on future pavement conditions the 2015 Pavement Management Program Update. This report found that the cities and County are facing a severe deficit in the form of deferred maintenance costs for local roadway improvements.
Further support are trends identified in the 2012 Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, performed by the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). While more accurate data is still warranted for Amador County, the study's financial projections show a clear and consistent trend of insufficient funding.
While the ACTC and its local partners have been successful in acquiring supplemental outside funding, there is no reasonable expectation that these kinds of efforts will be enough to address the Region's total road maintenance needs over the next 20 years. Based on these factors, the RTP assumes that roadway pavement conditions throughout the Region will continue to deteriorate significantly over the RTP's 20- year horizon. The driver's perception of these conditions would likely be rougher rides on county collectors like Shenandoah Rd., Latrobe Rd., Shake Ridge Rd., Clinton Rd., etc. Local neighborhood streets will also seem increasingly abandoned or held together only by years of patchwork, crack sealing, etc.
In addition to the financial constraints that affect on-going pavement maintenance discussed above, there is no reasonable expectation that adequate funding will be made available to construct the 129 local roadway improvements proposed by the cities and county at a total cost of $176 million, shown in Appendix H. While the cities and county are encouraged to actively pursue potential funding opportunities that might be available through partnership with the ACT, funding constraints suggest that many planned improvements simply cannot be completed unless new sources of revenues are created.
7. PUBLIC TRANSIT
As discussed under the population projections provided above, future population characteristics will likely result in unique mobility needs and growing demands for public transit such as "door-to-door" Dial-a-Ride service over the next 20 years. For example, available demographic data indicates that approximately 31% of the Region's future population will consist of "retirees" (defined by age 65 and above), with almost half of this age group consisting of "seniors" that are over the age of 75. Similarly, the number of "transit dependent" individuals (including persons with disabilities, low-income persons, and members of households with no available vehicles, in addition to the elderly) is anticipated to make up approximately 12% of the Region's total population by 2044. These demographic trends suggest that a Regional Transportation Plan solely focused on serving the traditional single-occupant automobile would not adequately serve all of the Region's transportation needs.
In previous years, the Long-Range Transit Development Plan, studies transit demand and was determined to represent the total number of the Region's residents that are likely to have a need for transit services based on their personal circumstances (e.g. elderly, youth, low-income, disabled, etc.), whereas transit 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 46 ridership reflects the potential number of one-way passenger trips that could actually be served by the transit system. The LTDP analyzed the three following service alternatives to meet this potential ridership given the amount of funding that is forecast to be available; 1) "Maintain Existing Service Quality", 2) "Reduce Transit Service", 3) "Increase Transit Service".
Based on the data shown in the LTDP, the Region's long-range transit demand was anticipated to grow by a total of 35.6 percent by 2030. Of this total demand, the greatest growth in actual ridership was expected to be in the commuter segment between Amador and San Joaquin/Sacramento counties (with a 116 percent increase), followed by the elderly and disabled segment (with a 97 percent increase), and the general public (with a 87 percent increase). An analysis of this data showed that transit ridership was expected to be concentrated within areas that will likely see the most development in the future. For example, the City of Jackson was expected to generate up to 2,687 additional transit trips within its own city limits. Plymouth and lone were also expected to generate 1,354 and 1,049 additional transit trips within their respective jurisdictions. This data implied the need for more frequent shuttle services that provide regular, convenient mobility within these communities, as well as interregional transit service from those commuting into or out of the county for employment. This also suggested an increasing need for continued transit service to connect the Region's outlying communities to the employment and service centers in Martell and Jackson.
In recent years, ACT and AT worked together to complete a Coordinated Social Services Transportation Plan to identify the Region's 20-year transit demands and ridership potential, as well as service alternatives proposed to meet those needs. Through that plan recommendations for future goals and strategies included: improving the fixed route network, Partnerships to Serve Hard-to-Serve Trips and Long-Distance Trips, Integrated Transportation Information Network, and addressing infrastructure needs.
However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic those goals and strategies may no longer be entirely relevant.
In late 2023, ACTC applied for funding through SB 125 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program & Zero- Emission Transportation Capital Program to (1) perform a feasibility study of the current transit system including software, potential of 'on-demand' DAR services, and bus fleet transition to zero emissions, in conjunction with a study of the most beneficial zero-emission vehicles for the Amador region, (2) potentially the purchase of a zero-emission bus for the Amador/Sacramento commuter route, and (3) zero- emission infrastructure to support fleet transition. Staff is currently waiting to hear if ACT was awarded funding for this application.
8. AVIATION
According to the Westover Field Amador County Airport Layout Plan Update that was completed in November 2019, The FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) forecast for operations and based aircraft for the Westover Field Amador County Airport reports a zero percent annual growth rate through the planning period, with total operations and based aircraft at the Airport projected to remain stable at 25,000 and 120, respectively. However, the update does provide the Preferred Forecast of Aviation Demand, a plan should growth occur, which shows a 17% increase in Based Aircraft (from 120 to 141) from 2018-2038.
Through the Airport Capital Improvement Plan, the Westover Field Airport anticipates two (2) major 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 47 projects planned for completion over the next five to ten (5-10) years, one (1) a runway reconstruction and the second is a perimeter fencing project.
9. PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE
Although difficult to quantify, it is assumed that the Region will see more people choosing to walk short distances for work, shopping, exercise, and other purposes in the future. This is largely due to rising gas prices, increasing congestion, and the anticipated concentration of future development in existing communities, as discussed above. This increase is also anticipated due to increasing attention being placed on physical fitness. This increase is anticipated to be located within residential areas and commercial service centers, where the availability of pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and crosswalks are conducive to walking. This is particularly true in relatively compact communities and urban environments such as in lone, Sutter Creek, and Jackson where proximity and inter-connectivity between neighborhoods, employment centers, recreational opportunities, and commercial services makes walking a viable transportation option for local residents. Although some increase in localized recreational walking is anticipated in medium density rural-residential areas, a significant increase in pedestrian activity is not anticipated in dispersed rural-residential areas due to the typical distance between homes and employment or services and where there is a lack of sidewalks and shoulders needed to adequately ensure pedestrian safety.
Similarly, the number of people using bicycles in lieu of autos for local trips is anticipated to increase in the future as well. This increase is also expected to be found mostly within developed communities as opposed to more isolated areas, where rural roadways are typically not equipped with paved shoulders of adequate width. However, interregional cycling between rural communities for recreational purposes is anticipated to increase based on observations in recent years. Due to this projected increase, it is anticipated that corresponding safety concerns and potential conflicts with automobiles may also increase into the future.
Continued funding constraints are largely expected to persist into the future. It is anticipated that this challenge will continue to significantly limit the Region's ability to improve Existing Conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, ACT staff is working with the local Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on project ideas for improvements to current routes utilized specifically from Sutter Creek to Amador City. It is most likely that the Region's transportation system will remain largely inadequate to safely accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle travel. For example, the sub-standard pedestrian facilities that are often found in historic downtown areas, as well as narrow shoulders that are typically found along rural road ways will likely remain a hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists unless a concerted effort is made to prioritize and implement related improvements.
10. GOODS MOVEMENT - RAIL / TRUCKING
Limited freight service by rail is forecast to continue between the San Joaquin Valley and the mineral resource industries located near lone. However, due to abandonment and removal of the tracks connecting Martell to the remaining line, rail freight service is not anticipated to extend past lone. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
The Amador County Rail Transit Study (Transportation Marketing Services Inc., 1993) reviewed two Light Rail Transit (LRT) alternatives along the corridor between Martell, lone, and Galt. This study concluded that low ridership projections for the proposed route, as well as related capital and operational costs would make this concept infeasible. Therefore, passenger rail service between Amador County and the San Joaquin or Sacramento valleys (collectively known as "the Central Valley") is not anticipated within the foreseeable future.
Limited freight service by rail means that heavy truck traffic is expected to remain the predominate mode of goods movement in the Region. Based on existing vehicle classification counts, the Regional Traffic Model projects that truck traffic will comprise approximately 5 to 9 percent of total future traffic volumes, depending on the location. Due to state and federal trucking requirements and the interregional nature of goods movement, this truck traffic is expected to be largely concentrated on the arterial State Highway System.
Based on STAA standards related to the truck turning radiuses and roadway curvatures as discussed in chapter III (Existing Conditions), it is anticipated that roadway constraints will remain a challenge for the expansion of STAA Terminal Access in the Region. Therefore, it is assumed that future economic and industrial development requiring STAA Terminal Access will be limited to the existing Arterial corridors where it is currently available. Further, freight shippers may be required to incur the additional expense of transferring goods bound for Amador County from STAA length trucks to California Legal length trucks at distribution centers in The Central Valley prior to being transported to local businesses that are not located on the Region's STAA Terminal Access corridor.
11. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
Significant environmental, right of way (ROW), community-acceptance, and financial constraints that the Region faces are anticipated to persist into the future.
12. AIR QUALITY
Amador County was reclassified in 2016 as a "Maintenance Area" for ozone. Projected increases in population growth and corresponding traffic volumes throughout The Central Valley mean that the Region will likely face rising levels of transported air pollutants in the future. Further, it is anticipated that the Region will face increasingly strict federal and state standards, as well as tightening guidance related to the use of performance measures that address air quality improvements in the transportation planning process into the future. Upon state or federal standard changes the RTP will be updated accordingly. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 49 This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 50 k APaRT. 30 PALESO
1. INTRODUCTION
The California Transportation Commission's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines requires an analysis of system-wide alternatives in order to determine which best meets a Region's future transportation challenges. For the 2024 RTP Update, these challenges were identified by considering the Region's Existing and Future Conditions.
Through a series of workshops, ACTC Commissioners reviewed current RTP Goals and Policies and established revised Goals and Policies described below.
Goals
• #1) preserving/maintaining existing local streets and roads, • #2) encouraging efficiency and common-sense planning, and • #3) improving safety/reducing congestion.
Performance Measures
These Goals were then used to identify and evaluate different system-wide alternatives for the RTP. This was accomplished by developing various "Performance Measures" (e.g. Pavement Condition Index, Average Daily Traffic, safety (evacuation routes), Project Delivery Efficiencies, etc.) as objective means through which each alternative could be both quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated. Once adopted by the ACTC at its workshops in Spring of 2023, these Performance Measures helped comprise the Evaluation Criteria that were then used to select a "Preferred Alternative" that could best meet the Region's future transportation challenges and achieve its Desired Outcomes. Based on this analysis, ACTC commissioners selected its Preferred Alternative "Emphasize Local Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance." This strategy also serves as the framework for more specific Goals, Policies, and Objectives needed for every aspect of transportation addressed by the RTP. The Evaluation Criteria were also applied to establish recommended priorities for the regional roadway projects identified in the Financial Element (Chapter VIII). The Action Element (Chapter VII) contains these Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures.
2. ALTERNATIVES
After establishing the evaluation process discussed above, the ACTC Commissioners reviewed alternatives considered during development of the 2015 RTP. The alternatives below were considered in the 2024 RTP Update.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 51 (1) "No Project." As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this alternative would essentially "do-nothing" to address the Region's current or future transportation challenges.
(2) "Expand Existing Highways:" This alternative would focus exclusively on expanding the capacity of the State Highway System in order to maintain the ACT's and Caltrans' currently adopted LOS standards.
