Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ACTC  To: Project Title: Lead Agency: Contact: Review Period:  Public Agencies, Amador County Clerk, and Interested Parties Amador County Regional Transportation Plan 2024 Update Amador County Transportation Commission, 117) Valley' View Way, Felicia Bridges, 209)267-2282 Email: eicaeattcamadorers May3,2924-me4,024-Extended from June 1, 2024-July 19, 2024  Sutter Creek, CA 95685  The Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) 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 ofl localj jurisdictions. The purpose ofthe RTPi is toi identify the region'sshort-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 thens submittedi tot the CTCf for programming every  two (2) years as part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).  Providing Comments: amador.org/plans business hours.  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 ACTC website: https://actc: The IS/Proposed MNDI will also be available at 117' Valley View Way, Sutter Creek, CA 95685 during posted 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 ACTCwillc consider adopting thel IS/Proposed MND during ap 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 ACTC meeting at the following website:  AtsmAstaNd    Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration  For the Amador County 2024 Regional Transportation Plan  Prepared by 117' Valley View' Way Sutter Creek, CA 95685  Amador County Transportation Commission  ACTC  DRAFT May 2, 2024    Introduction  Project Title:  Amador County Regional Transportation Plan 2024 Update Amador County Transportation Commission 117 Valley View Way Sutter Creek, CA 95685  Lead Agency Name and Address:  Contact Person: Project Location: Project Overview:  John Gedney 209)267-2282 Amador County, CA  As the responsible agency for maintaining and implementing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) has prepared an updated draft RTP 2024 update Toe 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 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  (which is considered a' - Project" for the purposes of this study).  significant environmental impacts.  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 (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 ofl local jurisdictions. The purpose of the RTPist 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 aret thens submitted toi the CTC for programmingevery  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 The county's elevation ranges from a low of 250 feet in the county's western foothills to a high of more than 9,0001 feet ini mountainous peaks ofthe Sierra Nevada on the eastern boundary. The county is divided into two (2) physiographic divisions referred to as the "Foothills" andt 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 andi 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  counties int the State of California.  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 increasei ini thes short- term population projections, the county is expected to approximately. 40,000, there shows a decline (lower 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  that current population) into the later stage of the 20-year horizon.  oft the county's local roadways. Tribal Consultation:  The ACTC consulted all three (3) Federally recognized tribal governments within the region at various points oft 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.    adoption for the ACTC board, the  Agency Approvals: document must be submitted Environmental Factors The environmentalf factors one impact thati is a' "Potentially  the ACTC at a public hearing. After  The RTP is required to be adopted tot the byt CTC and Caltrans.  Potentially Impacted: checked below would be Significant Impact" are:  involving atl least  potentially affected by the project,  Cultural Resources Quality. - landuse/Panning  Air Quality. Biological Resources. Materials. Hydrology /Water  _Agriculture Resources. /Soils. Hazards & Hazardous  Aesthetics. Geology  Services Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance  Population /Housing. Public Utiliies/Service Systems,  Mineral Resources. Noise. Transportation/rafic    Determination:  On the basis of thisi initial evaluation:  I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a  NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  Ifind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effecti in this case because revisions int the project (mitigation measures) have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  was prepared.  Ifind the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.  Ifind 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 onlyt the effects that  remain to be addressed.  Ifind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately ina 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 ina 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 fore each discussion topici 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 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: Ani impact which requires mitigation to reduce the impact to al less than significant level. For such impacts, proposed mitigation Less Than Significant Impact: Ani impact which is considered less than significant under the  Impact Report.  measures are identified within the Initial Study.  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 Significant Significant Significant Impact  No  Impact  with Mitigation  Impact  Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse Would the project: b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but notl limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state 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 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 news source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?  effect on as scenic vista?  X X  scenic highway?  X  X  DISCUSSION: Existing roadway rehabilitation projects contained int the RTP will not impact historic  buildings, scenic vistas, or adverselyi impact day andi nighttime views.    Agriculture and Forest Resources:  QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact  No  Impact  with Mitigation  Impact  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 Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Would the project: d) Result ini the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest Would the project: e)l Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland ton non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land  X  X  X  Section 51104lg))? use?  X  X  tor non-forest use? or forest land.  DISCUSSION: Existing roadway rehabilitation projects contained in the RTP will not impact agricultural    Air Quality:  QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact  Impact  with Mitigation  Impact  Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Would the project: b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air Would the project: c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Would the project: d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting as substantial number of people? as State PM: 10 standards.  X  X  quality standard?  X  X  Discussion: Amador County is currently in non-attainment of State and Federal Ozone standards as well PM1 10 is primarily caused by wood burning, wind-blown dust and agriculture. Ozone is primarily 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: Thei implementing agency will review individual RTP projects prior to implementation in accordance with applicable local, regional, state, or federal procedures.  generated from the Sacramento valley drifting eastward into the Foothills.    Biological Resources: QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact  Impact  with Mitigation  Impact  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 Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and 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 Would the project: f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?  X  X  Wildlife Service?  X  X  X  ordinance?  X    Discussion: All oft the proposed projects int 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 Impact  Less Than No Impact  Significant Significant Significant Impact  with Mitigation  Would the project: a) Cause as substantial adverse change in the significance ofa a historical resource Would the project: b) Cause a substantial adverse change int the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? Would the project: c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated  X  pursuant to $15064.5?  X 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 Mitigation  Impact  Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy  X    resources during project construction or Would the project: b) Conflict with or obstructa state or local plan for renewable energy or energy  operation? efficiency?  X  Discussion: The RTP's goals and policies encourages the use of materials and systems that reduce waste  andi improve energy efficiency.  Geology and Soils: QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Impact  Less Than No Impact  Significant Significant Significant Impact  with 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 al known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning 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 Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofl loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? Would the project: a) Directly ori indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: iv)  X  Special Publication 42.  X  seismic ground shaking?  X  X  Landslides?    Would the project: b) Result in substantial soil erosion ort the loss of topsoil? Would the project: c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil thati is unstable, or that would become unstable as ar 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 Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or Would the project: e) Have soilsi incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewersare not available for the disposal of waste Would the project: f) Directly ori indirectly destroy aunique paleontological resource or site or unique  X  X  X  property?  X  water?  X  geologic feature?  Discussion: The RTP proposes roadway rehabilitation projects that may have specific impacts on geology and soils that will be addressed ona a project-by-project basis byi implementing agencies. Ifany individual project has potential for impacts to geology and soils, the mingationmeasures listed below willr reduce 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 implementeda as  impacts to al less than significant degree.  appropriate.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions:  QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact  Impact  with Mitigation X  Impact  Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?    Would the project: b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation. adopted for the purpose ofr reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?  X  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 MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-1: Consistent with Appendix F of CEQA Guidelines, implementing agencies should identify and reduce energy consumption during construction through thet following measures:  greenhouse gas emissions.  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 Mitigation  Impact  Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine 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 Would the project: c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an Would the project: d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5and, asar result, would it create a  X  X  the environment?  X  existing or proposed school?  X    significant hazard to the public or the Would the project: e) For ap 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 physicallyi 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 loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?  environment?  X  X X  Discussion: The RTP projects will not create hazards nor produce hazardous materials.  Hydrology and Water Quality:  QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Impact  Less Than No Impact  Significant Significant Significant Impact  with Mitigation  Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground Would the project: b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project 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 oft the course ofa 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-  X  water quality?  X  X  site;    (i)s substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in (ii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; (iv)i impede or redirect flood flows? 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 ofa a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?  X  flooding on- or offsite;  X X  or  X  X  Discussion: The RTP lists several bridge rehabilitation projects have been programmed during previous cycles. All oft these projects have undergone detailed environmental. analysis at the project-level. Appropriate mitigation measures for each project have been identified and adopted to bringi impacts to a 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 mayi impact existing hydrology and water quality systems. Projects advancedi for funding will undergo specific analysis of appropriate 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  less than significant level.  hydrologic mitigation practices prior to and during project implementation.  activities.  Land Use and Planning: QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Impact  Less Than No Impact X X  Significant Significant Significant Impact  with Mitigation  Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Would the project: b) Cause a significant 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 willr not  impact established communities.  Mineral Resources: QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Impact  Less Than No Impact  Significant Significant Significant Impact  with Mitigation  Would the project: a) Resuit in the loss of availability ofa al known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents Would the project: b) Result in the loss of availability of al locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on al local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?  X  of the state?  X  Discussion: The RTP does not contain projects that would impact existing mineral resources in the  County.    Noise: QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Less Than No Signifiçant Significant Significant Impact  Impact  with Mitigation  Impact  Would the project result in: a) Generation ofa substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project ine excess of standards established in the local 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 Would the project result in: c) For a project located within the vicinity ofa 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 public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to  X  X  noise levels?  X  excessive noise levels?  Discussion: Construction of roadway renabilitation projects willl 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 MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE: Thei implementing agencies shall take steps to identify and reduce the effects of construction on the roadway system throughout the construction period.  ground disturbing activities, apply noise reduction techniques, etc.    Population and Housing: QUESTION  Less Than No Significant Impact  Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact Impact  with Mitigation  a) Induce substantial  X  Would the project: growthi in an area, either unplanned population by proposing new! homes directly (for example, indirectly (for example, through and businesses) or otheri infrastructure)? Would the project: people or housing, numbers of existing construction of replacement  extension of roads or  X  b) Displace substantial  necessitating the housing elsewhere? Discussion: "No Impact" because the projects do not housing or people.  