(3) "Emphasize Local Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance" This alternative would prioritize all eligible and available funding for local road rehabilitation and maintenance purposes. (4) "Implement Multi-Modal Circulation Improvement Program:" This alternative incorporates all relevant modes of transportation through a diverse mix of strategically prioritized regional roadway improvements and alternative strategies designed to meet the region's various transportation needs to the greatest extent possible, given environmental, right of way, community-acceptance, and funding constraints. This alternative would result in implementation of the regional roadway improvements identified in Tier Il of the Financial Element, as well as improvements to other modes of transportation as identified in parallel planning documents such as the Transit Development Plan, Long Range Transit Development Plan, Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan Westover Field Airport Master Plan, etc.
Tier I represents only those projects for which full funding is considered "reasonably available" based on the four (4) revenue projections contained in the Financial Element. • Tier Il represents projects for which no funding is committed, but could be made available within 20 years, if additional sources of revenue are received/created.
Tier Ill represents those projects that are located on the State Highway System and are the responsibility of Caltrans. However, a "fair-share" contribution could be set aside but cannot be reasonably expected within 20 years based on projections of inadequate funding".
3. ANALYSIS
Preferred Alternative
Once these alternatives were developed, the Evaluation Criteria discussed above was applied to determine which would best meet the Region's future transportation challenges and achieve the RTP's Desired Outcomes. The discussion below summarizes the results of this analysis (see Appendix J). 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
(1) "No Project"; Because this alternative would essentially "do nothing" to address the Region's current or future transportation challenges, it would not adequately address the RTP's Desired Outcomes. This alternative was also found to be inconsistent with the ACT's core statutory responsibility to help improve the Regional Transportation System. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended for adoption.
(2) "Expand Existing Highways:" Because this alternative focuses exclusively on increasing roadway capacity in order to maintain adopted Level of Service standards, it would not sufficiently address the RTP's other Desired Outcomes such as optimizing community connectivity and enhancing safety. Further, the environmental, right-of-way, and design costs along with community impacts that would likely result from this alternative would not be compatible with the Goals of Efficiency & Common-Sense Planning. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended for adoption. (3) "Emphasize Local Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance;" Because this alternative would prioritize improving the Region's pavement conditions, it directly addresses the adopted #1 Goal :
Preserving/Maintaining Existing Streets and Roads. Therefore, this alternative is recommended for adoption.
(4) "Implement Multi-Modal Circulation Improvement Program;" This alternative would not meet the Region's future transportation Goals of system preservation, efficiency, and common-sense planning, given the funding constraints shown in the Financial Element. This alternative is not feasible to implement. This is because a significant number of desired improvements across all modes of transportation will remain un-fundable within the RTP's 20-year horizon until additional sources of funding are created. As the RTP's Preferred Alternative must be realistic and attainable, this alternative is not recommended for adoption.
The approved alternative includes Tier i regional roadway projects for which full funding is considered "reasonably available" over the next 20 years. Although based on defensible projections using the best available information, these funds are not assured and should not be misconstrued as guaranteed funding.
It will take a concerted effort by the ACTC, cities, county, and Caltrans to implement RTP Policies and Objectives in order to for them to be acquired and effectively coordinated to construct Tier I projects in a timely manner. If the steps needed to acquire available funding and ensure timely project completion are not taken, then the future traffic benefits that the RTP reports will not be realized.
Specifically, it will be assumed that these projects will be fully-funded, constructed, and operational by 2044.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 53 This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 54
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Policy Element is to identify a more specific framework needed to carry out the RTP based on this general approach. This framework is called the "Regional Improvement Strategy". The Regional Improvement Strategy provides a roadmap for implementing the RTP through even more specific Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Measures. Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Measures listed in the Policy Element, offer specific guidance from the Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) to its staff, partners, and the public at-large on the Commission's priorities and commitments.
As outlined below, the Policy Element is followed by the Action and Financial Elements, which are inter- related and consistent with each other.
• The Policy Element contains the ACT's Goals, Objectives, and brief overview of the Implementation Measures which directs the ACT's daily actions on various issues such as adequately mitigating the traffic impacts resulting from new development, maximizing available transportation funding opportunities, and delivering the Region's projects in a timely manner. • The Action Element contains detailed short-term and long-term Implementation Measures, which identify the specific steps needed to accomplish the RTP's Objectives over time. • The Financial Element contains the RTP's Regional Roadway Capital Improvement Program, which prioritizes the roadway improvements that the ACT is dedicated to helping complete as funding is made available through a variety of sources. The Financial Element also identified the costs, revenues, and funding shortfalls associated with other modes of transportation, as referenced in various parallel planning documents.
2. POLICY CHANGES SINCE THE 2020 RTP
For the reasons discussed below, the 2024 RTP Update recommends changes to the policies that were adopted in 2015 and readopted in the 2020 RTP.
The ACTC has reviewed and given direction to staff on a range of policy changes through several meetings and special workshops that were held during the planning process for the 2024 RTP Update. The Commission has clarified the desire to focus primarily on the preservation of local streets and roadways.
For this reason, the 2024 RTP Update includes changes to the ACT's existing policies by focusing the goals to prioritize cost-effective projects in an effort to deliver results more efficiently. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
3. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
• Goals are general, timeless statements that reflect the Region's values and its vision of the Desired Outcomes that the RTP should achieve.
• Objectives are statements that serve as "standing direction" for the Commission in its regular decision making and for the ACT's staff in carrying out the RTP on a daily basis. RTP Policies also provide guidance and recommendations for the ACT's partners on ways to achieve mutually beneficial improvements in an efficient and effective manner. • Implementation measures represent those measurable benchmarks and specific products that the ACTC expects itself to accomplish and complete within either short-term or long-term timeframes.
Goal #1. Preserve/maintain existing local streets and road: Amador County's transportation infrastructure is severely deteriorated and in need of either full reconstruction or rehabilitation work to restore the condition to an adequate Pavement Condition Index (PCI) level. With a primary focus on the restoration of local streets and roads, Amador County aims to ensure the access to employment, homes, safety, growth, and goods movement continues to thrive.
Objectives:
1) Secure sustainable long-term funding for local projects 2) Prioritize RTMF funding for local (shovel-ready) roadway reconstruction projects Implementation Measures:
1) Update pavement management database and budgeting system(consider sales tax measure) 2) Direct RTMF funding to local road projects
Goal #2. Encourage efficiency and Common-sense Planning: Create more efficiency and communication in the planning process with continuous and collaborative working relationships.
Objectives:
1) Improve the project delivery process
2) Improve training opportunities for public works staff Implementation Measures:
1) Employ 'best practices' training program:
Pavement Management Distress Evaluation
Multi-jurisdictional roadway maintenance contracting
2) Collaborate with State and industry experts to provide training Goal #3. Improve Safety/Reduce Congestion: The rural foothill setting of Amador County is home to densely populated areas of dry vegetation in the higher elevations, which due to drought conditions in recent years, has led to wildfires as one of the largest naturals disaster safety concerns in the community.
In addition to wildfires, severe winter storms are another notable extreme weather event of concern to 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Amador County. While the level of traffic congestion remains relatively stable, mitigation remains a priority in the developed regions of the County.
Objectives:
1) Improve emergency access (Evacuation routes)
2) Encourage alternative modes of transportation (Transit, bicycle/pedestrian) Implementation Measures:
1) Update GIS mapping
2) Update the ACTC Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan
3) Update the AT Short-Range Transit Plan
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 57 This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 58
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Action Element is to describe the objectives of the goals and how to implement those over the RTP's 20-year horizon (long-term) and four-year (short-term) update cycle horizon. Due to financial constraints in the region and the level of deterioration of the roadways throughout Amador County, the action from the ACT board is to "fix our roads first".
As the goals for this update have changed; the kinds of projects to be completed in a 20-year horizon have also changed. The projects at the top of the list include 'shovel ready' projects on regional local roads, the focus no longer on the State highway system. The regional projects on the list have been prioritized into three categories, or "Tiers", as shown below (Regional Project Listing), based on anticipated reasonable funding available. Tier I projects are those that do not expect any Environmental, ROW, or Design costs (shovel ready projects), the Tier II project list includes additional "shovel-ready" projects and projects that do expect to have some level of Environment, ROW, and/or Design costs that were carry-over projects from the previous RTP. All local projects not eligible for regional funding are included in the Local Project list (Appendix-H). All projects on the State Highway System are included in Tier III- State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Candidate project list. However, if a project sponsor comes forward recommending an amendment of Tier Il or Tier Ill project onto the Tier I project listing with a valid plan to complete such a project, the board has the discretion to amend the project listing at any time as this RTP serves as a "living document".
2. REGIONAL PROJECT LISTING
Staff prepared revenue projections for the next 20 years. While numerous federal, state, and local revenue sources can help fund transportation improvements, four (4) of these sources have been specifically directed by ACT to be available for funding. These sources include: RTMF, RSTP, LTF, and RIP. Together, the four (4) RTP funding sources total approximately $39 million in revenue that can be reasonably expected to be available to the Amador region for programming toward eligible regional projects over the next 20 years. The total cost for all eligible projects is $282 million. Since eligible project cost exceeds potential 20-year revenue, prioritization criteria was used to rank the projects to be programmed for funding.
• Tier 1 (fully funded) represents projects for which full funding is considered reasonably available based on the four (4) revenue projections discussed in the Financial Element. • Tier II (unfunded) represents projects for which no funding is committed, but funding could be made available within 20-years, if additional sources of revenue are received/created. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 59 Tier I!! (SHOPP Candidate list) represents projects that are located on the State Highway System and are the responsibility of Caltrans. However, a 'fair-share' contribution could be set aside but cannot be reasonably expected within 20-years.
3. PROJECT CRITERIA & PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The following table (Table 4) shows how the new criteria, performance measures, and ranking have been created to compile the Tier I regional projects, as shown in the Financial Element.
Criteria Performance Measure Ranking
Ensure Efficient Funding Plan and Provide for a program that is affordable with forecasted revenue and Implementation can be constructed with minimal impacts to existing operations on the system.
1 Project Phasing Ability to deliver projects over time: 1= 1=Low Excessive non-construction project 3=Medium
phase programming 3= Moderate non- 5= High
construction project phase
programming 5= No non-construction
project phase programming
Invest in the rehabilitation and maintenance of the Region's locally Preserve the Existing System owned roadways
Existing Pavement Condition Index: 1- 1-10
1 Pavement Condition Index 3= Good condition, 4-6=Average (Ranging from 12-81 PCI condition, 7-10= Poor condition value)
Functional Classification Rating: 1= 1=Low
2 Functional Classification Minor Collector/Local, 3= Major 3=Medium Collector, 5= Minor Arterial 5= High
Enhance Safety Provide safe facilities that meet all current design standards for existing and new facilities.
Evacuation Route Designation. 1= Non- 1=Low
1 Improved Evacuation Routes evacuation route, 3= Alternate Route, 5 3=Medium = Primary Evacuation Route 5= High
Reduce Congestion and Improve Provide mobility for people and goods throughout the region in a safe, Mobility affordable, and convenient manner.
1-10
Average Daily Traffic. 1-3= Low, 4-6=
1 Average Daily Traffic
Average, 7-10=High (Ranging from 527-12,407
ADT Counts)
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 60
4. ANNUAL WORK
In order to carry out the RTP's Policies and accomplish its Objectives, they are included in the ACC'S annual Overall Work Program (OWP) and are typically completed through individual Work Elements. • The Overall Work Program (OWP) is ACT's central administrative document, which reflects the complete set of individual Work Elements that the Commission intends to undertake within a given Fiscal Year. The OWP also forms the basis for the ACT's annual budget. • Work Elements represent the ongoing programs and specific projects that ACTC has developed in order to complete its Objectives and put its Policies into action. Work Elements require a dedicated source of funding in order to provide the staff time and/or consultant support required for their completion. Work Elements may also be used as the basis for more detailed scopes of work, budgets, and schedules that are included in consultant contracts, if specialized expertise is required, or for competitive grant applications, if outside funding is needed to augment the ACT's budget. The implementation measures discussed below provide an essential outline of the basic steps, individual actions, or particular tasks needed to carry out a Work Element. These steps can be revised or refined as needed.