and  are based on the scope, description, anticipated  determinations in this section Population and Housing are not or displace  Potential impactst to  population growth  location oft the proposed projects. involve activities that would encourage  Publics Services: QUESTION  Less Than Less Than No Impact  Potentially Significant Significant  Significant Impact  Impact  with Mitigation  resulti in substantial adverse of altered  of which could cause  a)Wouldt the project associated with the provision  physical impacts new or physically need for new  facilities,  X  altered or physically  facilities, the construction impacts, in order to significant environmental ratios, response times maintain acceptable service objectives for any oft the or other performance Fire protection? public services:    Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities?  X X X X  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 Impact  Less Than No Impact  Significant Significant Significant Impact  with Mitigation  a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration oft the facility would occur or be b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?  X  accelerated?  X  Discussion: "No Impact" determinations in this section are based on the scope, description, and location  oft the proposed projects.    Transportation/Tafic: QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Impact  Less Than No Impact  Significant Significant Significant Impact  with Mitigation  Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,. bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Would the project: b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 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 ini inadequate  X  X  X X  emergency access?  Discussion: The RTP is al 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. Noi induced travel willl be generated through implementation of the Plan. All  proposed projects will be screened on an individual basis.  Tribal Cultural Resources: QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Impact  Less Than No Impact  Significant Significant Significant Impact  with Mitigation  Would the project cause a substantial adverse change int 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 ini terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred  X    value toa California register of  or object with cultural andt thati is: a) Listed or place, American tribe, California Register of Native for listing in the eligible Resources, ori inalocalr in Public Resources Historical resources as definedi historical 5020.11),or Code Section  by thel lead agencyins  determined substantial evidence, DAresouree and supported! by criteria setf forthi in discretion, significant pursuantt to (c) of Public Resources set forth in subdivision! applyingt the criteria Code Section 5024.1.1 In (cjofP Public Resource consider the subdivision lead agency shall California Native 5024.1,t the oft the resource toac significance Americant tribe.  X  Code Section  to! be  transportation planning process all  governments! int the of specifici issues. In addition,  continues toi include tribal well as ad-hoc discussions contacted during the RTP update process.  ACTC through Federally 1 three (3) of the RTP will not! Adoption  meetings as have a significanti  County were  tribes in Amador impact on tribal resources.  and Service Systems:  Less Than Less Than No  Utilities QUESTION  Potentially Impact  Significant Impact  Significant Significant Impact  with Mitigation  Require or result in the a) of new or expanded or storm water treatment natural gas, or could cause significant  Would the or EREE SECOSESNET water, of a relocation effects? environmentale supplies  X  or  drainage, electric power, facilities, the construction  X  Sufficienty water  Would the project: b) Have the projecta and available tos serve    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 capacity to serve the project's projected demand ina addition to the provider's existing commitments? Would the project: d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, ori in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction Would the project: e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?  X  X  goals?  X  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 thet time the specific  project is advanced for development.  Wildfire: QUESTION  Potentially Less Than Impact  Less Than No Impact  Ifl located in or near state responsibility areas or Significant Significant Significant Impact  lands classified as very high fire hazard severity flocated in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Iflocatedi 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  with Mitigation  zones, would the project:  X  X    occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of ay wildfire? Iflocatedi 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, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the Iflocatedi 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 aresult ofr runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage  X  environment?  X  changes?  Discussion: Projects in the RTP willi 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 Mitigation  Impact  a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish or wildlife species, cause at fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict ther range ofa 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 ofa project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?  X  X  projects)?  X  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 Comh Regional Transportation. Plan, Draf Techmical. Appendices    This page intentionally left blank  2024. Anador County Regional Transportation Plan, Draf Tecbnical Appendices    TABLE OF CONTENTS  Appendix A: Regional Transportation Plan Checklist. Appendix B: Glossaryo of Terms and Acronyms.  Appendix C: Public Involvement Procedures for Transportation Planning Appendix D: Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted.  23 26 29 30 33 36 38 40  Appendix E: References Consulted. Appendix F: RTP Public Workshop Analysis..  Appendix G: Traffic' Volumes and Method for Determining LOS. Appendix H: Cityand County Local Road Improvement Projects Appendix!: Average Annual Percent Truck Traffic.  Appendix. J: RTP Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures; System-Wide Alternative Appendix K: RTP Project Criteria and Performance Measures-Project Prioritization List.  Ranking.  2024 Amador Comnh Regional Transportation Plan, Drafi Technical Appendices    This page intentionally left blank  2024. Amador County Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical Appendices    Appendix A  Regional Transportation Plan Checklist  (Completed May 02, 2024)  NameofMPORIP4: Date Draft RTP Completed: RTP Adoption. Date: Document (ED)? document?  Amador County Transportation Commission  May 2,2024  Whati is the Certification Date of the Environmental Is the ED located in the RTP or isi itas separate  August 20", 2015 Separate Document  By completing this checklist, the MPO RTPA verifies the RTP addresses all ofthefollowing requred mformation within the. RTP.  egonalTramsportation Plan Contents  General  Yes! Page # No Yes P.40-49  . Does the RTP address no less than a 20-year planning horizon? (23 CFR 450.322(a)) 3. Does thel RTP address issues specified in the policy, action and financial elements 4. Does thel RTP address the I0 issues specified in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) component as identified in Government Code Sections 65080(b)(2)(B): and  2. Does the RTP include both long-range and short-range strategies actions? (23 CFR part Yes P.59-63  450.322(b))  Yes P.55-90 Not an MPO an MPO Not  identified in California Government Code Section 65080?  65584.04()(1)? (MPOs only)  a. Identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building Not  intensities within the region? (MPOs only)  b. Identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the an region, including all economic segments of the population over the course of MPO the planning period of the regional transportation plan taking into account net migration into the region, population growth, household formation and  employment growth? (MPOs only)  2024. Amador Couh Regional Transportation Plan; Drafi Techmical. Appendices    Yes/ Page # No MPO an MPO MPO an MPO an MPO  C. Identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of Not the regional housing need fort the region pursuant to Government Code Section an d. Identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the Not e. Gather and consider the best practically available scientific information Not regarding resource areas and farmland in the region as defined in: subdivisions an (@amd)ofGovemment Code Section 65080.01? (MPOs only) Consider the state housing goals specified in Sections 65580 and 65581? Not Utilize the most recent planning assumptions, considering local general plans Not 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, ift there is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the ARB? (MPOs only) Provide consistency between the development pattern and allocation of Not housing units within the region (Government Code 65584.0401X1)? (MPOs an 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)  65584? (MPOS only) region? (MPOsonly)  (MPOs only)  and other factors? (MPOS only)  only)  MPO an MPO Yes P.9 Not an MPO  4. Does the RTP include Project Intent i.e. Plan Level Purpose and Need Statements? 5. Does thel RTP: specify how travel demand modeling methodology, results and key assumptions were developed as part ofthe RTP process? (Government Code 14522.2)  (MPOs only)  consulaton.Cooperalion 23, CFR part450.316(a)?  I. Does the RTP contain a public involvement program that meets the requirements of Title Yes Appendix C  2024. Amador Counh Regional Transportation Plan, Draf Technical Appendices    Yes/ Page # No P.19-21 Yes Appendix D  2. Did the MPORTPA consult with the appropriate State and local representatives including representatives from environmental and economic communities; airport; transit; freight during the preparation oft the RTP? 23CFR4503160X0) 3. Did the MPORTPA who has federal lands within its jurisdictional boundary involve the  Refer tot the 2015 S.P.EI.R. Yes P.23-39 p.44 Appendix D 2015 S.P.E.I.R. Yes P.19-20 Appendix D  federal land management agencies during the preparation of the RTP? land use, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation and historic  4. Where does the RTP specify that the appropriate State and local agencies responsible for Yes P.19-21  preservation consulted? (23 CFR part 450.322(g))  5. Did the RTP include a comparison with the Califomia State Wildlife Action Plan and (if Yes Refer to the  available) inventories of natural and historic resources? (23 CFR part 450.322(g)) 6. Did the MPO:RTPA who has a federally recognized Native American Tribal Government(s) and/ or historical and sacred sites or subsistence resources of these Tribal Governments within itsj jurisdictional boundary address tribal concerns in the RTP and develop the RTP in consultation with the Tribal Govemment(s)? (Title 23 CFR part 7. Does the RTP address how the public and various specified groups were givena reasonable opportunity to comment on the plan using the participation plan developed 8. Does the RTP contain a discussion describing the private sector involvement efforts that Yes P.19-21 were used during the development oft the plan? (23 CFR part 450.316(a)) 9. Does the RTP contain a discussion describing the coordination efforts with regional air Not an quality planning authorities? (23 CFR450.316a)2) (MPO nonattainment and 10. Ist thel RTP coordinated and consistent with the Public Transit-Human Services  450.316(c))  Yes P.19-21 Appendix C &D Appendix C &D MPO  under 23 CFR part 450.316(a)? (23 CFR 450.316(i))  maintenance areas only) Transportation Plan?  Yes P.25-28 P.46-47 P.62,69,70 P.81 Appendix E Yes http:www. actc: amador.org  I1. Were the draft and adopted RTP posted on the Internet? (23 CFR part 450.322(j))  2024. Amador Couh Regional Transportation Plan; Draf Techical. Appendices    Yes/ Page # No Not an MPO Not an MPO  12. Didt thel RTP explain how consultation occurred with locally elected officials? 13. Did the RTP outline the public participation process for the sustainable communities  (Government Code 65080(D)) (MPOs only) strategy? (Government Code 65080(E) (MPOs only)  Modal Discussion  . Does thel RTP discuss intermodal and connectivity issues? 2. Does the RTP include a discussion of highways? 3. Does the RTP include a discussion of mass transportation? 4. Does the RTP include a discussion of the regional airport system? 5. Does the RTP include a discussion of regional pedestrian needs? 6. Does the RTP include a discussion of regional bicycle needs? MPOs and RTPAS located along the coast only) 8. Does the RTP include a discussion of rail transportation? 10. Does the RTP include a discussion of goods movement?  Yes P.25-91 Yes P.25-91 Yes P.25-91 Yes P.25-91 Yes P.25-91 Yes P.25-91 NA Yes P.25-91 NA Yes P.25-91  7. Does the RTP address the California Coastal Trail? (Government Code 65080.1) (For 9. Does the RTP include a discussion of maritime transportation (ifa appropriate)?  2024.4 Amador Coul Regional Tramsportation Plan; Draf Techmical, Appendices    ProgrammingOperations  Yesi Page # No Not an MPO Yes P.19 P.55-63 AppendixJ Yes P.73-76 Table 5_Tiers II,III  1. Isa congestion management process discussed in the RTP? (23 CFR part 450.450.320(b)) (MPOs designated as TMAs only)  2. Is the RTP consistent (to the maximum extent practicable) with the development oft the Yes P.39 3. Does the RTP identify the objective criteria used for measuring the performance of the  regional ITS architecture? transportation system?  4. Does the RTP contain al list ofun-constrained projects?  Financial  I. Does the RTP include a financial plan that meets the requirements identified in 23 CFR Yes P.9  part 450.322(f)(10)?  P.65-88 Yes P.65-88 Yes P.59 P.65-88 Yes P.72 Table 5- TierI I,  2. Does the RTP contain a consistency statement between the first 4 years of the fund estimate and the 4-year STIP fund estimate? (2006S STIP Guidelines, Section 19) 3. Do the projected revenues in the RTP reflect Fiscal Constraint? (23 CFR part 4. Does the RTP contain al list oft financially constrained projects? Any regionally significant projects should bei identified. (Government Code 65080(4)(A)) cxpenditure dollars" to reflcct inflation rates? (23 CFR part 450.322(/(10/v), 6. After 12.1107, does the RTP contain estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to operate and maintain the freeways, highway and  450.322tfX10)di)  5. Do the cost cstimates fori implementing thc projccts identificd in the RTP reflect' "ycar of Yes P.72-76  Yes P.65-90  transit within the region? (23 CFR 450.322(f)(I 10)(i)) and the ITIP? (2006 STIP Guidelines section 33) and the FTIP? (2006: STIP Guidelines section 19)  7. Does the RTP contain as statement regarding consistency between the projects in the RTP Yes P.66 8. Does the RTP contain a statement regarding consistency between the projects in the RTP Yes P.66  9. Does the RTP address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the identified TCMs from the SIP can be implemented? (23 CFR part 450.322()10Xvi)  Not an MPO  (nonattainment and maintenance MPOs only)  2024. Amador Count Regional Transportation. Plan, Draf Techmical Appendices    Environmental CEQA guidelines?  Yes! Page # No NO See 2015 S.P.E.I.R NA Not an MPO Refert to 2015 S.P.E.IR See MND See 2015 S.P.E.I.RJ MND  1. Did the MPO/RTPA prepare an EIR or ap program EIR for the RTP in accordance with 2. Does the RTP contain al list of projects specifically identified as TCMs, ifa applicable? 3. Does the RTP contain a discussion of SIP conformity, ifapplicable? (MPOsonly) 4. Does thel RTP specify mitigation activities? (23 CFR part 450.322(f)(7))  5. Where does the EIR address mitigation activities?  