Therefore, another important purpose of the Action Element is to assist the ACT in developing its annual OWP and budget based on the work required in order to achieve RTP Objectives in a given fiscal year. In order to track the ACT's progress over time, an annual progress report should be provided to the Commission to demonstrate what has been achieved each year. The information contained in these annual reports should also be used to update the RTP on an annual basis.
GOAL #1-PRESERVE/MAINTAIN EXISTING LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Objective 1: Secure sustainable long-term funding for local roadway improvement projects.
Objective 2: Prioritize the Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Program funding and other funding sources, for local (shovel-ready) roadway reconstruction projects.
Timeline: Short Term (4 years)/ Long Term (20 years)
Implementation Measures:
• Update/maintain the Pavement Management database (StreetSaver) and budgeting system. Work with the cities and county to ensure their local Pavement Management Systems are updated and in order to predict the anticipated rate of deterioration and accurately identify the existing and future pavement conditions within their jurisdictions and to continue to prioritize the use of any funds available to improve said conditions.
Update/maintain traffic count data for the cities/county as needed Direct RTMF funding to local road projects through regular RTMF Oversight Committee meetings.
. Bi-annually hold a 'Call for Projects" for Project Study Report (PSR) Equivalent projects on the regional project listing to be submitted into the RTIP funding cycle. Assist cities/county with the process as needed.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 61 Research/assist with implementation of a sales tax measure for cities/county GOAL #2-ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY AND COMMON-SENSE PLANNING
Objective 1: Improve the project delivery process
Objective 2:Improve training opportunities for public works staff Timeline: Short Term(4 years)/ Long Term (20 years)
Implementation Measures:
• Continue collaborative communication through the Caltrans Quarterly Project Delivery Discussion/Executive Steering Committee meetings and enhance communication with local jurisdictions staff/ engineer consultants.
• Employ 'best practices' training program:
• Staff level continued education for pavement rater certificate program • Pavement Management Distress Evaluation training to city/county staff • Collaborate with State and industry experts to provide training opportunities. • Continue collaboration by participating in meetings with Amador Transit, Westover Field's Airport Manager, as well as Amador County's General Services Administration and Airport Land Use Committee to identify any ground-access and/or transit connectivity improvements that might be warranted.
• Maximize funding by performing Multi-jurisdictional roadway maintenance contracting • Collaborate with other local rural community agencies in various areas of work including but not limited to: alternative fuel infrastructure and better connections for transit dependent citizens.
GOAL #3-IMPROVE SAFETY/REDUCE CONGESTION
Objective 1: Improve emergency access (Evacuation Routes) Objective 2: Encourage alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle/pedestrian) Timeline: Short Term (4 years)/ Long Term (20 years)
Implementation Measures:
• Update GIS mapping
• Update the 2017 ACTC Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan
• Update the AT Short-Range, Long-Range Transit Plans, and the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan.
• Implement Ped/Bike 'Call for Projects'.
• Continue active participation with local/Caltrans BPAC meetings for opportunities on low-cost pedestrian, way-finding, and bicycle safety.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 62 • Maintain SSTAC for continued collaboration regarding unmet transit needs within Amador County to increase ridership and enhance connectivity throughout the region, in efforts to reduce congestion and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
• Prioritize funding to roadway projects that are on primary and secondary evacuation routes. • Review/update 'Park and Ride' locations and 'Ridesharing' options available within the county. • Develop low-cost strategies to enhance pedestrian, way finding and bicycle safety such as "Share the Road" driver and bicycle awareness projects.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 63 This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 64
1. INTRODUCTION
The Financial Element is fundamental to development of the RTP because it identifies the foreseeable funding constraints and opportunities that will likely affect its implementation over a 20-year horizon. As such, the information contained in the Financial Element is used to help prioritize the investment of local, regional, state, and federal transportation funding to help the region meet its various transportation challenges. Therefore, the Financial Element also provides a summary of the costs, revenues, and shortfalls anticipated for each mode of transportation. As required by the California Transportation Commission's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, these financial figures must include the cost of both on-going operations and routine maintenance of the existing transportation system, as well as the cost of planned improvements across all modes of transportation, including the RP's prioritized list of regional roadway projects. The figures contained in the Financial Element must also include projections of funding that is "reasonably available" in order to carry out this maintenance and implement these improvements. By comparing estimated costs with projected revenues, the information contained in the Financial Element helps identify the total funding deficits facing the entire Regional Transportation System.
In order to help address these shortfalls, the Financial Element also includes various financial strategies that could be used to help increase the efficiency of the Region's existing funding, as well as to help acquire additional revenues to the greatest extent feasible.
Based on this summary, the Financial Element is organized into the four Sections listed below.
Revenue projections from various sources that are reasonably available to implement the RP's Tier I regional roadway improvements.
• A "financially-constrained" or "funded" and prioritized list of regional roadway improvements (Tier 1
• A summary of the estimated costs, projected revenues, and the anticipated shortfalls facing the entire Regional Transportation System.
• A list of financial strategies needed to help fund these needs to the greatest extent feasible.
2. FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AND PROJECTED REVENUES
Planning guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines "fiscal-constraint" as demonstrating that sufficient financial resources are reasonably available, or foreseeably assured, to 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 65 implement an RTP's planned improvements. Projects that could be funded within reasonably available revenues are included in an RTP's fiscally-constrained list of Tier I-(Funded) improvements. Historically, revenues acquired by the Region have been significantly lower than projected. The Tier I list included in the 2024 RTP has been modified pursuant to newly-adopted Goals and Policies to and now include only "shovel ready" pavement improvement projects in an effort to address the state of the region's heavily deteriorating roadways and return them to a state of good repair. As a result of the decreased revenue projections and the increasing costs of construction, the RTP Update finds that only the Tier 1 regional roadway projects may be funded within the next 20 years unless new sources of funding are realized. The projects contained in the Tier I! list also include "shovel ready" pavement improvement projects in addition to other regional roadway improvement projects, but with no funding expectation for the 20-year period.
The Tier III list contains projects that are regionally significant, but are located on the State Highway System. These projects are included as 'candidate' projects, but as Caltrans responsibility for funding from the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). While the majority of RTP projects will be funded utilizing reoccurring funding sources it is possible that new sources of funding could be made available to complete additional projects from the Tier I! and Tier Ill listings, if supported by the public and implementing agencies.
Four (4) funding sources are specifically the responsibility of the ACT to program toward regional roadway improvements as described below.
• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Regional Improvement Program (RIP) Shares:
The STIP is the ACT's single largest source of reliable transportation funding. The STIP is a 5-year funding program that is updated in 2-year cycles based on a "Fund Estimate" developed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). These funds originate from the State Excise Tax on gasoline and are distributed to each county based on a population/state highway lane-mile formula. This Fund Estimate identifies the state's total available "programming capacity" -the amount of transportation revenue that is available state-wide to support a variety of transportation projects. After distribution to Caltrans SHOPP program, Seventy-five percent (75%) of the remaining funds from the State Highway Account are apportioned to the regions by These Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds are available to counties for programming to projects that each region nominates through their Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIP), based on priorities established in their individual RTPs. In the most recent 2-year cycle, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) estimates that approximately $600k/year will be apportioned to the Amador region. Over the 20-year RTP horizon, given that conservative projection, staff estimates that $12 million will be available for programming to projects. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds available are provided to Caltrans in the form of the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) develops the ITIP to fund projects that connect metro areas or cross regional boundaries. Based on the priorities established in the state's Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP). In order to finalize and adopt the STIP in each 2-year cycle, the CTC must balance the funding requested by each region and Caltrans within the total amount of funds available in the 5-year Fund Estimate.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 66 • Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP): These funds are made available directly to the Amador region by way of a federal block grant to the State of California. The funds are distributed based on population. The Amador region receives approximately $500k annually. Over 20-years, $10 million in RSTP funds should be available for programming toward projects. • Local Transportation Fund (LTF): LTF funds originate through the Transportation Development Act that returns ¼ cent of the state sales tax to counties, primarily to fund public transit. Following the Unmet Transit Needs process, some of these revenues are available to local jurisdictions to be spent on 'streets and roads' purposes; annually, approximately $250k has been available for this use. Over 20 years, this LTF revenue should total $5 million. • Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Program: In the last RTP cycle, $12 million was estimated to be available for programming to projects. While the actual revenues are dependent upon local jurisdiction development activity, this estimate should be relevant for this 20-year RTP Update Additional Funding Sources may include:
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
CMAQ funds are specifically directed to transportation projects and programs which contribute to the attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas and for formal nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas).
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The HSIP was created to fund improvements to public roadways and pedestrian or bicycle facilities with high accident rates or other safety concerns. This federal funding is awarded by Caltrans through a cyclical, competitive selection process.
• Highway Bridge Program (HBP)
The intent of HBP funds is to rehabilitate or replace bridges that are functionally obsolete or are unsafe because of structural deficiencies or physical deterioration. This federal funding is awarded by Caltrans through a continuous, competitive selection process. Based on past success and the rate at which the cities and county are able to complete their current bridge projects, it is assumed that the Region could acquire up to $2.4 million of additional HBP funds over the next 20-years. This sum is included within the total amount shown under the column labeled "Other Source" on Table 5.
• Active Transportation Program (ATP)
The Active Transportation Program was created by Senate Bill 99 to encourage use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. The goals of the ATP include, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non- motorized users, advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
enhancing public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users including disadvantaged communities. In 2017, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act. SB-1 directs $100 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP. • State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) / Minor Program The SHOPP and Minor programs are Caltrans' largest sources of funding for ongoing maintenance and construction of small-scale safety and operational improvements on the State Highway System. SHOPP funding is typically awarded for projects that are nominated by each of Caltrans' twelve Districts for various maintenance, safety, and operational improvements within their areas. The selection of these projects is generally guided through a state-wide competition based on the priorities established in a 10-year planning document that emphasizes factors such as deteriorating pavement conditions, rising accident rates, or increasing congestion. These projects are included in the statewide program of SHOPP projects that is adopted by Caltrans every 2 years.
Funding from the Minor program is typically divided among each District annually based on factors such as lane-miles, population, etc. The allocation of these funds within the District is discretionary, meaning that each Caltrans District Director has the authority to establish reasonable criteria to award these funds for projects that address problems within their District.
Given the principle of fiscal-constraint, the projections shown above were developed based on the best information available.
• The historic level of transportation funding that has been directly provided to the ACTC through various "formula" programs. These existing sources provide the most reliable form of funding available to the Region.
• The degree to which the ACTC and its partners have been successful in acquiring competitive grant funding in the past. While not as reliable as formula funds, state and federal competitive grants comprise a significant source of funding for the cities, County, and ACTC. Therefore, the Region's past success helps set realistic expectations for funds that are not guaranteed and take a concerted effort to acquire.
The timeframe it has historically taken the cities and county to complete their projects. This "delivery rate" affects an agency's ability to seek additional funding for new projects.