6. Did the MPORTPA prepare a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration Yes SEEMND  for the RTP in accordance with CEQA guidelines? nonattainment and maintenance areas only)  7. Does thel RTP specify the TCMs to be implemented in the region? (federal  Not an MPO  Ihave reviewed the above information and certify that it is correct and  complete.  (Must be signed by MPO/RTPA Executive Director or designatedrepresmtative) John Gedney Print Name  Date  Executive Director Title  2024Amador Counh Regional Iransportation Plan, Draft Teclmical. Appendices    Appendix B  Glossary of Terms and Acronyms  The Glossary of Terms 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 ACTC is established under requirements of State Government Code Section 29535 and is composed oft three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors and three members appointed by the City Selection Committee. The functions of the 1. development and yearly accomplishment oft the Overall Work Program (OWP); 2. developiment and maintenance oft the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); 4. preparation ofal biennial Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP);  Transportation Commissions are essentially:  3. administration ofLocal Transportation Funds (LTF)according to the Transportation Development Act 6. administration and implementation of various projects and programs needed to carry-out thc RTP's ADT (Annual Average Daily" Traffic): A measure of the amount oft traffic being generated from a source, AT (Amador Transit): ATis aj joint powers entity that includes Amador County and the Cities of Amador City, Ione, 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 commuter service to down Caltrans (The California Department olTransportation): The State level department responsible for oversight of the statewide multi-modal transportation system, maintenance oft the State Highway System, and Caltrans' System Planning: Section 65086 of the State's govemment code requires Caltrans to perform CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): State law (Public Resources Code 21000 etseq.) requires that every public agency in California assess the environmental impacts ofe 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 ofenvironmental 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 safety, maintenance, and performance goals. Thc term' "historic" is uscd herein to signify those communities established before the 20" century gencrally and during the Region's "Gold Rush" era specifically. (Scc also Caltrans' Director's policy conceming Context Sensitive Solutions availablc at ACTC  (TDA);  5. on-going, multimodal transportation planning;  policies and priorities.  utilizing a route or corridor, and: or arriving at or through a destination or point.  town Sacramento.  other related tasks as assigned by the State Government. long-rang State highway system planning.  office.)  2024.Amador County Regional Transportatton Plan, Dra Technical. Appendices    CTC (California Transportation Commission): The CTCisa 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 ofinterregional state highway routes outside ofUrbanized. Areas, that provides access to and between the state's economic centers, major recreational 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 toi include capacity increasing projects on interregional routes and or transit facilities generally outside ofurbanized areas. The ITIP has ai 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 ITSP (Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan): The ITSP describes the framework in which the LOS (Levels-ot-Service): A qualitative measure oftraffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade, "A" through "F", corresponding to progressively worsening traffic conditions, is assigned to an intersection or 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 changesi sin transportation funding and related guidance on transportation planning and the use of certain performance 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 OWP (Overall Work Program): Annual work programs that are prepared byl 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 PA&ED (Project Authorization and Environmental Document): This is known as the first phase (for constructing a State highway project). Itincludes a report about the project and adoption ofe environmental PCI (Pavement Condition Index): An engineer's method for measuring the condition ofa street or road PEIR (Programmatic Environmental Impact Report): CEQA requires that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared ifap plan or project could have a significant affect on the environment or causes substantial public controversy. Special provisions of CEQA allow preparation ofa' "Program EIR" which is applicable 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)i including preliminary design factors, cost estimates, community and environmental concerns, etc. A PSR is required for funding State highway projects in the STIP. AI PSR "equivalent" is required for funding "Reasonable to Meet Criteria": The criteria used to determine ifa an dentified unmet transit needi is reasonable to meet using TDA funds as established by the RTPA pursuant to Section 99401.5(c) of the State  areas, and urban and rural regions.  efficiency oft the surface transportation system.  State will carry out its responsibilities and fund projects pursuant to the ITIP.  section of roadway.  measures to assess the effectiveness ofboth.  through financing, permitting, or Federal land ownership.  system.  documents to satisfy both CEQA and NEPA.  using numbers 1 through 100 where 100 is the best possible condition.  for purposes of Amador County RTP Updates.  local projects in the STIP. Government Code.  2024. Amador Couty Regional Traisportation Plan; Drafi Techmical. Appendices  8    RTIP (Regional Transportation Improvement Program): Document adopted biennially by RTPAsto present transportation improvement funding nominations to Caltrans and the California Transportation RTP (Regional Transportation Plan): The transportation planning document, required by Section 65080 (et. seq.) of the State Government Code", directed at the achievement ofa coordinated and balanced' "regional transportation system" within the area oft responsibility oft 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 of1997, KOPP): SB 45 mandated major transportation reform legislation impacting many areas of transportation planning, funding, and development. Most specificallyi it combined numerous transportation "pots of money" into the STIP program and apportioned SPEIR (Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Report): CEQA requires that a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Report bc preparcd for an updatc to a "projcct",as defined under CEQA, ifonly minor changes are proposed ori if new information has become available that was not known at the time aj prior PEIR was certified. These provisions in CEQA allow for preparation ofa SSTAC (Social Services Transportation Advisory Council): The SSTAC is an advisory committee to the ACTC on matters pertaining to the transit needs oftransit dependent and transit disadvantaged persons. The SSTAC's input shall be considered in and made an integral part oft the Commission's annual "unmet transit needs" hearing and findings process. The composition of the SSTAC, the terms of SSTAC appointments, 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 thel Regional Transportation Plan( (RTP), the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and the Overall Work Program (OWP). The TAC consists of the County Director ofPublic Works, County Land Use Director, the City engineers, and planning directors ofe each of the cities within the county, or, in the case ofcities having no such technical staff, any other person designated to serve on behalf of that city, the Manager ofAT, the Manager oft the Amador County airport, a representative from Caltrans District 10, and the area Highway Patrol Commander. Other city, County and Caltrans staff members may attend and participate in TAC TDMCIramsportation 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 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 unmet 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, Califomia Goverment Code).  Commission.  funds 75% to the regions (RIP) and 25%0 to Caltrans (IIP).  Supplemental PEIR, for purposes ofroutine RTP Updates.  and precise responsibilities of the SSTAC are found in thel Public Utilities Code.  meetings. The TAC meets at least annually but no more than quarterly as needed.  shifting or spreading peak travel periods.  through lanes.  (2). Road And Highway Classifications  Local Roads: Local roads constitute the rural mileage not functionally classified as arterial or collector. 2. Provides for local circulation and connectivity within a community, as well as travel over relatively short  The rural local road system should have the following characteristics: 1.Serves primarily to provide access to adjacent land Major Collector Roads (Routes): Major collectors should:  distances between communities, as compared to collectors or arterial systems.  2034. Amador Couh Regional Transportation Plan, Draf Techmical. Appendices    I. 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 ofe 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 ofl higher classification In Amador County the' "Major Collector" system consists primarily of the major County roads and SR 104. 1. Be spaced at intervals, consistent with population density, to collect traffic from local roads and bring all 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 Principal Arterial Highway (Route): In Amador County, includes only State Route 88 and SR 495 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  3. Serve the more important intra-county travel corridors. Minor Collector Roads (Routes): These routes should: developed areas within a reasonable distance ofa collector road 2. Provide service to the remaining smaller communities 3. Link the locally important traffic generators with their rural hinterland.  high overall travel speeds, with minimum interference to through movement.  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 CMAQ(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 FLAP (Federal Lands Access Program): Thel 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 Dccisions Committec" comprised of FHWA, Caltrans, and local agency representatives through a cyclical, FTA (Federal Transit Administration): Thel 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 fort 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 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 IIP (Interregional Improvement Program): Under the STIP reforms of SB 45 the IIP is funded with 25°0 of State highway account revenues. They are programmed through the STIP consistent with Caltrans ITIP. PPM (Planning, Programming and Monitoring): PPM usually refers to aj percentage of STIP funds that may be used for "planning, programming, and monitoring" purposes. Under SB 45 RTPAS were given increased responsibility for programming better transportation projects for funding and then monitoring their  through a cyclical, competitive selection process administered by Caltrans.  other vehicles.  competitive selection process.  arterials, collectors, or local roads.  streets.  LTF(Local Transportation Funds):  Af form of TDA funding, which is derived from 14 cent of the state sales tax. successful construction according to clear milestones and cost estimates. 20244 Amador Count Regional Transportaton Plan, Draft Techuical. Appendices  10    RPA (Rural Planning Assistance): RPA funds are provided to rural counties out oft the Caltrans budget on an annual basis for purposes of carrying out transportation planning activities as approved in the annual RIP (Regional Improvement Program): Under the STIP reforms of SB 45, the! STIP now consists oftwo broad programs, the RIP and IIP. Thel RIP is funded from 75%0 of the new STIP funds, divided by formula among fixed county shares. Each county selects the projects to be funded from its county share andi 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 aj policy whereby these Federal funds may be exchanged for State dollars which can be used fora 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, SHOPP (State Highway Operation and Protection Program): A state program to rehabilitate and improve safety and operational characteristics on the SHS. SHOPP programs are noti included in the STIP and SP&R (State Planning and Research): SP&R funds are transportation planning funds generally available only to urbanized areas cities and çounties. Some SP&R funds may be made available to rural counties STA (State Transit Assistance Fund (also STAF): These are funds derived from the public transportation 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 CTC's statement ofintent 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 TDA (Transportation Development Act): A pool of funds from a 1/400 oft the 6°0 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 ifando onlyi if  OWP.  etc., (2) the STIP, (3) the SHOPP, (4) Caltrans Local Assistance, (5) etc.  are not counted against county minimums.  usually in the form of competitive grants for special purposes. account which are apportioned to counties for transit purposes.  eligible for funding in the STIP.  there are no reasonable unmet transit needs.  2024. Amador Comtr Regional Transportation Plan, Drafi Tecimical. Appendices    This page intentionally left blank  2024. Amador County Regional tramsportation Plan, Drafi Techmical. Appendices  12    Appendix C  Public Involvement Procedures for Transportation Planning  A6epdSepambwri,094 Amended.amuay-5.29A5 Amended April 6, 2023  Introduction  The Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) andi 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 ACTC's Public Involvement Procedures document is intended to give public officials, local agency staff persons, and the public information about how best toi include public participation in the regional transportation planning process. The Public Involvement Procedures contain the ACTC's current policies as well as implementation measures to improve public involvement in the transportation The federal government has provided seven planning factorsi in the Transportation Equities Actf fort the 21st Century. These factors are used tol help guide the ACTC's Public Involvement procedures.  planning process.  Support economic vitality, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and Increase safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized Increase accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of Enhance integration and connectivity oft thet tamporatonptemacosandbetwemnmoda,  efficiency. users.  life.  for people and freight.  Promote efficient system management and operation. Emphasize preservation of the existing system.  The ACTC maintains a long history of encouraging and facilitating public involvement in the planning process. The 2004 Public Involvement Procedures (amended in 2015 and againi in 2023) expands and clarifies this commitment. Itis the ACTC'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 Cout Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Techmcal Appendeey  13    necessary, to encourage participation in public meetings and to involve public input in all The ACTC's objective in developing the publici involvement process is tol be proactive, to provide timely public notice, to provide full public access to information, and to provide early and continuous Itis the ACTC'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 ACTC's desire that citizens of Amador County andi 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. Itis also the ACTC's goalt to provide adequate informationt to, and solicit input from, historically under-served communities within Amador County (i.e., elderly, minority  transportation planning decisions. opportunities for public input.  groups,' youth, disabled, and lower-income people).  Background  The regional transportation planning process was initiated by State law throughout California in 1972 (AB69). The ACTC was designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Amador County in that same year. A primary responsibility of the ACTCi ist to adopt and update the RTPf for the Amador County region ina accordance with State law. The ACTCisalso responsible, with city and County input, for determining the priorities for all proposed new transportation facilities on regional roads (State highways) showni int the RTP. The! highest priority projects are then submitted for State ort 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 andi implementation programs in support of the RTP and the RTIP. Included in these planning and implementation efforts, the ACTC has worked with Caltrans, the County, and the cities to maintain General Plan Circulation Elements for Amador  County and each oft the cities inside Amador County.  Related Regulations ISTEA/TEA2 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 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) succeeded ISTEA after September 30, 1997. TEA-21i is the federal legislation which authorizes: al balance of federal highway, highwaysafety, 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 thei initiatives established in ISTEA. It continues most of ISTEA's programs and policies including the necessity for  the Americans with Disabilities Act.  enhanced Public Involvement Procedures.  2024 Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan, Draft Technical. Appendices  14    The Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950-54962)  The Ralph M. Brown. Act governs the meetings and actions of governing boards ofl 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- 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'sright to address the agency, including regulations tol 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 abilityt to address the ACTC Due to time constraints, unscheduled comments by the public may be limited to five minutes in! length duringa anyACTCorcommiteer meeting, however, the agencyencourages 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  making or advisory.  and its committees.  will then present the comments to the ACTC or the applicable committee.  Americans with Disabilities (ADA)  The Ameriçans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) stipulates involving the community, particularly those with disabilities, in the development andi improvement of services. All events held forp programs or projects with federal aid that are open to the general public must be made accessible to everyone, ACTCisincompliance with the ADAI byl having accessible formats, publicmeetings, and publich hearings. ACTC also consults with individuals from the disabled community and by including representatives from or for the disabled and transportation disadvantaged on the ACTC's Special Services  including the disabled.  Transportation Advisory Council. Title VIa and Environmental. Justice (EI)  Under Title' VI and related: statues, eachi federal agencyi isi required to ensure that noj personi is excluded from participation, denied thel benefit of, ors 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 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 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  activities are federally funded or not.  and community factors in decision-making.  2024. Amador Counh Regional Transportation Plan; Draf Technical. Appendices  15    intended to identify ways to reduce adverse impacts, offer alternatives to the project and disclose to 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 publici 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 onr minority and In April 1997, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued the DOT Order on Environmental Justice to Address Environmental Justiçe 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 In December 1998, the FHWA issued FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations that requires the FHWA to implement the principles of the DOT Order 5610.2 and E.O. 12898 by incorporating environmental justice principles in all FHWA The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a memorandum Implementing TitleVI 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 int 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:  the public whya a particular project is approved.  low-income populations.  DOT existing programs, policies, and activities.  programs, policies and activities.  Toa avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations andl low- To_ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the To prevent the denial of, reductioni in, or significant delayi in ther receipt of benefits by minority and  income populations.  transportation decision-making process.  low-income populations.  2024. Amador Counh Regional transportation Plan, Draf Tecimical. Appendices  16    The ACTC's Public Involvement Procedures are one means of helping to achieve environmental, justice, through outreach activities that make the ansportation-panning process responsive to the needs of alls segments of the Amador Countypopuhatonindluding those possiblyimpactedi bya anyt transportation planning or funding decision. For example, outreach activities included in the ACTC's Public Involvement Procedures include provisions for additional public notification tools, such as participationinradio television programs, display ads, and workshops. As another example, ACTC will provide transit service to ACTC and ACTC committee meetings upon request to serve the disabled or As the RTPA serving Amador County, the ACTC 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. ACTC 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. ACTC will also use this method to evaluate whether or nota particular population of people are receiving their fair share of transportation projects resulting in Native Americans are also protected under Title Via 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, andt the Buena' Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians. ACTCstrives to develop government-to-governmentworkingrelationships with each of these tribes. ACTC directly contacted with all three tribal governments for input when developing the 2004 RTPI Update. ACTChas worked with representatives of the Jackson Rancheria in development of the 2004 RTP Update. Representatives of the Jackson Rancheria have been appointed to theA ACTC's Technical Advisory Committee to assist ACTC in promoting environmental justice to maintain and  transportation disadvantaged individuals.  appropriate improvements to their neighborhoods, communities, or regions.  improve the environment, the economic equality and community character.  ACTC Committees:  The following is a description of each of the ACTC's current standing committees. Separate, special task, "ad-hoc" committees may be established from time to time to accomplish specific purposes. All ACTCmeetings: and allA ACTCstanding committee or ad-hoc committee meetings are open to thep 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 ACTCTAC. In2 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  2024Amador Counti Regional Transportation Plau, Drafi Techmical. Appendices  7    Caltrans staff members may attend and participate in TACI 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 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC): The SSTACI is an advisory committee to the ACTC on matters pertaining to the transportation needs of transit dependent and transportation 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 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 Personnel Committee: Each year the ACTC Chairman appoints two Commissioners to serve on the Personnel Committee. The Personnel Committee conducts annual review of management employees. Theya also meet to review and provide recommendations tot thei full Commission about other personnel 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 mitigationfees. The committee consists ofone representative from each participating city, the County, 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 ACTC Ad Hoc committees. As amended into the policies below, iti is the Commission's intention that all advisory committees will be appointed by the ACTC and will provide regular feed back to the Commission regarding the task it  projects for the next year'sOWP.  Public Utilities Code.  Board about agency administration or management.  matters as warranted.  and the ACTC.  has been assigned to advise upon.  ACTC Public Involvement Policies and Implementation Program  Policies:  1. Noy person shall be denied participation in ACTC meetings and activities unless specific instruction 2. The ACTCisa" "public service" agency which maintains an' "open-door" policy withr respect to public involvement. The ACTCoffice is open for public visitation during normal working hours andr normal working days. Citizens are encouraged to visit the ACTC offices and ask questions or express concerns regardingi issues associated with regionaltransportation plans, programs, or projects. All  to the contrary are provided by ACTCI legal counsel.  citizens willl be treatedi in a courteous and professional matter by ACTC staff.  2024. Amador Comh" Regional Transportation. Plan; Draf Technical. Appendices  18    3. The ACTC maintains an "open-file" policy wherein all documents in the ACTC 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 ACTC's legal counsel. All ACTC public documents that are requested for public review shall be viewed in the presence of a member of ACTC staff. No original ACTC documents or files should leave the ACTC office. ACTC may recoup actual costs for providing copies of file documents per public request. "Loaner copies" of ACTC 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 4. Near the beginning of every ACTC meeting, an agenda item shall include "public matters not otherwise on the agenda". The ACTC Chairman uses this time to allow any member of the public to address the ACTC on any subject. This may be limited to five minutes at the Chairman's discretion. ACTC discussion of such items should be imited. No ACTC decisions can be made on any item not specified on the agenda; public matters not on the agenda that require a decision 5. Any member of the public may place an item on the ACTC agenda for consideration. Suchi items should be presented to the ACTC Executive Director no later than one week priort to the respective ACTC meeting date. The ACTC generally meets on thef first Thursday of each month. Agendaitems 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  document that is requested. The request shall not be denied.  mayl be agendized for decision at a future ACTC meeting.  depending on the item's complexity.  6. AIIA ACTC meetings willl be heldi in ADA compliant facilities.  7. The ACTC does not, at the present time, perceive a need for bilingual services. Ifarequesti tismade forl language or interpretive services, the ACTCwille endeavor to provide these services as necessary 8. Any meeting of the ACTC or an ACTC 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 ACTC meeting time and place or not. Allr notices of publici meetings or hearings shall include the following:  to fulfill the intent of complete publici involvement in public policy matters.  Date, time, and place of public meeting/hearing General explanation oft 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 ACTC will provide thorough background reports and listed recommendations for all meeting agenda items. Extra copies of the complete agenda report willl be available at every ACTC meeting. Members of the public can request to receive copies of the complete agenda or any part of the  2024. Amador Counh Regional Transportaton, Plan, Draf Teclmical. Appendices  19    agenda. A fee may be charged for the ACTC to recoup direct costs in providing extra agenda 10. ACTC staff willr maintain ar mailing list of persons who desire to be kept informed about progress or activity associated with any ACTC 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 11. ACTCcomplies with RTP guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines when the guidelines recommend or require a specific public meeting, hearing, and notification 12. ACTC 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 works should conclude withi 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 anyf final decision is made. All ad hoc advisory committee's will be appointed by the ACTC and will provide regular feedback to the Commission regarding the 13. Meeting agendas andi 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 ACTCto! be provided by mail before the subject meeting. Thatrequest isvalidf for the calendar year in which iti is filed and must be renewed following. January 1 of each year. The ACTC may establish a fee for mailing the agenda or agenda packet, which fee will not 14. Public hearings willl be held prior to a decision point as af formal means to gather citizen comments and positions from all interested parties for public record and input into the decision-making process. ACTChearings 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. ACTC will accept prepared comments from the public during the period between the notice. andh hearing date. These comments willl be considered part oft the public record. Also, during this period, ACTC will accept questions and provide clarification on issues  material per public request.  project(s) oft their concern.  requirements pertaining thereto.  advisory task it has been assigned with.  exceed the cost of providing the service.  raised by the public.  2024. Amador Count 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 16. ACTC 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 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 18. AmadorTransit (AT)should provide for public notices to be visually displayed on ATI 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, ACTC shall include a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of such comments in its final plan and  public workshops.  business or particular plans, programs, or projects.  information intended to make public outreach and involvement easier.  TIP.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan, Draf Techmical. Appendices  21    This page intentionally left blank  2024. Amador Counh Regional Transportation Plan, Draf Techmical. Appendices  22    -  c  -  s  oe dder S 95 A da      NoagE sid 988R98ARR  8 4 4    4    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 Preventionand 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 Alpine County 2020 Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by Green Dot Transportation, Solutions 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,  Compatibility Plan for Westover Field,2019  2020  CA,2023  Amador County General Plan; Planning Department, October 2016 Consultants, Inc., Tahoe City, CA, adopted by ACTC February, 2013 Amador Countywide Pedestrian. and Bicycle Transportation Plan, October 2017  Amador Countylong-Range Transit Development Plan; Final Report, prepared by LSC Transportation  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., Amador County RegionalTraffic 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, Amador County Traffic Mitigation Fee Nexus Plan; 2000 -2025, prepared by the Amador County Amador Transit TDA Triennial Performance Audit.prepared by Moore and Associates, November  CH2M Hill Inc., August 2015  Inc., Tahoe City, CA, adopted by ACTC, June 2014 Transportation Commission, March, 2005  2022.  