Emerging trends and recent changes affecting the availability of various transportation funds, as identified through multiple sources. This information helps with the development of realistic projections for funding sources that are influenced by numerous factors that are outside of the Region's control.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 68 It is important to note that all cost estimates and revenue projections shown in the RTP include the estimated impact of inflation to the year of expected expenditure, or the year in which the funds are needed. This is important because providing financial projections in the year of expenditure could reveal that revenue growth may be insufficient over time to address the impact of inflation on the cost of construction. If so, additional sources of revenues may be needed, or planned improvements may need to be scaled back, delayed, or removed from the Tier I list in order to bring planned costs in line with expected revenues.
The financial projections discussed below are intended to help ensure that the cost and revenue figures shown on the "bottom-line" of the Tier I list are consistent, such that the total cost of all Tier I projects matches the total amount of revenues that are projected to be available from existing sources. This allows the amount of projected revenues to act as a 'control-total' to govern how many regional roadway projects can realistically be completed within the RTP's 20-year horizon. Using this principle, the cities, county, and ACTC could amend projects to the Tier I list as long as any changes fit within total amount of funds available.
Revenue projections, including but not limited to the programs discussed below, indicate that approximately $39 million in funding is expected to be available from a combination of all reasonably foreseeable sources in order to construct the RTP's list of Tier I regional roadway projects over the next 20 years. However, if the current funding programs described are changed or eliminated, or if additional funding programs are created in the future, then the Financial Element will be amended accordingly. For this reason, the Financial Element should be considered a 'living document' that is adjusted on a regular basis in order to reflect any changes to costs, revenues, and funding commitments as new information or direction becomes available.
3. LIST OF REGIONAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
As previously discussed, the Financial Element contains a prioritized list of "financially-constrained" regional roadway improvements that are organized into the following categories based on projected funding availability: Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III. This list represents the RTP's Capital Improvement Program containing the cities and county's regionally significant roadway projects prioritized for funding through the ACTC (see Table 5. 2024 Amador County RTP Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers).
Additional local road improvements proposed by the cities and County are contained in Appendix H.
To avoid redundant duplication of information, this list does not include improvements to other modes of transportation that are identified in parallel transportation planning documents such as the Transit Development Plan, Long Range Transit Development Plan, Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan, Westover Field Airport Master Plan, and Coordinated Public Transit Human-Services Transportation Plan. Each of those planning documents has its own list of planned improvements, as well as cost estimates, revenue projections, and funding strategies that are identified to meet the Region's transit, pedestrian/ bicycle, and aviation needs. Any of these projects can be advanced by responsible 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 69 jurisdictions or agencies as an amendment request for inclusion to the Tier I and become eligible for funding from the ACTC.
The Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan includes project proposals from local jurisdictions that can be incorporated with the scope and cost of planned roadway projects where feasible and cost effective. This strategy can assist cities and Amador County demonstrate implementation of their adopted Americans with Disability Act Transition Plan and address Caltrans' ADA compliance standards, as required by the law. It also helps the ACTC, cities, and county to maximize the effectiveness of the Region's limited transportation funding by reducing administrative and project development costs that would be required if these pedestrian and bicycle projects were delivered separately.
As described in the Policy Element, all of these improvements have been prioritized using the RTP's Evaluation Criteria and changes directed by the Commission at its RTP Workshops held on March 20,2023 and April 12, 2023 (see Appendix F). Also as discussed in the Policy Element, the ACTC and its partners intend to implement these projects in Priority Order based on performance criteria need while maintaining the flexibility needed to take advantage of various funding opportunities. This financially- constrained approach provides the ACTC, cities, county, and Caltrans with strategic guidance on desired investments for the purpose of advance coordination, potential partnering, and leveraging funds to the greatest extent feasible. This framework also provides the ability to objectively revisit estimated costs, projected revenues, project priorities, and the Commission's funding commitments on an annual basis in order to reflect new information or changing conditions without deviating from the RTP's established Goals and Policies.
In order to separate these costs into short-term and long-term timeframes, several factors were considered, such as: priority and funding opportunity, as well as the amount of time it typically takes to complete different kinds of improvements. For example, since complex projects that require in-depth environmental analysis, right of way acquisition, or coordination between multiple parties normally take longer to deliver than simple projects with fewer requirements, these projects received low scores based on the approved criteria and are included in the Tier II (unfunded) project list.
Brief project descriptions were identified and submitted for each improvement by local jurisdictions.
Preliminary cost estimates for these improvements were developed with the best information available based on the project scope for each improvement. The submittals responded to the newly-adopted Goals and Policies approved for the 2024 RTP Update.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
This page left intentionally blank.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 71 Table 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers Revenue(1.000s)
2024 Cost sales Source
Duscription Estimate Tax (HBP.
Rank Location Project Location Time Frame' (1.000s) RIP LTF RSTP RTMF Measure MSIP.
Previously Programmed Projects
$8.300 RP.SIP CM
Counta SR 30/Pine Grove Corrider Improvement Project Safety Improvements (+3; ear) NIA AO. ASTP
NIA County Fiddleto an Road Bridge Bridge replacement (+3 yes:) 52,480) NIA Courty Old Amador Road Bridge Bridge replacement (-3 year) $2.126 10P NIA Counti Bell Racd Bridge Bridge replacement 1-3 year) 51.908 1:0P NIA Count Ca tendale Rosu Bridge Bridge replacement (+3 year) 53.758 NA Jacksor. French Sa: Road Bridge Bridge replacement 11 year; 54.625 TUA South Avenue Bridge Sridge replacement (+3 year) $3.093 NIA Jacksons HSIP Lighting Projuc: SR 33/49 Corridor (=3 year) SO.199 HS P Tier I- Regional Projects (Funded)
NIA Suller-Givit 50-105 x
N/A GouAly-30 н3yt0н
NIA $0.830
Wayt
NIA CousinS $0.000
NA Sounly-60 09-649
County-22 Ridge Road (from Running Gold Road to Cay Limits) Minor pavernent repairs. culverts mill and S0.742 (+ 5 year) S0.742
overlay
Sutter Creek Old SR 49thiain SL-SR 49 to Church S:. Asphat concrete overlay (+ 5 year) 53.000 $3.000 County-22 Ridge Road (from Ridge View Drive to Ridge Frontage Alino: pavement repairs. cuiverts, mill and (+ 5 year) 50.792 S0.792
Road (West)) overlay
inor pavement repairs, culverts, mill and
County-30 Argonaul Lane (+ 5 year) $0.174 S0.174
overlay
Ridge Road (from Ridge Frontage Rosd (West) 15 Minor pavement repairs, culverts, mid and Couniy-22 (• 5 year) 50.605 $0.005
Running Goki Roadl overlar
Ridge Road (from Cimax Road to Ridge View Orive) Minor parement repairs. culverts, mill and Couniy-22 (- 5 year) 50.635 S0.638
overlay
Sutter Creek Main Stree/Hanford Strest-feid to norh cily linits Asphalt concrete overlay (- 5 year) $2,500 52.500 Buera Vista Road (fom Story Cresk Road to Walers Minor pavement repairs. cuiverts. rill and County-80 (-10 year) i 50.935 SC.935
Ranchi
Anador Cry
Main Street Paving pavementiehab. signing. and striping (-10 year) 5:077 $1.077 County-22 Ridge Road (rom SR 98 to Climax Read) Reconstruction (- 10 ;взг) $2.155 $2.150 12 County-52 Fiddleton Road (from Hale Road to Brockman Ma Reconstructiort (-10 year| $2.300 $2,300
Sake Rage Rosa (fer Suckeys Drive to Bellione Mino: pavement repaits. cuiverts, mill end County-9 (-15 yearl 50.565 S0.566
nor pavement repairs, culverts, mih and
County-55 Snenardeal Road (Plymouth Cily Limits tu Pl: 0.75l (-15 year) S0.413 S0.413
Camanche Parkway Norm (°om Lakeview Drive (west) year pavement repars, covers, rest and Cuunty-258 1-15 year) S0.671 S0.G71
1o Currant Roac so: paverent repairs. Covers. mal and
16 County-20 Jackson Gate Road (-15 year) $0,523 S0.523 Ok Highesay 49 (from Sutter Creek Cry Lins to Anator Over Davernent rsuirs Calvers writ and 17 County-43 (-15 y=arl S0.479 S0.479
City Limits lE
Nd Hich way 49 (from Amado: City City Limels (W)! nor pavemew repais. cuivers. mat and County-43 (-15 year) 50.330 S0.330
Stake Riage Road for Creto Rese teasillo Guate ino: pavement repairs, culverts. will and 19 County-9 (-15 year) $0.748 S0.748
Nounten Road Fast overiay
shake Ridge Road (for Quartz Mounlain Ruad East t Mino: pavement reusirs. culverts, mill and 20 County-9 (-15 year) 50.682 $0.692
overiay
Stake age Rusd from Powerosa Annex to Buckeye Minor pavement repairs, cuiverts mal and 21 County-9 i-15 year! 50.825 SO.825
DriveL
22 County-9 Shake Ride Road (from Ferridge Road to Worderes $0,677 50,677 Hal Drivel 1-15 year!
um: pavement repairs. Guverts rein and
23 County-9 Shake Ridge Road (from Wordering Hit Drive to SR 88) (-15 year! S0.754 SO 754 Camarche Parkway Nort Pom Curan Road to Coal S1.018
2: Courty-252 (-15 year) S: 018
Bine Roudl
25 Courty-55 €15-20 yeari S0.594 50.594
26 County -9 Shake Ridge Road (fem City Limits to Pine Gulet: Roadi (15-20 year) S0.40: 50.401 Shake Ridge Road (from Fiddletown Read to Wacon tor paverent revers, Calverts, ril and Coumt-9 (15-20 year)
50.776 $0.775
verlas inor savement reusins. culverts. mill and
28 County-30 Stony Greek Road (15-20 year i S0.539 $0.638 County-258 Camarche Parkway Nortion: Coal Mate Read to ino: pavement repairs. culver's mall and 29 (15-20 year; $1.513 51.515
Suena Vista Roadi ex pavement repers, covers, nit are
30 County -55 Stanandoan Road (rom Ostram Road to Pt.: 3.0; (15-20 year) SO 776 verlas
dino: pavement repairs. cuiverts. mil am
County-30 Buuna Vista Road (from SR 53 to SR 124) (15-20 year $0.640 County-52 Fiddleto Road from PA1 3.0 to Quand Mountain Road stino: pavement repairs. covets. mil and $1.034 (15-20 year)
overlas
Fiddleten Road from Brockman tail Road to Sinor pavement repairs. cuiveris mili and 23 County-52 415•20 year) $0.709
Ponderosa Pized overiay
sects were soproved for programmng Duccan 2024 RTIP:RSTP Recieved releguistant funding for us rector " TED by RTF OC ••* TBD gy Caltrans 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 72 Table 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers Courty-9 Shake Ridge Road (fron Pire Gulch Rosd to Oneio Blinor parement repairs. Culvers, mit and (15-20 year) 30.924
oRd tenst
hake Rige Road (iro Staçe Diive to Porderus err avensem repairs, covers, mit arnd County-9 (15-20 year) $1.020
Sae Rage Ross (fixm Sormo:a Ceut lo Pordaosa for pavarent repairs culvars. mit and 36 County-9 (15-20 year) $0.924
State Rige Rosd (Fron Wagon Wineai Dive to for Pavement repais.co/vers. mt and 37 Coun:y-9 (15-20 year) $0.996
Fereriuce Road) er o Rane Road Corse: (om Cay Lirls to Pld Otror paverent rapair, Culvars. met sng Courty-i (15-20 year) $0.625
15)
ferari la venen repars. cr vers, rat sred
Counsy-55 (15-20 year) $1 177
Shumandodh Road (tom Seler Ros (1) t0 Osun Fo arad arsen repais, e vars. nol and Michigan gar Road (from Counly Line to Carbondsle
40 Coury-74 (15-20 year) $0.847
RozdL oversi
21 Suttar Creus Gophe: Flat Road- Main Street to city lim's Asphal: concreiy overlay (15-20 year) $2.500 42 Courty-52 Fiddletown Road (irom Quartz Mountain Road Norlls to Bliner pavecent repairs. cuivens. mill and P1:621 (15-20 year) $0.72G
overisy
130.029) 512071 54.939 59.51 $12.000 50.000
TIER I TOTAL: $39.629|
Tier II- Regional Projects (Unfunded)
Camarche Road fram Reservo r Entranea to Minor pavemant ropairs. cutvarts. mil and 3 onrt-90 (•20 yearı $1.199|
Rosorvation Road) evoriay
44 Coun:y•255 Camarche Parkway North (trom: PM 1.5 lb Lakeviea Minor pavemen: repairs. cutverts. mili and $0.525 Drive (wost)) overlay (•20 yeari
45 County•2 Minor paveren: ropairs. cutverts. mil and
Clmax Road (Irom Chase Road :o SR 38) evoray (*20 yoar: $1.001 46 Counm/-52 Minor pavemon: :opals. culverts. mit and
racewia kowe trem srodcen noso to Pari 3.0 everlay (•20 year; $1.650 47 Courty-i Now York Ranch Road Cordor (êcar PV: 1.510 Minor pavamont ropals. culverts. mili and $0.605 Coventr; Court) (•20 yearı
oreriay
+3 Sutto: Crack Sutter Hal Roos- Eureka Road to Old Rldge Rosd Asphel cons'ete cre lay (•20 yo3r) $0.405 49 Sutter Creek Salter lane Road. SP 49 to Hantord Stroct Aspnot conc ele c reray 1° 20 yearı $1.500 S0 Counry-55 Snomandoan Read itrom PS: 0.76 t0 Stoinor Road (W)) Minor pavement :epars. culverts. mill and $2.035 (•20 yean
overlay
51 Plymouth Snonandean Read- Irem Rouncabout to city limits Aspalt concreto overlay (*20 yearı $1.303 52 County-16 Tabeaud Road Itrom PAl4.72:0 HWY 83) Minor pavement repairs. culverts, null and (120 year $1,100
oreray
Michigan Bar Road romm Carsoncaie Road to SP 104) Minor pavement repals. cutverts. mill and 53 Coursy-74 ¡ •20 yeari $0.902
overia:
54 Courty•! New Yorx Ranch Road Conderifon Coventy Cout io Minor pavemont ropars. cutverts. mit ang (-20 year) Risge Road: $0.347
Gioricy
55 lono S. Sacramento froT. Market to Jackson MMA Cre:ay (279 x 16) 1•20 )cari S0.115 56 Sutter Groci: Sumer Hil Rosse Miain St to Eureka Road Asphall concroto cvertay (•20 yearı 50,810 57 Cany-0 Camanche Road tirom Reservation Road to Jack.so? Minor pavement -opairs, culverts. mil and Valey Rondt (•20 year)
everiay
58 Coumsy-253 Camancha Parkuay Nonh (frot: County Lino 10 PAI 1.5) Minar pave rent ropairs. culverts, mul and (•20 yearı $0.625
overlay
09 Sutte: Creek Bryson Orio-Cid Sn 49 to Suiter Hil Read Asphai: concrete ovorlay 1120 year: $1.200 80 Courtv-2 Cimnax Road efrom Ricge Food to Chase Roas) Minor pavaron: ropairs. cutvers, mill and (•20 yearı 50.660
Evoriay
Fidelatown Rand itrom Ponderosa Date Shake Ridge Minor pavo mont ropais. cutrerts. mill and 8: County-52 (•20 year: S2.398
Kocel evorlay
62 Church Sucet- Man S:. to city limes Asphal: conc-ete overlay 1 •20 yeari 50.575 63 Plymouth Man Siec from Rourdasout to oly limis Asphat concrete creday 1•20 yea i 50400 e: Plymout: Did Sacramento Road-City limas to Latrobo Road Asphalt cencrote overlay 1•20 year) 57,000 Lacnson Sotte: Si Extensicn A. Connest Sute: Strec: *0 Helfman 1• 30 year: $6.214 Suter S: Extension B Hetman frot Suter Siree: 15
erEA" Impreve so Calacior S:anderds 1•20 year; $3.346
Arapaut
67 widen shoulders drainage. shoukders. salely
Jask50 : Chine Grave Yard Rd 1•20 yoar: 50.380
anase credaz
selen Jacksor Gate Re. Widen shouldors. resurtace. etc. (•20 yearı $0.360 Jackson Loca Colacso Construct lecal cefecto: om SR 49/83 10 SR 1•20 ,ear: $18.170
149
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 73 Table 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers 70 Jackson North Main St. Jackson Gate Rd. t0 Sr 19 widen shoulder & add sidewalks (-20 year) $: 200 71 Add trafic calming. NEV/oike 13nes. sidewalks
Jackson Broadway: Clinton to SR 49 (-20 year $1.430
ond crossing
72 Jacisen Now York Ranch Rd.: Court St. to China Grave Yard add bike lanes and sidewalks (-20 year) $3.350 Sierra Pacific Drive Construcl internal connector for Marten 73 Martell (-20 year) $3.110
business park
74 County Wicklow Way Extension: B.Wicklow Way to Stony Creek Contruct Collector w/New Developmen: (-20 year) $5.020 75 County Wicklow Way Extension; C. Stony Creek from Argonaut Improve to Collector Standards (+20 year) $3.110 to Wicklon
76 County Latrobe Road-various locations Widen roadways and shoulders (- 20 year) $0.810 77 County Latobe Road @ Lorentz Curve correction, widen shoulders. overlay (-20 year) S0.670 Finor pavement repairs. cuivers mall and
78 County-63 Latrobe Road Corncor (-20 year) $3,820
overlay and pride caclace rant
79 Shenandoah Rd. @ Bell Rd./PM. 3.80 prove enourcers or nage, pavemen. renos (+20 yer) $1.550 Fiddletown Ra. @ PM 9.0 Improve shoulders/drainage. pavement rehab. (+20 year) $1.310
vive costection
81 County New York Ranch Rd Corridor mprove shoulders/drainage. pavemen: rehab S0.370 (-20 year)
curve correctiona
82 County Michigan Bar Rd. Corndor Improve shoulders/drainage. pavemer.: rehab. 50.500 (-20 year)
curve corrections
83 County Shenandoah Rd.: varicus locations Widen shoulders, improve drainage, overlay 1-20 year) $1.120 Improve shoulders. pavement rehab, curye
(-20 year) $0.450|
correction
County New York Ranch Rd. @ PM 1.81 Improve shoulders, and rehab pavement (-20 year) $0.860 Ridge Rd/Running Gold WG receiving pockets laft turn pocket, accel County (-20 year) $0.980
lana
County Jackson Valley Rd. @ Boring Rd Improve shoulders, drainage, rehab pavement (-20 year) S0.540 Camax Rd. Improve shoulders/drainage. renab pavement.
County (-20 year) S0.990
curve correctica
County Buena Vista @ Jackson Vallay Rd Improve shouldersidra nage. rehab pavement 1-20 year $0.280 counts Shake Ridge Rd. condor Widne shoulders. drainage. crack seal (-20 year: $1.010 County N.Y. Ranch Rd.: Ridge Rd. to Bingo Way Widen shoulders. safety signage (+20 year) Su.500, County Ridge Rd./Chimax Rd. Realign intersection and revise stop coniral (-20 year) S0.78C County Climax Rd. to Ponderosa Way Widen shoulders and improve drainage (-20 year) $0.120 Ponderosa Way io SR SU improve dranage, add sidewalks, sately County (-20 year) $0.510
signane
95 County Sutter lone Rd. Roadway rehabistasion (+20 year) $3.35C Camanche Rd. South of Jackson Valley Rd reconstruction (-20 )ear) $ 15.300 97 County Climax Rd.: Riage Rd. 1o SR 88 reconstructon (+20 year) 'S18.130 County Jackson Vailey Rd. Duena Vista to SR 88 reconstruction (-20 year) $3 110 County Riege Rd.: New York Ranch Rd. to Climax Ra. reconsinuction (-20 year) $8.960 100฿ County Michigan Bar Rc. Improve 3 RR crossings (+20 year) $1.550 101 County Riage Rd.: Sute: Creek city imits to New York Ranch Re reconstructon (-20 year) io2 (County Riage Rd.. Camax Rd. to SR 88 reconstruction (-20 year; $27,130 Shenandoah Rd: Nomt of Fiddletown to El Derado Co.