2024. Amador" Counly Regional Transportation Plan; Draf Techmical. Appendices  26    Calaveras County Regional Transportation Plan 2021-2041; Final Report, prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants INC. 2690 Lake Forest Road, STE CTahoe City CAS 96145 October, 2021 Caltrans District 10 District System Management Plan, prepared by the California Department of California Environmental Quality Act/CFQA/Guidelines prepared byt the California Natural Resources California 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, prepared by the California Transportation California 2024 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, prepared by the California Transportation California Transportation Plan 2050:prepared by the California Department of Transportation,  Transportation, Stockton, CA, September, 2012 Agency, Sacramento, CA, amended February, 2010 Commission, Sacramento, CA, January 2017 Commission, Sacramento, CA, January 2024 Sacramento, CA, February 2021  California Road System- Functional Classification Map, 2023Caltrans ntormation-pertormance/functional- classification  ntpsl/sotca.ovproosrams/research innovation: system informationofficeathighwaysistem: California Traffic Census Program- Caltrans, 2021 htps/dotca.gov/programs/trafic  operations/census Council, September 2019  Central Sierra Zero-Emission Vehicle Readiness Plan, Prepared for Tuolumne County Transportation Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, California State Transportation Agency,July EIDorado County Regional Transportation Plan; 2010 - 2030; prepared by and for the EI Dorado Regional Planning Handbook, Al 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 Proiections, 2010-2060, State of California, Department of Finance, Report P-1 (County), Sacramento, CA, January, 2023 Stateand 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 Counh' Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Techmical Appendices  2021  Transportation Commission, Placerville, CA, adopted November, 2010    Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change -J January1,2022 and 2023, State of California, Department of Finance, E-1, Sacramento, CA, May, 2023 StreetSaver MTC's Pavement Management System, htps/pmatestavecen  Transportation Development Act Statutes and California Codes of Regulations, prepared by Caltrans, 2020 United States Census, prepared by the United State of America Census Bureau, Washington,  Sacramento, CA, updated. July 2018 District of Columbia, January, 2020  2024. Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Techical Appendices  28    Appendix F  RTP Public Workshop Analysis  ACTC Initial RTP Workshop #1: Top Priority Goal  Ranking Poll  SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH SUPPORT COMMUNITY: CONNECTIVITY  ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY & COMMON: SENSE PLANNING  REDUCE CONGESTION IMPROVE, /MAINTAIN: SAFETY  PRESERVE/MAINTAIN: EXISTING LOCAL STREET& ROADS  FUNDING  ACTC Initial RTP Workshop #1: Combined Goal  Weighting  SUPPORTI ECONOMIC GROWTH SUPPORT COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY  ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY& COMMON: SENSE PLANNING  REDUCE CONGESTION IMPROVE /MAINTAIN SAFETY  PRESERVE/MAINTAINI EXISTING LOCAL STREETS & ROADS  FUNDING  2024.4 Amador County Regional Transportation. Plan; Draft Techical 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 countsy were acquired in order to validate and calibrate the base year model. In addition, beginningi gin2011, ACTC authorized development of atraffic count data base that could be used as a resource by ACTC, its member agencies, and the development community. Development oft this datal base entailed harvesting intersection turn-movement and roadway segments counts from allt 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 beingt 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 (e.g. LOS "A",LOS" "B",LOS "C",etc.). Based on these roadway characteristics and threshold capacities, aseries of Excel spreadsheets containing various formulas is used to compute LOS fors 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 traffici it is actually carrying under existing conditions and is anticipated to carryin 20years. Ifa 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 roadwayvolumesi identifiedinTable: 1 to determine ifany related threshold capacities would be exceeded. Ifa 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 ACTC's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.  2024.Amador County Regional Transportation. Plan; Draft Tech hre al. Appendices  30    Level of Service analysis for roadway segmentsi is based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Operational Methodology and analyzed under average-daily conditions. Approximately 144 roadway segments were analyzed fort the 2015 RTP Update (see Table 1).  Calculating Intersection LOS  Similar to roadway segments, the ane-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 tog graphically illustrate the appropriate LOS grade for all roadways and intersections.  conditions.  2024. Amador Countr Regional Transportation Plan; Drafi Technical. Appendices  31    This page intentionally left blank.  2024. Amador Counh Regional Transportation Plan; Draf Techmical. Appendices  32    Appendix H  City and County Local Road Improvement Projects LOCAL PROJECTS-NELISIBLE FOR REGIONAL FUNDING UNLESS AMENDED, APPENDIX-G  Rovenue Local Impact  2024Cost Estimata 30ns 10501 30255 y $1739 y 10374 y :0259 1541 10279 *: 10037 *N, 30451 may 32175 4731 34559 10751 30325 10-113 sam 30353 11 30777 30179 30300 37839 11225 33305 30179 y 30315 10753 33713 0073 318616 . 73, # pAIC, : 33155 "V.y 3139? *0, 10183 3391: SIEIs 10505 32131 3- 3019 10423 $2380  Other Sources'  Location akus Cost Susac Conassn Jansen aanshaern6 Josuon JaceenGatazd kcen scutns Brasdwsy Jac31 Saai3) Jasason Summist Muderse A3-AA: Bves Mnaorciy Pesicits Mscerciy immganalligl nucercay sr AMCA-MASNA Sut Stakane sachispus P4R4 ghtcl-vat Suint Cicak aagarRs Nn Reca. R SAton GseataR isnanesds Sroos Kaci bubcn on uconsncios: SustrCiaas oyins Aem 3A4pbadoms Suarcin CamwGSiers Drs StGA S:arsas :: oait nava3 3::3 Mr:3 lens Easlaa3 Srnlussal >e3aai lang FarayGma EAtnsinoELNsa 3aina an Frgez LAS ina has Su-atmaChshs 31 Sncrsmant Si Srsoras ima Sosaynn  3R15Fra Ione Svitybmsk konsa 1813 Snelsyla sone Moiainsas Sn frans sA1 10S1 134 IEnE Dacsanu hem EMersisioPsN 3h4 iens EMorisis om. mos Suss Baasam Kns Wstmen R3sa lon Wasw ws Secas Fvrvi 3 Pwy  Fun ea Fmaa si  Perars, Mro4 ENS: 5a 9X8 Cour, EFIS Seana iron2M9a1 11 Coun. AEFae a2150N73 Coun. NCsg Cui, Bamrs Coucis pA9lahcs gsACAX-3 Bmuner PaeaVSsl  PAScILss2on  Deseriptha VmIs Wdsa: Shualdais rasurais ste Ada ur EMicr sCinlks CSVE :: siAgPA3ONA. 7 2 Jivelopmeni Resdshssiaten RosGishaDtaata Sub-Totr MsA1X trCEN a CXXA1K 2E7.Aa5 3 asirarg Sup-Tou sesirvsso lanier AEBICISUSH Assentact sests SN. isndords Caisnsa RasActiokaat- AI: ss cnoss SASEINEE w:eas: MG birsr D Bs agrt ressingats Pufssconstaicn MAC Cvarlsy -25. :S1 MADVaAy $7073 50) sempais lvclsnel onag wsensuchon onu nows SaruNon Addcuo suia sdeasa Samadrans siren: ching quils cash: stcrason sciighlng Cus ddcu T8 dowA dan irset ghing. andif epinng Rana7-aINt imans E vagrer istry so10-sic: u gular sdzvak snt vut oh'ng Ginsia asdds d : Man ours. Dut Meslighing: naN ASICNES OIAICABEE asva  MsS Gords Mgrode ogmort PA 1.332 w3R: 191 ksdgeni) agrois rpert: a Sipansa 90.  TimeFrama' (1.000s) $81 MUTA Fess  Sub-Telal  iena Wasaan:s aAtAN. HScKL a20 remsDaeaats  Bub-Teta  Sub-Total  Burenh Fgen : s sdlors spmgvsshl 034.393379 seasiaks MMMAwIP norane 1 * M  2024.4 Amador Cour Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Techmical. Appendices  33    Conty Bamlues Couniy MawAPanatraw County 2e34asl2a Caaty Buney Visun NV32400 County SunkMARUS 27 Runchanso Cax. GeuNy Esb PAEEEaPADGIOT Cauny 2ut-W74/Calea Couny Oakn.s m90ia013 Ctunty CaSayISsaey 137 24 Cauns Canancha FhsyoemN Crunky Camssn Pay Ceunty Canacig Fny 294111 Sounky CemschResd D0msn Douniy Congners Roou 33432 Sosniy Cancsha Aaset 03 9x33 County Comatcs Rend: cimPaA: avaLR. ugaa Canly CamncRasus Sempa13ei7 Ceany Coranchss Psadi A AasvaLn RGaPhI10 Roega Causy Camancha Ruas PMD9M4? Counly Carbsadale d Dounty Carvondafle SMaCueA Gunty CwsandalorN IrmaPwoDw3S Caunly Cherbstca RCn7OCB2S: Cony Chas Geveyerd MaP.0D:077 Caant: Cinasfndi Icm AM0Om392 COsky Ciateas sWS CMARy dank, GteaRens 6319 Cauny Gieson Rasc 245133 Caunty CasAinsla County Caak 24,100310 Couny Camanfiosalun; PCB: 12mMovaaC upce CuNe Cnadin? PA:0010143 Cosny Fatomna Rs OyCs Sonty Fadletown Rdi PM00101 163 County FweMeDr PM County ForestH(Rd CMPMDCL11 ounty GrechRd PMS 0to0ld cR CONY Hale Ra; Fiddeiown R4 Bacnty Hale Road 39ry Ceek ounty Hale Riodiromp PMO 0lod 28 unty Jackson Ga:e PM 09 County Jacksony Valey ROMGasP PMO01722 CAinly LambertR Rd fraa PMO 001032 Caunty Latroberd L4ol Indian Creek Couny Latrcberd GCawnes Counly Lauoberd ImPMSJDS6) Cesnly LoarenceRd Lorenu idLatobo ounty NewCheags Ra "aPMO u4 NYRunchRd County OlRoye Rd County Oks SacioRd County Oneto Rdv West Enda as Shake RuigeRd Coumy OsvomR Rd Courly Oust, RaudomPMOOPOI  Mcaninns 5 5m) EEARENYXNN: aaAIGaS Anrovas sesad's Baerog Vooa's latscronk iagrorsmna ea Ralarasial mmen: EAiaoaN: Curvas mprssamnt Cuna. -5391065 atan steala Imgrcvairsais Duns agronvs t Cunas mghraanie wcan Sous GraRg ewvok Feplsciraca Ueyada Lgad2 nATMoleas Usyude aest: mpcvaaaIs Brcgaçucet Bje:apsesrat Raagant PouNNE vegrcePAE Dspsen Aaplasasrige Vpgrade Bndge Gd' RaRM SM reek pgrade PM 05114 pgrace? PMv 11 OK5 nlersectioni improv: Newb brige Lpgade ardras pgrade pgradel MARPMS00330 Snogo vardRat indge Ses Mew UpgradePM 901533 ragen metait beims N Intersection mpr Mhs t: Spgrade Drainage mps Dranage! lacity Upgade aganst Sooo( (2mj intersectoni Bndgen metalc Deamg guadrat Upgrade  ATVy 20111 5yr M9 ADV: 06D7 (2y s0023 3X $4270 1-3y 3003 (AMly 0075 ANVy 0037 ADyr 4975 AE0y 33075 A3Dy 3975 yr 9775 PAy I018: 3y a0r5 1*419 SC 2-3lyr 31418 1A30y :o0s PAIGi 0Mi 33y 20654 #AIDyr 30014 PA30y 339 #Ay 303A4 y 31947 MAS 3243 (123y 233 PATOY 3013 pA3y 31s PAMy 20747 A7y 19037 Vz0y 30149 PA30y 3023 ADy 3:13 PAIGS 10070 A: 3 312019 PADY 39671 20s 1932 13Y 32395 'Asy 3019 30 34361 P3 31013 30 10-35 107 35354 fiy 3320 AA: 019 4N 34915 ATO 33380 AR 304 My 35A0 A39Y 32335 AY M7 "Iy soass Y $042: #A2y 33075 y 3u45 !-ENy 3043  Preyecisw were approvedlorp programmngy uoughz 2024F RTIPIRSIP reinguashment lundngiorn thss secton IBOOyRIMF Oc 1B0by CaRans  2024. Amador County Regional Trasportation Plan; Drafi Technical. Appendices  34    County PGI /VokcanoR Rdlrom PM001030 Counly PG/VokanoRd County PGVRd/Poneer County PGVRd/Pgneert hom PM001025 Counly PGNolcanoRd BN MhtchelM Mne Rd County Pioneer Rdvolcano County Quarz M RGE @F Ranchena ands Slala creeks Newb brdges County Quartz Mt RGE lromp PM0010506 County Rams HomG Gradol froms Shake Rudge tov Voicano Vpgrode Counly Rege Road e Tomal Lars Counly Shake Ridge Raf froms Sutler Creekic 1os SR38 Caunty Shako Radge Rd PneG Guich Ro Caunty Shenandoah Rd fromoimy Wo oFsdielown Rd 1002 Upgrade mofBelRJ County Shenandoah SchooiR Rd/S Shendandoan Rd Counly Slonor RG liomp PM0010291 Counly Stony Creek/ Buenay VistaR Rd County Stony Creek Rdirom PMOOto1 1017 County Sutter. lone Rd a Jackass Creek County Sutter Creek Rd @ Sutter Crock Counly Sulter Creck Rdt trom PMO010 16 County Suier Creek Rdk komP PM00101 117 County Suter Creek RdM trom PMI 102101 115 County Tabeaud RalE Chnion Rd Counly Tabeaud RdiromA ACWA Canalto Timber Rigo Rd Reconstruct Counly Tabeaud Rdirom Imbar Redge 10SR38 Counly TonziRd from PMO01054 Counly Tumer Rd County Tumerrd lomP PM0010222 County Tylerrd County Tylerid lomPMODIOSCS County West Canton County Whams Road County Wilow Croek Ra fromSR 1610SRI 124 County-63 Latrobe Roado Corndor  Remove obstacles Bndger replacement intersecton improvemenis Upgrade Bndge mbgr Replacet brdge quarry Upgrade Dranage Upgrade Intersechoni improvements intersactionl Upgrade intersection! Improvements Upgade Bnige/Cuiverts mmps Replscobrdge Overiay Uograde Guardrae Intersechon Upgrade Upgrade Fourn newb bndges Upgade Bndgen metal beam guxdi ral Vpgrade Upgradet ton ivolanes Guardral upgade Binor pavement repars culverts maand overtay andbndge replaceinent  (20)y $0783 (-20)yr 31046 "-20y $0075 "A201y $1367 1--20jyr $0100 1"-20y $1120 -20)yr $1494 -201y $3779 -20lyr $2151 (-20)y 50000 (*-20)y $14.939 (*20)yr $0149 (-20)y 51494 ("-20jy7 $0299 -20)y $1494 (*-20). $0149 (*-20). $7469 ("-20). $0149 ("-20)y $0223 (-20)yr $0639 (-20)y $8739 (*20) $0045 (-20), $0149 (-20)yr $2589 20)yr $0149 (*-20)yt $0-103 !*-20)yr $1658 [20)y7 50139 ("-20)y 50015 (*-20)yr $3779 (*-20), $1429 1-20)yr 10075 (-20)yr $3547 (-15) $3196 Sub-Tota 5134115 Total $176180  2024. Amador Cou Regional Transportaton, Plan; Drafi Technical. Appendices  35    Appendixl  Average Annual Percent Truck Traffic  Route  Location  Percentage Trucks * 7.70 7.60 6.10 9.20 7.10 7.20 5.60 5.70 8.20 8.00 9.44 8.61 7.39 2.30 5.91 5.50 7.00 5.80 7.50 7.50 7.51 6.19 6.40 4.19 6.12 9.00 8.40 8.80 5.00  SR16 SR16 SR26 SR49 SR49 SR49 SR49 SR49 SR49 SR49 SR49 SR88 SR 88 SR88 SR88 SR 88 SR 88 SR 88 SR88 SR88 SR104 SR 104 SR 104 SR 104 SR 104 SR1 104 SR1 124 SR124 SR124  JCT. RTE 124SOUTH CENTRAL HOUSE, JCT. RTE 49 JCT.RTE. 88 JACKSON, SOUTH. JCT. RTE 88 JACKSON, SOUTH. JCT. RTE 88 MARTELL, NORTH. JCT. RTE 88 WEST MARTELL, NORTH JCT. RTE. 88WEST SUTER CREEK, JCT. RTE 104 WEST CENTRAL HOUSE, JCT RTE 16WEST CENTRAL HOUSE, JCT RTE 161 WEST AMADOR/EL DORADO COUNTYLINE JCT.RTE. 1241 NORTH JCT. RTE. 1241 NORTH WEST. JCT. RTE. 104 JCT. RTE. 49 JCT. RTE. 49 PINE GROVE, RIDGE ROAD PINE GROVE, RIDGE ROAD JCT RTE 26, RED CORRAL RD JCT RTE: 26, RED CORRAL RD IONE, JCT. RTE. 124 NORTH IONE, JCT. RTE. 124 NORTH IONE, JCT. RTE. 124 SOUTH JCT. RTE. 88 JCT. RTE. 88 SUTTER CREEK, JCT. RTE. 49 JCT.RTE. 88, IONE SOUTH IONE, WEST. JCTF RTE 104 IONE, WEST. JCT RTE 104  2024. Amador Couh Regional Transportaton Plan; Draft Technical. Appendices  36    This page intentionally left blank.  2024. Amador Counh Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical. Appendices  37    AppendixJ  RTP Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures; System-Wide Alternative Ranking  Performance Measures; Analysis of System-Wide Alternatives  System-Wide Plan Alternatives (1)No Project (2) Expand Existing Highways (3)E Emphasize Local Road Rehab. & Maint. (4) Implement Multi-Modal irculation Improvement Program (HA) Financially Unconstrained (4B) Financially Constrained  Performance Measures Functional Classification Low Low  Project Phasing-ability to Pavement Condition  Improved Evacuation Average Routes Low Medium  Daily Traffic Low Low  deliver projects over time Low Low  Index Low Low  High Low  High Low  High Low  High Low  High Low  Low Medium  Low High  Low High  Low High  Low High  "High"means the alternative generally does satisfy the Desired Outcome. "Medium" means that the alternative somewhat satisfies thel Desired Outcome. "Low" means that the alternative generally does nots satisfy the Desired Outcome.  2024. Amador" Counly Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Technical. Appendices  38    Appendix K  RTP Project Criteria and Performance Measures- Project Prioritization List  2024 RTP Project Prioritization Prolect Prioritization: Evsluation Criteria Performsnes Measures, and Ranking ("lighs 5, Medium =3. Low 1)  ena Fanommance ures Class Phase Route  Lsehsa Sutar Crac  Projaa Dae riptise Church St Rogey View Drvel loRge Froaugs Acede Wast)) ysonturtana Fromlage Road (Was) Dma) Suliar Crask bmts Cau Jusao jiom3 Slcny Creek Roost Wze Rarchi Andor City M3 3reat Panng a2 Rugul Cimae Ropt) 22155 Junly County-e Gagka. Suchaye Crvate 30:60 its lonAr Sa County-253 sipra 30371 County-20 CisehG Cylmmi Aasdor Linais() Dauny-l3 Oid ador 4y wilol 19) County-s dgai PardaroseA Couol Sapis tdge sranage Radie 50377 Crej Vancanno? Mao Omvas 50154 Honi ten Cuitan Resesi County Cou County-z County-ss Gauntysa Cawpd u u-52 Ficcialgusa Ponda: Casiy? Cou-3 Ca  CatEst. Condition! vera Dally Functional Project Evacustion 10742 44 12,407 Major C. CON pnmary 29 $3 co0 28 6,700 MinorA! CON prma. 56 12.407 Major C. ÇON primary 27 2174! 