103 County Line reconstruction 1-20 year; $27.130
104 ene Shakelsy Lane sidewalks and bite signage (-20 yea:) $u.550 1u5 lene West Marlette Urcycle and pedestran improvements 1-20 year) 50.600 106 Sutter Creek Ridge Rd: Sutter the Ra to Old Ridge Rd den shouders and rehab pavement 1-20 year) 50:420 107 Sutter Creek Ridge Ra/ Old Ridge Rd intersection improvaments 1-20 year $0.540 108 Sutter Crsex Old Ridge Rd./Eureka Rd. intersection improvenients 1-20 yeary $U.09C 109 Sutter Creek Eureka Rd/Sutter Hit Re intersection improvemen:s (-20 year) $0.120 $242.4 50.000 $0.000 So 00050.000 50.000
TIER II TOTAL: $242.4 $0.000
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft
Table 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers Tier Ill: Regional State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Candidate Projects Revenue
2024 Cost
Estimate ACTC Other
Description
Location Project Location Time Frame' (1,000s) STIP SHOPP RTMF Sources" Plymouth SR 49 Plymouth Corridor PAED PAEO (t/- 20) yr $1.300 x Plymouth SR 49 Plymouth Corridor Ai Main St to Poplar Intersection & multi-modal improvements (+/- 20) yr $3.000 x Plymout SR 49 Plymouth Corridor B: Poplar to Empire Intersection & mull-modal improvements (+/- 20) yr $3.500 x Plymouth SR 49 Plymouth Corridor C: SR 49/Empire Intersection & multi-modal improvements (+/- 20) yr $3.500 Plymouth SR 49 Plymouth Cerrider D: SR 49/Zinfandel Rd Intersection & multi-madal improvements (+/- 20) yr $2,600 x
Plymouth SR 49 Plymoulh CorridorE: Zinfandel to Ciry Limits Add multi-modal pathway $2-600 (+/- 20) yr x
Plymouth SR 49: SR 16 to Plymout Widen shoulder, add bike lane & safety signage (t/- 20) yr
50.340
Jackson SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor PNED PAED (+/- 20) yr $1.200
Jackson SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor PS&E PS&E (+/- 20) yr $1.400 x Jackson SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor ROW ROW $1.800 x
(+/- 20) yr x
SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor A SR 49/88 from "Jackson
Jackson Local Collector™ to Main St Curb ramps & sidewalks (t/- 20) yr $2.400 x
SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor B: SR 49/88 from Main St to
Jackson Curb ramps & sidewalks, crosswalks (t/. 20) yr
SR 88 Intersection $6.700
SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor C: SR49/88 Intersection Widen bridge & add left turn pockets, improve Jackson (+/• 20) y $6.400
SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor D: SR 49 from SR 88 to ped i sidewalk tom French Barto Jackson (t/- 20) yr $3.600 x
Clinton Rd & from South Ave. Bridge lo French Bar Clinton Jackson SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor E: SR 49/5o. Broadway Realign & signalize intersection (+/- 20) yr $2.400
SR 49/88 Jackson Corridor F: SR 88 from Broadwayto curramps, sidewalks, pro crossing Jackson Court Steet signalize SR 88 / Mission and SR 88/Court (+/- 20) yr $7,200 x
Jackson SR 49/88: Argonaught to Vogan Toll Rd Widen shoulders $1.200 (+/- 20) yr
lone SR 104 / Golf Links Dr Intersection improvements (+/- 20) yr $1.500 lone WRIS A Construct collector w/ new development (+/- 20) yr $6.900 lone WRIS B Construct Collector w/ new development (+/-20) yr $6.000 lone WRIS C Upgrade to Collector standard
(t/- 20) yr $0.722
lone Upgrade to Collector standard (bridge) (+/- 20) yr $0.629 x lone /WIRIS E Upgrade to Collector standard
(+/- 20) yr $2.700
lone WRIS f Construct Bypass
(t/- 20) yr $8.100 x
lone WRIS G Construct Bypass
(+/- 20) yr $22,300
lone WRIS H Construct Bypass (+1-20) yr $11.000
x
lone [WIRIS I Construct Bypass $46.000
(t/- 20) yr x
lone SR 104 @ PM 5.82 Wa turn lane (+/- 20) yr $1.200
x
lone SR 104: EMain to Elementary School Sidewalks, bike lanes, school access & safety (t/- 20) yr $0.350 lone SR 104: Michigan Barto Foothill Biva Minor Improvements (t/• 20) yr $15.000 * ×
County SR 104 / Michigan Bar Intersection improvements
(+/- 20) yr S0.149
lone SR 104: Shakely Ln to Sutter Ln Sidewalks and bike signage (+/- 20) yr $O.250 x lone SR 124/ Howard Park/ lone Parkway Dr Turn pockets and intersection improvements (*/- 20) yr $1.500 lone SR 124 E. Main St to Howard Park Complete sidewalks and pedestrian crossings (*/- 20) yr $0.175 lone SR 124: E. Main St to Sutter lone Rd Major improvements $21.000 (+/- 20) уг
lone SR 124/104/Preston Avenue/ShakeleyLane Intersection improvements (+/. 20) уг Sutter Creek SR 104/Prospect Dr./Bowers Dr Signalize intersection (t/- 20) yr $1,600 County SR 26 / Bobbie Ln Intersection Improvements
(*/- 20) yr $0.090
SR 88/Pine Grove Improvements B: SR 88 from Climax Realign SR 88 Climax Rd intersection, add County (+/- 20) уг $14.200
Rd to Berry St receiving pocket Ridge id in imps, add ED SR 88/Pine Grove Improvements C: SR 88 from Hilltop
County Signalize intersection $8.200
to Tabeaud Rd (t/. 20) yr
Rehabilitation and widening of SR 88.
County SR 88 Pine Grove A SR 88 Berry St. to Hilltop Rd. signalize intersections, ped crossing, rese school access, add sidewalks (+/- 20) уг $10,800
Wicklow Way Extension A: SR 88/Mcklow Way Align intersection w/ Sierra Pacific Dr & County $4.000
signalize (*/- 20) yr
SR 104: SR 88 to SR 49 × ×
County Wden (+/- 20) yr $4.200
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 75 Table 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers County SR 16/Latrobe Rd Add WB right turn lane & EB receiving pocket $0.750 (*/: 20) yr
County SR 16/SR 124 Intersection Improvements (+/- 20) yr $1,400 County SR 49/88/Argonaut Lane Intersection Realign & signalize intersection (+/- 20) yr $3,000 Curve correction, widen shoulders, intersection
County SR 49 / Bell Rd (+/. 20) yr $0.281
County SR 49/Martell Rd./Jackson Gate (+/ 20) yr $0.875 County SR 49/SR 104/Ridge Rd
(+/- 20) yr $1,800 x x
in shoulders, nove pe crossing, salay
County SR 49: SR 16 to Drytown
signage (t/- 20) yr $0.250
County SR 88/Aqueduct Rd Intersecion improvements (t%- 20) yr $0.700 County SR 88/Buckhorn Ridge Rd Widen EB shoulder, correct sight distance (t/- 20) yr $0.300 County SR 88/Buena Vista Rd Intersection Improvements (- 20) yr $1.500 County SR 88 / Clinton Rd intersection improvements (+/. 20) yr $0.642 County SR 88/Jackson Valley Rd. (E) Signalize intersection (+/- 20) yr $1.500 County SR 88 / Pioneer Cr. Rd Intersection Improvements $0.149 (t/- 20) yr
County SR 88 / Raven Rd intersection Improvements (+/- 20) yr $0.149 County SR 88/SR 124 Intersection Improvements (+/-20) yr $0,150 County SR 88/SR 26 Inters oction Improvements (+/- 20) yr County SR 88 / Silver Drive Intersection Improvements $0.149 (+/- 20) yr
County SR 88/Sugar Pine Dr Correct sight distance (+/- 20) yr $0,600 County SR 88/Taves Rd Add WB left turn pocket (+/- 20) yr $0.650 County SR 88/Tiger Creek Rd Intersection Improvements (+/-20) yr County Add WB left turn pocket (+/- 20) yr
County SR 88; Columbia Dr. to Antelope Dr Nob Hill curve correction (+/• 20) yr County SR 88; SR 104 to Wicklow Way Widen (/20) yr
County SR 88; Wicklow Way to SR 49 Widen (+/- 20) yr
County SR 88/Jackson Valley Rd. (W) Signalize intersection (+/- 20) yr County SR 88/0mo Ranch Rd. Intersection Improvements (+/- 20) yr $0.250 County SR 88/Molfino Rd. Add EB left turn pocket (+/- 20) yr $0.650 x County SR 88/Martell Cutoff Signalize intersection, access control, safety improvements (/- 20) yr $1,500
County SR 88/ Inspiration Drive *%
Add left turn pocket (+/- 20) yr
State Highway SHOPP Candidate
$268.391
Total
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 76
4. SUMMARY OF COSTS, REVENUES, AND SHORTFALLS
In order to help identify the total funding shortfalls facing the entire Regional Transportation System, the CC's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines require that the RTP include a summary of the costs needed and revenues available to maintain and improve all aspects of the Regional Transportation System.
This includes the regional roadway improvements shown in the Tier I and Tier I! project listings, as well as the figures associated with other modes of transportation, as derived from parallel transportation planning documents such as the Transit Development Plan, Long Range Transit Development Plan, Amador •Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan, Westover Field Airport Master Plan, etc.
The purpose of this section of the Financial Element is to identify the funding shortfalls anticipated across all modes of transportation based on the best cost and revenue information available. It is important to note that the methodologies, level of detail, and degree of accuracy varies among the different sources cited. For example, transit costs have been purposefully constrained to the "Maintain Existing Service Quality" alternative identified in the 2013 Long Range Transit Development Plan in order to fit within forecast revenues. Conversely, the costs associated with local road rehabilitation projects have been updated through recent submittals by local jurisdictions for inclusion to this 2024 RTP Update.. For projects not submitted recently and for any changes in project prioritization,, it is recommended that the ACTC review the information contained within the Financial Element on an annual basis, in order to reflect changing conditions, revised estimates, or any new information that might become available over time.
The Policy of updating the RTP annually is particularly important for improving the accuracy of the Financial Element over time, because much of the information contained within it is provided by agencies other than the ACTC. Given that small rural agencies such as those in Amador County frequently have small staffing levels and competing priorities that may prevent them from regularly updating their planning documents, this policy simultaneously fulfills two purposes: A) it allows the ACT to draw attention to important areas of the Region's transportation system where better information is desirable in order to improve accuracy and better position the Region for outside competitive funding, and; B) it allows the ACTC to incorporate any new direction or information that might become available over time.
State Highway System
Caltrans has estimated short-term (10-year) and long-term (20-year) maintenance and operational needs for the State Highway System in Amador County. These needs include pavement resurfacing, bridge rehabilitation, operational improvements, safety enhancements, shoulder widenings, and a variety of regulatory requirements such as mitigating storm-water runoff and ensuring its compliance with the ADA.
As noted in Caltrans' Final 2024 Ten-Year State Highway Operations and Protection Program Plan, which covers Fiscal Years 2024/25 through 2027/28. State Highway projects identified for potential improvements to be programmed through the Caltrans SHOPP program are listed separately in Tier III. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 77 Local Roads
Currently, local jurisdictions are facing severe deferred maintenance costs throughout the local roadway system. Despite the passage of SB 1, costs for routine, on-going roadway maintenance are far out-pacing available revenues. To address this deficit, some local jurisdictions are actively seeking additional revenue sources, including the possible enactment of local sales tax measures dedicated to roadway maintenance projects.
The 2024 RTP Tier I and Tier I! project listings show the total estimated cost of implementing all of the regional roadway improvement projects that have been planned throughout the Region to be $282 million. Of this total amount, approximately $39 million is assumed to represent costs over the next 20 years.
As previously mentioned, approximately $39 million in total funding is considered reasonably available from various sources in order to implement the Amador region jurisdictions' planned improvements. By comparing these projected revenues with estimated costs, The Tier I! (unfunded) project listing shows that a total shortfall of approximately $242 million is anticipated. This deficit will continue to limit the number of planned regional roadway improvements that can be constructed within 20 years until additional funding sources are created. However, two funding sources could potentially be coordinated to help meet regional roadway needs and are worth brief consideration.
Local Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees (TIM)
Similar to the RTMF program, the cities and county each have local traffic impact mitigation (TIM) fee programs that are used to construct projects that are needed to serve new development. There are 6 (six) separate local TIM programs in Amador County. Given that these funds are tied to each jurisdiction's rate of growth, it can be assumed that the mitigation fees collected will mirror the trends affecting the RTMF program. Greater coordination among jurisdictions and the ACT RTP implementation effort may result in project delivery scope and cost efficiencies.
Developer Mitigations
In addition to the RTMF fees discussed above, new development often creates the need for improvements that would not otherwise be required by the traveling public. These improvements are typically needed to satisfy CEQA requirements that new development projects adequately mitigate their traffic impacts.
They are also often needed to meet the cities and county's building and/or road improvement standards.
These mitigation projects are often built directly by developers and may include regionally significant improvements such as lane-widenings, intersections, local collectors, sidewalks, etc. In addition to these developer-built improvements, the cities and county may also require new development to make other financial commitments such as frontage improvements, right of way dedications needed to accommodate 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 78 planned improvements, or "fair-share payments" needed to off-set the additional percent of traffic that they contribute to facilities that are already needed under "cumulative," or long-term conditions.
It is difficult to determine with precision when a specific development will actually occur after its original approval and thereby when its required mitigation measures would be constructed. Also, some development projects that are approved do not get completed and their mitigation measures do not become constructed. Further, it is difficult to determine when the various "fair-share" funds collected by individual agencies will be coordinated to build projects that are shared regional responsibilities. For these reasons, the construction of traffic impact mitigation measures and related financial contribution cannot be assumed at any specific point within the RTP's planning horizon, without guidance from city/county representatives. Therefore, the Tier I and II Listings as well as the Financial Element will be amended as further direction is provided through implementation documents such as Conditions of Approval, Developer Agreements, etc. that are adopted by each City Council and the Board of Supervisors in order to mitigate the new development that they approve.