13 4.351 Major C CON primary 27 1os0 60 12.407 Majorc. CON primary 27 :osl 43 7.751 Major C CON iprimary 26 12500 33 2,500 Minor A CON prmary 10895 01 4707 Major C CON prmary 27 1,877 Minor Al CON primary 54 7.751 Major C CON primary 3S 535 Major C CON primary 21 1.162 Maorc CON primary 37 3.870 Major C CON prmary 3D 2,855 Major C CON primay 10523 34 3.633 Major C CON allernate to! 44 2.505 Minor A CON primary sascol 43 1.877 Minor A CON primary 1162 Majorc CON primay 30325) 00 1132 Majorc CON prmary 1152 Major C CON prmary 22 1.183 Major C CON prmay 33 2.355 Major C CON prmary 3 3.570 Major C CON pnmay. 1,152 Major C CON prmary 101 173! 35 1,152 Major C CON primary 45 1.365 Majorc CON pnmary 10310 40 2390 Major C CON primary S1 E4. 43 1982 Major C ÇON mary 28: 41 1.182 Major C.i CON primary  Counly-27 rçai lce scer yenee GokdR Roadie y  29  26 25 25 21 23 3  ddetcan Rosdi fror lala Roa17 soBcci 32300  RoudE Esst) Dneto Ressiman 3740 32 1.162 Major C CON primary  22 22 22  cod) Camancia? arsans 3 s23 57 4707 Majorc CON prmary Catamm. Rens cihi B77 53 3.370 Majorc CON pnmary  Codik hina 31513 osa) iram R 24) 3100 Cusn: Srce a: ceits  21 21  e 44 3102  636 Major C CON 1.182 Major C. CON primary  irgn 5A3 Sonienesa 10924 45 1.1:2 Major C. CON pnmary  VR Mapre Mujor : sciar ato 40  2024Amador Count Regional Transportation Plan; Draft Techmcal. Appendices    Counly-9 Shaka Riçe Rcad frony Wageny Whssip Onyei tos96 Fernndgas Roed) County- Maw VoRanch Rosd Cordor [lrem Çiry 30325 sitloPM15) County-55 Shansndesh Rosd lircms Sisneri Ropdi W)10 31177 Oshruin, Rord) Suilar Crsak Gophsi Fiatz Road- bians Susell locey lmas 12500 Couniy-52 datcun Read(ion QuE) Mouatan Roed erhioPM52) County-so Cemaacha Roadlirom Resarvci Entancalo Rasarysbon Roady Couniy-250 Comancha Pnrhwsy Norta flrem? 7w15lo Lshaviaw Dnvalaest)) Counly-2 Cimoz Rosdt firemo Choss Rozdlo $RB3) 3ici Counly-52 Ftolalon Readti (lroms Shanandoah RoadloPhi 31650 30) Couniy-1 MawYcrk, Ranch? Posad Corndart (ircm PMi51 30305 Coventry Court) Suller Cioak Suter) Hi Road- Eurekar ResdiodidRcge Rood Suta: Crsak Suitark IonaRosd- SR491oianlord Surasi County-s5 Saenandoohs Rosdi lkcm PM07510S Slaner 52035 Rondw)) Plymcun Snenandosh Road- lom Rcundeboutlocly S1300 amts County-16 Tabasud Roadii licm PN4720HWY 20) 31100 County-74 Mchigan Bar Roadi liotmo Carbondals Resdio 50902 sR1 104) Counly-l Navy York Rench Road Cordert (ircmo Cowanbry 30347 Counto adge Road) S Sacremenioir iomh bizrhario Jackson Sultar Cipak Sullar, Malr Road- Mans SIM 1o5 Eureka Rosd Couniy-90 Comoncha Read! tirom Rezarvaton Rondto 31181 Jacksonv Vailay Rood) Counly-250 Comancha Parkway? Moith( (ircmo Couniy Lingio $0325 PMI5) Suitaro Cisak Bryion DwB-0asAS9l05 Sullerl MMRosd County-2 Camar Roadjirom Radga Rosdloc Chasa Road) s0s50 County-52 Fadletown Road from? Pendarosso Drvalo 52399 ShalaR Radge Road) Suller Croek Chuch Suesi- Monsile lociyhmis Plymcuth Olas Sacramanto Read- Clyk kmisi loLatcbe S7c00  60 1,162 Mgjor C CON ipnmery 30 1946 Major C CON prmary 55 3,870 Mejor C CON pnmary 2.080 Major C CON oamary 39 2,500 Major C CON allernata 20 $0728 55 1,982 Mepr C CON pamsry 19 $1199 55 1.844 Msjorc CON pamary 50325 39 2.855 Mejorc CON pnmary 82 1,982 Major c CON pamary 55 1,945 Major C COM pamary 30405 27 1,000 Miajor C CON recem 31500 86 4,000 Local COM prmary 98 3,870 Major C CON pamary 80 3,870 Major C. CON pamary 58 2.080 Majorc CON pomary 71 1.945 Major C CON pnmary so010 53 3,500 Majorc COM recom 88 1,844 Mgjor C CON pamary 80 2.355 Majprc CON pamary  20 20 20 $39.629 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 13 13  508 53  29  Miajor C COM allernsie 19  or  57 50113 31  Mgjorc CON pnmary Major C CON roed  lona  mor  31200 38 55 47 30375  Msjoro C CON road Major C. CON silernalal 15 527 Major C. CON prmary 55 2,500 Mgjor c CON rosd 1.745 Minor.c CON lpnmary  Fiynouth Migins Svoal- rem Roundaboul boctyh hmts 30.100 73 1.200 Minor.c. CON primary  2024. mador Counh Regional Transportation Plan; Draf Technical. Appendices  41    This page intentionally left Blank.  2024. Amador Comn Regional Transponation Plan; Draf Techical Appendices  42    2024  Amador County  Regional  Transportation Plan  AMADOR COUNDTRAN SPOR  OMMISSION  ACTC    This page left intentionally blank.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    Amador County Regional Transportation Plan  Administrative Draft  May 2024  Prepared By:  The Amador County Transportation Commission  COMMISSION MEMBERS Patrick Crew, County of Amador Steve McLean, City of Jackson John Plasse, Citizen at Large Susan Bragstad, City of Amador City Richard Forster, County of Amador Dan Riordan, City of Sutter Creek  COMMISSION STAFF John Gedney, Executive Director Terri Yakesh, Administrator Cindy Engel, GIS Coordinator Felicia Bridges, Administrative Analyst  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    This page left intentionally blank.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    TAsisoR CONTEATS  CHAPTER /SECTION I. INTRODUCTION  PAGE 8 9 12 14 14 19 19 19 19 20 20 23 23 24 25 29 29 30 33 .37 .37 39 40 40 40 42 44 44 46 46 47 48 48 49 49 2  1. Authority and Organization. 2. RTP Update - Purpose and Need. 3. Environmental Setting. 4. Regional Transportation System.. 5. Population And Demographics. II. PLANNING PROCESS. 1. The 2024 RTP Update. 2. Public Involvement. 3. Interagency and Tribal Consultation 4. Coordination With Other Plans.  5. Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Report  III. EXISTING CONDITIONS. 1. Regional Roadways. 2. Local Streets and Roads. 3. Transit. 4. Aviation.. 5. Pedestrian /E Bicycle 6. Goods Movement - Rail/Trucking. 7. Air Quality. 8. Safety 9. Emergency Preparedness. 10. Intelligent Transportation Systems.. Iv. FUTURE CONDITIONS. 1. Introduction, 2. Assumptions 3. Population.. 4. Land Use. . Regional Roadways. 6. Locals Streets and Roads. 7. Public Transit. 8. Aviation. 9. Pedestrian / Bicycle. 10. Goods Movement - Rail/Trucking. 11. Alternative Strategies 12. Air Quality.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    V. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS. 1. Introduction. 2. Alternatives. 3. Analysis.. VI. POLICY ELEMENT.. 1. Introduction.  51 51 51 52 .55 56 55 56 56 56 56 59 59 59 60 61 65 65 65 69 77 87  2. Policy Changes Since The 2015/ Re-adopted 2020RTP. 3. Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Measures Preserve/Maintain existing local streets and roads. Encourage efficiency and Common-Sense Planning. Improve Safety and Reduce Congestion  VII. ACTION ELEMENT 1. Introduction. 2. Regional Project Listing 4. Annual Work.. VIII. FINANCIAL ELEMENT. 1. Introduction.  Project Criteria and Performance Measures.  2. Funding Opportunities and Projected Revenues. 3. List of Regional Roadway Improvements. 4. Summary of Costs, Revenues, and Shortfalls  5. Financial Strategy  MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REPORT (Separate Document)  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    EwsronBlaupgs  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Organizational Structure. Environmental Setting.  11 13 15 27 .28 .32 36 38  Regional Transportation System; Function Classification  2024 Existing Transit Routes.  2023 Amador Transit Dial-A-Ride Service Area Service Area..  2024 Existing Truck Route Designations Isolated Rural Attainment. Areas Map...  Amador County Evacuation Areas and Evacuation Routes..  2024, Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    LronTais  1. Amador County Population Totals.  16 17 43 61 72 84  2. Comparison of Amador County and State of California Demographic Data.  3. Amador County Population Projections.. 4. Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures.  5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers...  6. Summary of Costs, Revenues, and Shortfalls.  2024/ Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    shwstAgpsaNs  (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 Average Annual Percent Truck Traffic  J. RTP Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measuressystem-wide Alternative Ranking K. RTPI Project Criteria and Performance Measures-Project Prioritization List  2024, Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    This page left intentionally blank.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft    NIRODLAOTPON  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 (ACTC) 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 byt the ACTC: Amador County and the cities of Jackson, lone, Sutter Creek, Plymouth, and Amador City. Pursuant to state law, the ACTC's six Commissioners: are comprised of threé 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 Ast the state-designated RTPA for Amador County, the ACTC's primary responsibilities encompassi thet three  Region as av whole.  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 thet transportation improvement projects and programs that arer 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 ACTCi is alsor required to program anda allocate thei 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 regionaly-significant transportation improvement projects.  Transportation Development Act Administration  The ACTCi is also designated as the Local Transportation Commission responsible for administration ofi the Transportation Development Act (TDA) in the Region. This responsibility requires the ACTC 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.  Ina addition to these "core" statutory responsibilities, the ACTC 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 ofa all available funding opportunities. 2024A 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 regionalysignificant 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 ACTC's 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 ACTC includes thet following five positions: Executive Director, Administrator, Administrative Analyst, Administrative Assistant and a Geographicl Information: System (GIS) Coordinator. The ACTCisa also supported bys 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! 5y years, in 2018, the ACTC elected to adopt a 4- year schedule to better coordinate with the 8-year Housing Element cycle required of local jurisdictions. The purpose oft the RTP is to identify the Region's short-term and long-range transportation needs andi 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 tot the ACTC's policies,  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  9    programs, and projects fort the next 20 years. Lastly, the RTP needs tol be updated to maintain compliance  with the CTC's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for RTPAS.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  10    Figure 1. Organizational Chart  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  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 ofa acronyms is common, a Glossary ofTerms and Acronyms is contained in Appendix  B.  3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING  As shown in Figure 2, Amador County is located approximately 35 miles southeast of Sacramento on the western slope oft the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Amador County is part of California's historic Mother Lode region, whichwas 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 laido out byt these early miners ands settlers. At approximately 593 square miles ins size, AmadorCounty  is one of the smallest counties ini 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 alsoo 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 ai forested landscape that is bisected with: steep canyons and sweeping ridge tops. The Upcountry: area contains: severalsmall, 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 recreationalvalues. Most non-residential lands Upcountry: are owned byi industrial timber companies such as Sierra Pacific Industries or are under thej 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.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  12    Figure 2. Environmental Setting  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  13    4. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: SYSTEM  ACTC generally considers the "Regional Transportation System" tol be comprised of State Highway System (arterials) and regionaly-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 oft 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" fors 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.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  14    Figure 3. Regional Transportation System; Functional Classification  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  15    Table 1: Amador County Population Totals  Location Amador City lonel Jackson Plymouth Sutter Creek  20202 200 8,767 4,958 1,012 2,646 22,891 40,474  20233 193 8,772 4,938 1,062 2,590 22,282 39,837  Percent Change 3.5% .1% .4% 4.7% -2.1% -2.7% -1.6%  Unincorporated. Area Amador County (Total)l  Notes: +This figurei includes approximately: 3,863 individuals inN Mule Creek State Prison. Source: 2U.5. Census Bureau (2020) Census 2020 Demographic Profile Summary. Change - January 1,2 2022 and: 20235 Sacramento, California, May: 2023.  State of California, Department ofF Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  16    Table 2: Comparison of Amador County and State of California Demographic Data  Demographics Total population Persons per household Persons under 18 years of age Persons 65 years of age and older  Amador County 39,837 2.30 16.7% 31.3% 76.8% 14.9% 1.4% 3.1% 1.9% $65,187  California 39,538,223 2.90 21.3% 16.6% 41.2% 39.4% 15.4% 7.1% 3.6% $78,672  White Hispanic  Asian/Pacific Islander Black  Native. American  Median household income  Notes: 'This figurei includes approximately 3,863 individuals in Mule Creek State Prison.  Source: State of Californid, Department ofF 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  17    This page left intentionally blank.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  18    X7X0.200E97  1. THE2024 RTP UPDATE  For this RTP Update, ACTC began reviewing the previous plani 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 RTPI 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 fort the next 20 years. This shift has come about due to relatively flat population int 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 ther roadway system. Iti is apparent that while there are many other regional goals, those additional goals will not be met without ensuringt the roadways are brought back to as state of good repair. These local streets and roads serve as lifelines for ther residents ofA Amador County and visitors alike. Understanding thet funding shortfalltoi the region, ACTC has taken the necessary step to ensure thesè roads continue to provide access to homes, employment, goods  movement, visitors, andi 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 ACTC's adopted Public Involvement Procedures for Transportation Planning (see Appendix C), obtainable through the monthly ACTC board meetings, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Social Services Through the planning process, ACTC 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 ordert to advertise public input opportunities. Numerous progress reports outlining' the relevant issues being considered were also made publicly available through the ACTC's  Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) meetings.  regularly: scheduled commission meetings and made available on the ACTC website.  3. INTERAGENCY. AND TRIBAL CONSULTATION  As required by the CTC's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, the ACTC undertook efforts at During the completion of the 2015 RTP Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SPEIR), ACTC's consultant performed: a required comparison between the RTP's potentalenvronmenta. impacts witht the state's Wildlife Action Plan and inventory of natural/historic resources. As the projects included for  interagency consultation as a part of the transportation planning process  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  19    completion in this 2024 RTP are considered Categorically Exempt or are projects under the previous plan, 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 ACTC 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 federaly-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 lefforts were undertaken to ensure consistency with cities' and county's General Plans as well.  all analysis from the 2015 SPEIR are still accurate to reference.  4. COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS  The ACTC 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, ACTCi incorporated inputs from other plans in developing the The General Plans and transportation improvement programs of Amador County and alli five Caltrans' various planning and programming documents such as the following: California Transportation Plan, Goods Movement Action Plan, Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan, 10-Vear 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 Amador & Calaveras Needs Assessment for Extreme Weather: and Natural Disaster Prevention and  RTP Update, including, but not limited to those listed below.  cities.  The Regional Transportation Plans of surrounding counties.  Response Strategies, 2021 Central Sierra Zero-Emission Vehicle Readiness Plan, 2019 Systemic Safety Analysis Report, 2018 Tribalt transportation plans, where available.  The Amador Countywide 2017 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan.  5. 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 The projects proposed for completion on the Tierlregional 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  significant environmental effects, ifi implemented".  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  20    next 20 years, those projects could potentially be amended into the Tier II listing. Those Tier II 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.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  21    This page left intentionally blank.  2024, Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  22    XSTRECOHDITNS  1. 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, ACTC acquired traffic counts at certain locations throughout the Region in 2019 using StreetLight Data, a new technology utilizing mobile devices int the measurement of travel time and select link studies. Accessing the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts through the StreetLight Data program, the highest ADTvolumes ont 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 (readoptedi 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 thes 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). SB743 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 ac concern within Amador County, the 2024 RTP's goals have shifted the planning emphasis to local  roadway reconstruction and rehabilitation improvements.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  23    2. LOCALSTREETS. 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 thet typical rate of deterioration for comparable roadways. According to this study, the average county-wide. APCRf for the Region at that time was 33, which ranks as the worst-rated surface conditions in the state. Thes 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 tot 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 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  upi to! $392 million.  locations with "very poor" to "failing" surface conditions.  In2 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 int funding and alli five cities received $400,000 each, as ther 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 In2 2008, ACTC 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 thel bridges on Old Highway 49 Then in 2015, ACTC 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 ascale ofit 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 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 for1 the local street and roads on the Tier 1 listing is 44, which is the primary reason the ACTC board has focused great attention towards the rehabilitation of the County's roadways to restore the infrastructure to a state of good repair.  seal-coats at their highest priority locations.  "less than satisfactory".  2024A 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 topi four (4) local road rehabilitation projects to be approved for Beyond the Region's routine, preventative, and/or deferred maintenance needs, the 2024 RTP also includes al list of129localroadwayi improvement projects proposed byt 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 (e.g. curve corrections, intersection upgrades, and safety improvements planned for various collector routes) is based upon accident information, citizen complaints, or other observations made byl local public works staff over the years. These local projects are separate from the regionalysignificant improvements that have been planned by the cities and the county, which are included in the RTP's Regional Roadway Capital Improvement Program.  funding in the 2024 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.  3. TRANSIT  While there are several social service transportation providers ini 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 %-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 tos 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 al 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 The ACTC maintains a Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC), as required by the State's Transportation Development Act (TDA). The SSTAC advises ACTC in efforts to enhance coordination between AT and the various 'special-needs" transportation providers operating in the Region. SSTACalso assists ACTC 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 overt the years. Additional service providers that operate int the county are  available for transportation of evacuees.  shown below.  Amador County Unified School District provides school bus service for students. Amador County! Shuttle Service provides airport shuttle service.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  25    Frontier Cabi 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 STARS provides services to cancer patients and transportation for cancer treatment inside and Amador Rides is a volunteer driver program to assist individuals with healthcare related The ARC of Amador provides transportation service. for some of their programs. Some evelopmentalydisabled clients receive transportation through the program with Amador New Beginnings provides services to people visiting the Mule Creek State Prison inl 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  locations.  outside oft the county. transportation.  Transit's DAR and fixed-route services.  Jackson and the Pine Grove corridor on' Wednesdays.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  26    Figure 4: 2024 Existing Transit Routes  A  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  27    Figure 5: 2023 Amador Transit Dial-A-Ride Service Area  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  28    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 andi is managed by an Airport Manager, under supervision of the county's General Services Administration. There is also an Airport Advisory Committee appointed 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). Itis situated at an elevation of 1,694 feet above sea level and includes a runway of 3,400 feet in length ande 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. Inaddition, Westover Fields serves as a staging ands supply point for emergency response and related support purposes. There is no commuter or airline reliever  by the county Board of Supervisors to oversee and assist with airport matters.  service to this airport at this time. 5. PEDESTRIAN, /BICYCLE  As 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 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 BiREACTADAITam.ten Plani for Public Rights ofWay for the cities and county. This plan focuses on implementing cost-effective improvements at priority locations within developed communities, particularlyi in high-conflict areas or where inter-connectivity can be established through sidewalk gap closures. ACTC anticipates providing updates to this Pedestrian and 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 In 2022, ACTC 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  share the road with automobiles.  Bicycle Plan in FY2024/25.  mobility andi increase access without the increase of hazardous air pollutants.  2024, Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  29    pedestrians that otherwise have to use a crosswalk on the main corridor (SR 49) through. Jackson witha a consistent heavy flow of traffic. Though unsuccessful at obtaining that ATP grant funding, the cityi is expected to receive al High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) pedestrian beacon at the crosswalk on  SR49/88 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-calli freight service between lone and Martelli 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 thel Martell grade crossing of SR 88 was removed, thereby ending rail service to Martell. In October of 20101 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. neart the City of lone. This' 'short-line" freightservice! between lone and Galti 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 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 1). In order to determine the percent of heavy trucks traffic within the total volume ofa 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, thei 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 ofs STAA-length trucks, thereby allowing them to operate freely. Service Access routes allow STAA-length trucks to operate one-mile offt the National Networki in order to reach their delivery points. Two additional designations known as the "California Legal Network" and "California Legal Advisory Routes" have also  System.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  30    been established for routes that do not meet STAA standards. These standards limit the maximum KPRA oft trucks that can legally operate on them based on their turning radiuses and the curvatures found on Since 2004, Caltrans revised or otherwise clarified the designations below for the State Highway System  these roadways. inA 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. Itwas clarified that all but one turning movement at the SR: 104/49 intersection in Sutter Hill, the It was clarified that all turning movements at the SR 49/88 intersection in Jackson meets STAA 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 historicallyi issued oversize-load permits fort the use of SR 88 in Amador County when individual cargo loads exceed the posted height restrictions that exist on 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, 38t to 401 feet maximum KPAR, and 651 to 751 feet maximum overall length) are allowedi to travel throughout the Region's arterial State Highway System, STAA trucks (48 to 53 feet maximum trailer length and 38 to 401 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  southbound right turn from SR-104 onto! SR-49, meets STAA: standards.  standards.  US 50 due to the numerous overpasses that exist on that route.  Calaveras County.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  31    Figure 6: 2024 Existing Truck Route Designations  2024, Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  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 thei 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 Both the federal and state Clean Air Acts recognize that compliance with established standards should primarily be planned for att 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 oft 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  quality and ensure thel Region's compliance with federal and: state standards.  enforcement of air quality improvements, where needed.  Previously in FY11/12-14/15 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 andreceived 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  2024A 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 Districti is not required to develop al Regional Air Quality Plan and the ACTC is not required to perform air quality "Conformity. Analysis" fori 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 In2006, 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 thet transportation sector is the second largest contributor of GHG emissions, the passage of AB 32 was an important piece of legislation that affects In2008, the State Legislature aiso 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. SB3 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 ifas SCS would achieve the emission reduction targets established fori 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 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 80p percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The California Energy Commission is 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 2020t targeted at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in transportation, which account for more than 40 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  may have potential environmental impacts.  transportation planning.  complete regional air quality plans and the SIP.  working with others state agencies to implement the bill.  percent of all emissions, to reach the state's ambitious climate goals.  2024/ Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  34    emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are Inr response to these various requirements, the ACTC 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 ACTC Teleconferencing Facility, ina anticipation of an increasing use of electric vehicles into the future, the ACTC installed two electric vehicle charging stations with construction ofthe Sutter Hill Transit Center's! Parkand Ride lot. This strategy simultaneously facilitates enhanced use of transit and/or carpooling, while providing an opportunity to With the most recent round of CMAQ funding (FY 18/19-21/22), Ai 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 oft the SR 88/ Pine Grove Corridor Improvement project. Lastly, $108,892 of RSTP funds were allocated to the Cityo ofJacksont fora al level 3 charging station upgrade, one (1)hybride electric vehicle, and one (1)electric Ina an effort to combat climate changet through ther reduction of GHG emissions thes state plans tot transition toa' '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. InF FY2 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 ACTC continues to work with local agencies and Amador Transit regarding more efficient bus route planning, potential fleet conversions, and  reduced by 85 percent below the 1990 levels.  improve air quality.  vehicle purchase for the City Public' Works Department.  the infrastructure to support them.  2024, Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  35    Figure 7: Isolated Rural Attainment Areas Map  Final 2024 Regional ransporiation Plan Guidelines for RTPAS  Attamment Urclassifed. Area Conformiy Does Wo:Apply Monattamront or AtomalfomanAcs- Conformily RecuirementsApply  Man Highways  AREAS SUBJECT TO CONFORMITY  REQUIREMENTS Sodtes 1223/2v22  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  36    8. SAFETY  Transportation safety is a primary goal of this RTP update. In 2018 ACTC completed a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) with Alpine and Calaveras County with the purpose to identify potential mitigation efforts forvarious safety concerns ont the roadways andi 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 oft 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 SR88 for the City of Jackson, in which the City of Jackson was awarded grant funding. An additional safety countermeasure recommended ini the SSAR was countywide safety signage, however, the County declined In late 2018, ACTC amended the SR 88/104 intersection project into the Tierir 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  that project.  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. Al highlight of this document are the community evacuation route maps that provide ad description of the routes in each areay withi the appropriate designation fort themi.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. Figure8s shows  the Amador Countywide evacuation route mapi with QR codes.