Local Streets and Roads
As noted previously, local roadway maintenance costs are rising faster than available revenue. For routine, preventative, and deferred maintenance projects, the cities and county have identified 129 local roadway improvement projects estimated to cost over $176 million to construct within 20 years These local projects are not considered regionally significant and therefore ineligible for expenditure of regional funding. The projects are included as Appendix H for information.
The primary source of revenue available to meet these needs are collected by the state through gasoline and diesel sales and excise taxes that are put into the Highway User Tax Account (HUTA). These funds are redistributed by a formula directly back to the cities and counties from which they originate for local road maintenance and improvement purposes. Due to passage of SB 1 in 2017, revenues for Local Road Rehabilitation projects have increased, but still not at the level to fully fund the accrued deferred maintenance costs of the jurisdictions.
Other revenues available to the cities and county are those from various sources such as road permit fees and vehicle code fines, as well as the federal "Secure Rural Schools" program, which is intended to offset decreases in county sale-tax receipts that have resulted from significant reductions to timber harvests in the Amador Ranger District of the El Dorado National Forest. When combined, these miscellaneous sources are anticipated to provide an approximate total of $3 million within 20 years. It is assumed that all of these funds will likely be used to fund on-going road maintenance as opposed to implementing local road improvements.
Lastly, the Amador County Board of Supervisors and individual City Councils can use General Fund revenues to augment available transportation funds, if they choose. However, these funds, which are generated primarily from local sales and property taxes, are typically not considered a strong source of 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 79 transportation funding due to the high demand on them to serve other public priorities. Therefore, none are assumed over the next 20 years.
Transit
As described in the ACT's Long Range Transit Development Plan (LRTDP), the total cost needed to operate, maintain, and improve Amador Transit's public transportation services for the next 20 years was determined through the selection of a "preferred service scenario". This plan alternative, "Maintain Current Service Quality," was used to determine the transit system's short and long-range costs and to identify what revenues would be available to provide the level of service desired. The operational and maintenance costs identified therein included various items such as driver salaries, tires, fuel, and the acquisition of maintenance equipment and tools. Future capital improvement costs included various items such as fleet replacement vehicles, bus stops, new technologies, and maintenance facility upgrades.
Because the planning period for the LTDP extends to 2030, the figures cited below have been adjusted to match the RTP's planning horizon of 2044 by adding 14 additional years to estimated costs and projected revenues.
Based on the information provided, Amador Transit's maintenance and operating costs are expected to total over $54 million, whereas its capital improvement costs are anticipated to approach $12.8 million over the next 20 years. Of these figures, approximately $18 million will be needed to support on-going service and $10.3 million will be needed for planned improvements within the next 10 years.
The LTDP states that, "In total, financial resources through 2030 will be more than adequate to fund capital improvements and on-going operating costs over the plan period." For example, Amador Transit is expected to receive $6.2 million in farebox revenues, $1.6 million through its service contract with Sacramento County's Regional Transit for support of the Sacramento Express route, $1.7 million in advertising revenues, and $45.5 million from the various state and federal formula and grant sources, only if the same grants continue to be funded by FTA or through the State. When combined, these revenues are expected to total $55 million. By comparing these projected revenues with the estimated costs needed to support the "Maintain Current Service Quality" alternative, the LRDTP shows that $10.3 in excess funds are expected to be available for capital costs related to Amador Transit's future improvement needs. It is further stated that because most transit capital grants only require a 20% local-match, these excess operating funds should be "more than adequate" to address AT's improvement needs. By following this logic (e.g. only 20% of the available operating surplus will be required for use as local-match), it can be assumed that there will be a surplus of transit capital funds in the amount of $8.2 million within the next 20 years. Consequently, Table 6 shows that Amador Transit is not expected to experience any operational or improvement shortfalls over the next 20 years. However, if the Commission chooses to switch plan alternatives (e.g. either the "reduced" or "increased" service alternatives) or make system adjustments (e.g. increase fares, change routes, etc.), then the costs, revenues, and shortfalls/surpluses cited above would need to be amended accordingly.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 80 Goods Movement; Rail/Trucking
With the limited exception of a private "short line" operation serving mineral resource extraction industries near the City of lone, the Amador region does not maintain public transportation facilities that are specifically associated with goods movement such as port terminals, intermodal transfer stations, heavy truck weigh-stations, or commercial aviation hubs. Therefore, the cost to operate, maintain, and improve goods movement in the Region is included within the arterial State Highway System, as discussed under regional roadways above.
Aviation
The total cost of operating, maintaining, and improving Westover Field is estimated to be approximately $6.8 million over the next 10 years and $13.6 million over the next 20 years (see Table 6). This figure was determined by referring to the Westover Field Airport Master Plan, consulting with the county's Airport Manager, reviewing Westover Field's annual operating budget for a 5-year period, and incorporating the estimated cost of inflation. However, it is important to note that the information provided through this plan combine all costs associated with the airport, as well as all related revenues under a single budget.
Therefore, it is difficult to independently identify and separate costs that are associated with on-going operations as opposed to those that could be considered related to "improvements." This difficulty is compounded when reviewing the Airport Capital Improvement Program, which is largely comprised of maintenance projects and "operational" enhancements. For this reason, Table 6 shows all aviation costs under operations and maintenance. If these costs are more distinctly separated through an update of the Westover Field Airport Master Plan in the future, then Table 6 can be amended accordingly.
The primary sources of state and federal funds available to meet these operational and improvements needs are the California Aid to Airports Program (CAAP) and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
CAAP funds are administered by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics to provide annual discretionary grants in the amount of $10,000 each for general aviation airports such as Westover Field for operations and capital improvements, as well the award of matching funds needed to acquire additional funds from FAA grants. The AlP provides competitive grant funding from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for projects that address airport safety, capacity, and security improvements. AIP funds can be used on almost all planned aviation improvements, with the exception of terminals, hangers, and non-aviation development. Because the demand for AIP funds exceeds their availability, the FAA bases distribution of these funds on national priorities and objectives. Based on the success Amador County has had in applying for these funds in the past, it is assumed that up to $10.2 million in funding from these programs will be acquired over the next 20 years.
Westover Field also collects an important portion of its annual operating revenue in the form of hanger rents and fuel sales paid by pilots who store and operate their planes out of the airport. In consultation with the Airport Manager, these revenues are anticipated to be $4.6 million over the next 20 years. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 81 By combining these sources, Table 6 shows the total amount of estimated revenues available to fund Westover Field's ongoing operations and planned improvements over the next 20 years is approximately $14.8 million. By comparing these revenues with the costs noted above, Table 6 shows that the airport is expected to generate a surplus of approximately $60,000 over 20 years. This projection is supported by a statement made in the Westover Field Airport Master Plan that, "the airport will have positive net revenues..." and the fact that the airport has generated annual average surplus of approximately $3,000 over the last 5 years. Similar to the Region's transit system, this lack of funding deficit is because the Airport Manager and county's General Services Administration have been able to structure Westover Field's annual operating budget in a way that aligns with projected revenues such as aviation operating grants and hanger rents noted above.
Pedestrian / Bicycle
The 2017 Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan Update notes that a significant amount of "uplift" and cracking is prevalent throughout the Region's existing sidewalks. Similarly, the study notes that many of the paved shoulders that currently serve as "Class III" bicycle routes are in need of repair due to the loss of pavement along the edge of many roadways. However, the plan does not identify costs associated with ongoing or deferred maintenance of existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
Therefore, the 2024 RTP Update does not specifically report on these costs. However, the plan does identify a total of $265 million in planned pedestrian and bicycle improvements throughout the Region.
While it is possible that the cities and county could use or acquire other funds to complete planned pedestrian and bicycle projects, this is not currently anticipated. For example, the cities and county could choose to use some of its local gas-tax funds (i.e. HUTA revenues) to build new sidewalks or bike lanes.
Similarly, recent changes enacted under the federal transportation funding bills now allow both transit operators and local jurisdictions to apply for FTA 5310 transit funds in order to improve ADA accessibility improvements such as sidewalks and curb ramps within proximity to bus stops. Yet such revenues are not currently assumed given competing priorities and the significant local road maintenance deficits that the cities and county are facing. Therefore, $265 million in pedestrian and bicycle improvement costs are identified in total as an anticipated funding shortfall. However, if additional pedestrian and bicycle revenues become available or if the cities and county allocate their local revenues toward these purposes, thereby lowering this deficit, the Financial Element would be amended accordingly. 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 82 Alternative Strategies
As noted in Chapter VI (Existing Conditions), the ACTC has recently implemented various alternative strategies and taken advantage of emerging technologies in order to help improve the existing transportation system. Some of these costs such as operating Amador Transit's Mobility Management program and maintaining the ACT's Transfer Station and Park and Ride facilities are part of the transit operational costs described above. However, other costs such those needed to maintain the Sutter Hill Transit Center's Teleconference Center or the Region's Emergency Signal Preemption System (ESPS) are borne by ACTC. These costs are identified distinctly in Table 6, which shows that approximately $600,000 is needed to operate and maintain the ACT's existing alternative strategies over the next 20 years, of which approximately $300,000 is expected to be needed within 10 years. This figure includes the annual cost needed to operate and maintain the Emergency Signal Preemption System and SHTC Teleconference Facility, as well as the costs needed to replace the both systems within the next 20 years as their technologies evolve.
In addition to the cost needed to maintain and operate the alternative strategies that are currently in place, it is estimated that approximately $1.43 million and $3.35 million will be needed over the next 10 and 20 years respectively in order to implement additional alternative strategies such as recentiy-installed solar-power generating parking shade structures at the Sutter Hill Transit Center.
There are various funding sources that can be used to maintain the Region's existing alternative strategies, as well as to implement new ones over time. Table 6 shows of the total need, $600,000 is currently expected to be available to operate, maintain, and replace or otherwise upgrade the Emergency Signal Preemption System and SHTC Teleconference Facility over the next 20 years as technologies evolve. Given that all other reasonably available capital funds are otherwise identified for regional roadway purposes, Table 6 shows that a deficit of $4.78 million is anticipated for alternative strategy improvements. In the event that the ACTC chooses to re-allocate funds that are currently identified for regional roadway projects in order to complete alternative strategies at some point in the future, the Financial Element would need to be amended accordingly.
In summary, approximately $68 million in combined costs would be needed to operate and maintain all aspects of the existing Regional Transportation System over the next 20 years.
Table 6 also shows that more than $640 million in combined costs would be needed to implement proposed improvements across all modes of transportation. However, only $125.5 million is projected to be available to meet these needs. Therefore, the Region's total improvement deficit is anticipated to be $514 million for the RTP's 20-year planning horizon.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 83 Table 6: Summary of Costs, Revenues, and Shortfalls
Improvement Projects Short-Range Long-Range Costs
Costs
(2024-2044+) Projected Funding Shortfall
(2024-2034) Revenues
Operations & Maintenance
• State Highway NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
Total: $17.2m $52m $52m $0m'
$8.1m $16.3m $16.3m $0
NA NA NA NA
$300k $600k $600k $0
$25.6m2 $68.9m? $68.9m2 $0m?
Planned Improvements
: State Highway System NA NA NA NA
Regional Roadways
Public Transit
Aviation
•.. Pedestrian & Bicycle
Alternative Strategies $19.5m $39m $39m - $245.7m
Total:
$8.3m $17.3m $17.3m $0m
$6.6m NA $6.3m $330k
$0m $0m $340k - $265m
$1.4m $3.4m $0 - $3.4m
$29.2m $59.7m $56.6m $514m
Total: $45.1m? $128.6m2 $125.5m2 $514m2
Foot Notes
1. Assumed in LTDP as revenue for planned transit capital improvements.
2. Summary of Operational and Maintenance Costs, Revenues, and Shortfalls does not include Local Streets and Roads or Pedestrian and Bicycle needs due to a lack of accurate data. Therefore, overall shortfalls may be larger than can be reported. New information from pending studies will be 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 84 As previously noted, it is recommended that the Commission review the information cited above on an annual basis and revise as needed in order to reflect changing conditions, revised estimates, and new information. This will result in continual improvements to the Financial Element over time, which would help the Commission determine if any changes are warranted to its investment priorities or the financial strategies outlined in the following section. However, the information cited above is designed to provide a basic analysis for regional transportation planning purposes. An analysis of these figures suggests the conclusions provided below.
• The public transit and aviation sectors can be considered fully funded. Given the projections shown in the Long-Range Transit Development Plan, it may be possible for surplus revenues generated by transit operations to be made available for service expansions or local road maintenance, if so, directed by the Amador Transit Board of Directors. • Conversely, there is no reasonable expectation that the 2017 Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan can be implemented beyond the few improvements that can be efficiently integrated with planned regional roadway projects unless new funding sources are created or current funding sources are re-allocated to pedestrian and bicycle purposes. Given the lack of funding available to implement this plan, and it also serves as the cities' and county's Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA) Transition Plan for Public Rights of Way, jurisdictions may have difficulty demonstrating the active steps needed (i.e. construction of identified ADA improvements) to meet their legal responsibilities under the ADA to remove identified access barriers and ensure equal access to the facilities that they own, unless additional funding is made • Maintenance and improvement of Regional Roadways represents the second largest portion of costs shown on Table 6 yet have the fewest and smallest sources of funding available to them.
This observation suggests that more efforts are needed to better analyze local road needs, to better understand how local road funds are utilized, to investigate "industry standards" and "best management practices" that can help maximize the efficient use of these funds, and to consider the creation of additional revenues sources to help the cities and county care for their local facilities.
. The largest portion of costs (shown on Table 6 as NA) is related to maintenance, operations, and improvement of the State Highway System implemented through the State Highway Operation & Protection Program (SHOPP). These state-owned facilities provide important regional and interregional connectivity and are an essential part of the nation's transportation infrastructure.
Given that the ultimate responsibility for these facilities rests with the state and federal governments, this suggests that they should increase the level of investment currently being made through existing programs in order to address these deficits.
In light of the impacts made to the Regional Transportation System by the development planned for and approved by the cities and county, it is similarly important that the full costs of these 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 85 impacts are adequately identified and off-set by related mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are effectively coordinated and implemented in a timely fashion, then they could add significant value toward addressing needed improvements.
Due to the effects of inflation and cost escalation, it is anticipated that these shortfalls will continue to grow over time. This will remain the case until additional sources of new revenue are created to adequately address the outstanding shortfall. However, there are options that the Region could pursue to address these anticipated funding shortfalls. An example is provided below and a suite of financial strategies are provided in the following section.
In 2006, the Amador County Board of Supervisors placed a regional transportation "Self-Help" sales-tax measure on the General Election ballot in order to seek the required 2/3rds voter support needed to pass a local, ½ cent sales tax that could raise a total of $378 million in funds dedicated solely to transportation purposed over a 40-year period. These funds were proposed to support a variety of transportation improvements throughout the Region such as major widening and by-pass projects, smaller safety projects, local road maintenance, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and improved transit service. If enacted, it was estimated that "Measure K" could have provided approximately $15 million each fortransit and pedestrian/bicycle improvements, $143 million for local road maintenance, and $197 million for improvements to the State Highway System. However, it is important to note that the revenue projections and proposed expenditures cited above reflect the economic times and public preferences at the time Measure K was developed. Given new economic forecasts such as the lower growth rates provided by the Department of Finance, it is possible that new revenue projections may be lower or require a longer horizon over which improvements should be planned for implementation. Given the analysis provided above, it is also possible that public preference could shift since they were last surveyed. Nonetheless, Measure K provides a basic vision and "order of magnitude example to highlight what could be done to help address the various shortfalls facing the Regional Transportation System.
As hypothetical examples, the funds potentially available through a regional transportation "Self-Help" sales-tax measure could be used for any one of the following purposes:
• These funds could be used to fully fund all deferred and on-going local road maintenance needed though out the Region over the next 20 years, or;
• These funds could be used to construct some of the regional roadway projects identified on Tier Il, or; • These funds could be used to build local road projects and a portion of proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements, or;
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 86 • These funds could be matched with other local and regional funds in order to help acquire additional state and federal funding needed to carry out an "all of the above" strategy to address each of these areas.
These are only illustrative examples of what this level of potential funding could be used to achieve. If the cities and County support the essential concept of creating a local funding program such as Measure K, which would be solely dedicated to serve the needs that the Region's citizens value most, then the previous measure would need to be updated and revised based on new data and public polling.
FINANCIAL STRATEGY
An analysis of the costs, revenues, and shortfalls discussed above shows that significant funding constraints will continue to affect the ability of ACT and its partners to implement planned improvements across all modes of transportation. These constraints will also continue to limit ongoing maintenance of the existing transportation system. In addition, much of the funding that is considered reasonably available is not guaranteed and will require concerted efforts by the ACT and its partners for it to be acquired and coordinated in order to address the Region's priorities in a timely manner.
For these reasons, proactive and strategic financial strategies are warranted in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the Region's existing transportation funds and acquire additional funding to the greatest extent feasible. As outlined below, these strategies fall into six basic categories that collectively reflect the essential points of the 2024 RTP's Goals and Policies. The bulleted lists under each strategy provide brief examples of the various ways that each essential strategy could be carried out.
Additional actions should be considered based on the overarching guidance offered in the RTP and specific direction provided the Commission.
(1) Maximize the effectiveness of currently available funding.
It is important to note that some funding is currently available to help the Region address its needs.
Since these funds are very limited, it is critical to ensure their use is as efficient and effective as possible. Therefore, actions such as those listed below are recommended.
Screen proposed improvements and project alternatives for potential obstacles and fatal flaws early in the transportation planning and project scoping planned process.
Limit investment in the development and delivery of costly bypasses and widening projects unless regional priority, community support, and a feasible funding plan are demonstrated first.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 87 • Help Amador Transit identify and implement any productivity improvements needed to increase ridership and reduce operational costs.
• Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the design and construction of new roadway projects where efficient and feasible.
• Pursue low-cost alternative strategies, emerging technologies, and innovative approaches that can help address existing and future transportation needs and reduce the need for expensive infrastructure investments.
(2) Aggressively pursue existing and new funding opportunities.
As discussed in Chapter VI (Alternatives and Analysis), limited maintenance and little improvement to the Regional Transportation System is possible unless the maximum level of reasonably available and potentially available funding is acquired by the ACT and its partners. As shown in the Financial Element, there are existing funding opportunities that are reasonably available to help fund a certain number of the Region's planned improvements. There are also new funding opportunities that are potentially available to fund additional improvements, if enacted by voters or adopted by the cities and county. However, funding from these sources is not guaranteed and will take a concerted effort by the ACTC and its partners to acquire. Therefore, actions such as those listed below are recommended.
• Assist the cities and county with pursuing state and federal competitive funds by assisting with project screening and providing preliminary analysis, designs, cost estimates, and grant support as requested.
• Use a flexible approach to submit projects for funding as opportunities present themselves and be prepared to capitalize on any additional, unforeseen opportunities that might become available.
• Help the cities and county identify and acquire adequate funding for their local road maintenance and improvement needs.
• If warranted by voter support, assist with developing and implementing a regional transportation "Self-Help" sales-tax measure in order to generate additional transportation 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 88 (3) Leverage limited local and regional funds to obtain additional state and federal funds.
Use available RSTP, CMAQ, RTMF, and local TIM funds to pay for the local-match needed to acquire additional state and federal competitive funds. • Identify regional priorities that are competitive for SHOPP, Minor, and IIP funding and strongly encourage Caltrans' partnership toward the completion of these projects by contributing local or regional matching funds.
Prioritize project development costs with local and regional funds to develop shovel-ready projects in order to attract competitive state and federal funds that can be used toward construction.
(4) Increase the efficiency and timeliness of project development and delivery.
Given the growing administrative burdens placed on local agencies by increasing state and federal requirements, transportation improvement projects are frequently costing more and taking longer to develop and deliver. Caltrans and FHWA are also imposing tighter timelines within which local agencies have to complete their projects. Consequently, local agencies are regularly mired by these procedural challenges and are often "red-flagged" for not meeting delivery deadlines. This prevents them from applying for new funding opportunities to complete additional projects. For this reason, it is important to improve the efficiency and timeliness of the Region's project development and delivery efforts. Therefore, actions such as those listed below are recommended. • Maintain the level of project development and delivery support that the ACTC provides to the cities and county in order to help resolve "critical-path" issues and accelerate project completion.
• Develop increased expertise and efficiency in addressing Caltrans and FHWA process requirements and identify any means available to help reduce the time and costs associated.
Prioritize the investment of limited transportation funding and project development and delivery assistance in projects that have been screened for "feasibility" and "readiness" by helping the cities and county develop thorough scopes and schedules that adequately anticipate any environmental, design, right of way, or other issues anticipated. (5) Enhance collaboration and coordination between the ACTC and its partners.
Many of the transportation improvements and funding opportunities identified in the Financial Element expressly require close collaboration between more than one party. This is particularly true for regionally significant improvements that often require the coordination of local, regional, state, 2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 89 federal, and/or private funding and decision making. Therefore, actions such as those listed below are recommended.
Regularly convene meetings of the ACT's Technical Advisory Committee to monitor the status of priority projects, the funding available for those projects, and any action items needed to accelerate their delivery.
• Help the cities, county, and Caltrans develop and implement the funding strategies and partnerships needed to complete the Region's priority improvements in a timely fashion. • Help the cities and county implement adopted traffic impact mitigations and coordinate required "fair-share" financial contributions to complete regionally significant projects. • Assist the cities and county with maintaining and implementing local Pavement Management Systems and Capital Improvement Programs, as requested. (6) Influence state/federal regulation and legislation that affect transportation costs and funding availability.
Both State and Federal regulatory requirements and legislative mandates directly affect the cost of developing and delivering transportation improvements. These requirements and mandates also affect the funding available to implement those improvements and the conditions imposed upon the recipient of those funds. Given the persistent funding constraints previously noted, small rural agencies such as the ACTC, the cities, and county are all at a disadvantage to meet these ever growing obligations. For these reasons, it is important to engage and influence state and federal officials on priority issues that affect the Region's interests. Therefore, actions such as those listed below are recommended.
• Maintain memberships in various state and national organizations, committees, and/or workgroups that are involved with transportation funding and related policy issues. • Participate in relevant transportation needs assessment and legislative advocacy efforts in order to help achieve equitable levels of funding for rural transportation needs. • Develop recommended state and federal process reforms that can be used to streamline and reduce the costs associated with project development and delivery.
Participate in efforts to adequately identify and advocate for increased funding required to meet local street and road maintenance needs.
2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft 90