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  37    Figure 8: Amador County Evacuation Areas and Evacuation Routes  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  38    10. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS response to criticalsituations in the region.  ACTC worked with the Amador County Sheriff's Office in 2011 to complete installation of an Emergency Preemption: System at all signalized intersections int the county in order toi facilitate their safe and efficient From 2019 to 2021, ACTC reimbursed all five (5) local jurisdictions and the county in purchasing poll mounted radars speed: signs in an effort to increase roads 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 Currently, ACTC: staffi 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  electronic farebox option (Venmo) to offer payment flexibility. such as rider/driver mobile apps and on-demand scheduling.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  39    A,APCOMATCNS  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 tot face the Regional Transportation System in 2044. An analysis ofthese 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.)t 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 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 Ifthe basis fort the RTP's projections or assumptions changes significantly, then the RTP must be amended  requirements for traffic analysis from LOS to' Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).  anticipated to face over the next 20 years.  or updated accordingly. 2. ASSUMPTIONS remain relevant:  The assumptions listed below were developed by the 2015 RTP Update Stakeholder Roundtable. They  Averaged annually over. 20 years, the population of Amador County will increase at a rate generally consistent withi the California Department of Finance's estimates.  The county's population will continue to be disproportionate compared to employment causing Changes in land use will occur as planned by Amador County and the Region's five incorporated Petroleum fuels will continue tol be available, but prices wille escalate to between $4.00 and $8.00 Because of the Region's rural geography and a shortage of viable alternatives, the automobile  continued inter-regional commuting.  cities.  per gallon.  will continue to be the primary mode of transportation.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  40    Recreation and tourism travelers from outside the area will continue to create significant traffic Available transportation funding will continue to be largely inadequate to meet the Region's local Due to al lack of available funding, deferred maintenance will likely result in continued  demands on the Regional Transportation System. road maintenance and improvement needs. deterioration of local pavement conditions.  Transit demand will continue to be cyclical and will fluctuate as influenced by a variety off factors.  Transit demands will likelyi 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 Heavy trucks will continue to serve the majority of the Region's goods-movement and There will continue to be curvature and turn-radius constraints throughout the Regional Transportation System that will limit the expansion of STAA Terminal Access.  service will be limited to the lone area. interregional freight shipping needs.  There willl be an increasing demand for alternative mobility services and modes of transportation such as ampolnehareounte. 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 There willl be an increasing need fori intermodal connectivity and transfer opportunities between Continuing funding constraints will require increased use of low-cost alternative strategies.  vehicles and alternative fueling capabilities.  modes.  2024, Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  41    Air quality, transported pollutants, and corresponding emission control requirements willr remain These assumptions generally validatei 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  ap potential concern.  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 int the region occurring primarily int the cities ofl lone, Plymouth, and. Jackson. Figures released byt 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 int traffic volumes during this period. The Region's population is stille 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 0.19.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 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 EI Dorado counties population is expected to decline by approximately 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 ofs seniors that are age 75 and above, 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  either the Tier Il or State Highway SHOPP candidate listings into the Tierllisting.  4.8% and 6.2% respectively overt the next 20 years.  who are more likely to need door-to-door transportation services.  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 oft the Region's transportation needs.  2024/ Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  42    This suggests that demand for alternative strategies ands specialized transit services could continue to grow over the next 20y years. Table 3 summarizes the estimated population of each jurisdiction based on these  projections..  Table 3: Amador County Population Projections  County Population Amador City lonel Jackson Plymouth Sutter Creek Unincorporated Total Note: Sources:  2023 Population: 193 8,772 4,938 1,062 2,590 22,282 39,837  2034 Populations 199 9,124 5,143 1,127 2,696 23,183 41,472  2044 Populations  193 8,766 4,934 1,061 2,588 22,266 39,808  Thist figurei includes approximately: 3,863 individuals incarceratedi ini Mule Creek State Prison.  2State of California, Department ofF Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State with Annual Percent Change = "State of California, Department ofF Finance, Report P-2A (County): State and County Total Population Projections, 2020-2060  January 1,2 2022 andz 2023. Sacramento, California, May 2023.  Sacramento, California, July 2023.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  43    4. LAND USE  Inc order to determine how population distributes throughout the Region ini 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 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 they year prior. While population is projected to rise to 41,472 in 2034, DOF projections showt 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  offuture population forecasts.  below.  The Martell area, which is identified in Amador County's 2011 Preliminary Draft General Plan asa "Regional Service Center", is expected to contain the largest proportion of future commercial, office, and industrial development. This suggests that new growth in the Martellarea may create and/or contribute to significant traffic impacts as these particularly intense land-uses are 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 SR49and! 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 ini these outlyingareas. The Region's wine industry will continue to grow,' with the highest concentration of new wineries In addition, the ACTC also consults with federaly-recognized tribal governments in the Region, as  developed, unless they are adequately mitigated.  located in the Shenandoah Valley area.  requested.  5. REGIONAL ROADWAYS  Amador County'sregionalr Troadways 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 alsoi included as goals and policies, the ACTC recognizes the combination of static population growth and regulatory  mandates and places these as secondary objectives. 2024A 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 Approximately 8 percent of all traffic in the Region will be attributable to traffic passing entirely Conversely, only 60 percent of the Region's traffic willl be attributable to traffic with both an origin There is general consistency betweent the growth patterns andt travel patterns, as well as increasing traffic volumes and LOS deficiencies that were identified in the 2004 RTP and those identified in 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 1a additional intersection will become deficient by 2035. These affects are particularly concentrated along various highway corridors that act as "bottlenecks" int thes 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, communityacreptane, and funding constraints that have limited the construction of large by-pass and capacity-expansion projects 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 tos 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  origin ora destination outside. Amador County.  through Amador County.  and a destination entirely within Amador County.  the 2015R RTP.  since adoption of the 2004 RTP.  reduce the need forj frequent automobile travel."  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  45    6. LOCALSTREETS. 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 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 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's20- 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. Ina addition tot the financial constraints that affect on-going pavement maintenance discussed above, there isn 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. Whilet the cities and county are encouragedi to actively pursue potential funding opportunities that might be availablet through partnership with the ACTC, funding constraints suggest that many planned improvements simply cannot be completed unless new: sources of revenues are created.  roadway improvements.  insufficient funding.  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 publict transit such as door-to-door" Dial-a-Ride service overt the next 20y years. Fore example, available demographic datai indicates that approximately 31% oft the Region's future population will consist of "retirees" (defined by age 65 and above), with almost half oft 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 Inp previous years, the Long-Range Transit Development Plan, studies transit demand and was determined tor 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  adequately serve all of the Regionstransportation needs.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plon; Draft  46    ridership reflects the potential number of one-way passenger trips that could actually be served by the transit system. Thel LRTDP: analyzedt thet three followings service alternatives to meet this potentialridership given the amount of funding that is forecast to be available; 1) "Maintain Existing Service Quality", 2) Based on the data shown in the LRTDP, 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. oaquin/Sacramento counties (with a1 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 mobiltywithinthese: communities, as wellasi interregionaltransit: service from those commuting into or out of the county fore employment. This also suggested an increasing need for continued transit service to connect the Region's outlying communities to the employment and service Inr recent years, ACTC 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) potentiallythe purchase ofaz zero-emission! bus for the Amador/Sacramento commuter route, and (3)2 zero- emission infrastructure to support fleet transition. Staff is currently waiting to hear if ACTC was awarded  "Reduce Transit Service",3) Increase Transit Service".  centers in Martella and. Jackson.  funding fort 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  2024A 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/BICYCIE  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 increasei is also anticipated due toi 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 truei in relatively compact communities and urban environments sucha asi inl lone, Sutter Creek, and Jackson where proximity and inter-connectivity, betweenn 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 orservices and where therei isal lack ofs sidewalks ands shoulders needed to adequatelyensure 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 anticipatedi that correspondingsafety. concerns and tmlcomidwtauomales may also increase 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, ACTC 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  pedestrian safety.  into the future.  concerted effort is made to prioritize and implement related improvements.  10. GOODS MOVEMENT -F 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  48    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 lowr ridership projections fort the proposed route, as wella as related capitaland operational costswould 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 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 truckt traffic will comprise approximately 5to 9 percent of totalf 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 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 iti 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  foreseeable future.  System.  located on the Region's STAA Terminal Access corridor.  11. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES  Significant environmental, right of way (ROW), communityacreptante, andi financial constraints that the  Region faces are anticipated to persist into thet 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 leftintentionally blank.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  50    ALSRNA2LSG ALYSS  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  preserangmantainng existing local streets and roads, #2) encouraging efficiency and common-sense planning, and #3)i 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 everyaspect oftransportation: 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 RTP Update.  Afterestablishing 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  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 ACTC'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, communityaceptance, and funding constraints. This alternative would result in implementation of the regional roadway improvements identified in Tier II of the Financial Element, as well as improvements to other modes oft 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 ini the Financial Element. TierlIrepresents) projects for which noj funding is committed, but could be made available within 20 years, ifa additional sources ofr 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  Oncet 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 oft this analysis (see AppendixJ).  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  52    (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 ACTC's core statutory responsibility to help improve the Regional Transportation System. Therefore, this alternative is (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 : reserving/Maintaining Existing Streets and Roads. Therefore, this alternative is recommended  not recommended for adoption.  fora 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 oft transportation willr remain un-fundable withint the RTP's 20-year horizon until additional sources oft 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 Tierlregional 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 ber misconstrued. as guaranteedfunding. Itwill take a concerted effort by the ACTC, cities, county, and Caltrans to implement RTP Policies and Objectives in order to fort them to be acquired and effectively coordinated to construct Tierlp 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 lefti intentionally blank.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  54    20092RARP  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 providesar roadmapi fori implementing the RTP through even more: specific Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Measures. Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Measures listed ini 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 ACTC's Goals, Objectives, and brief overview of the Implementation Measures which directs the ACTC'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 at timely manner. The Action Element contains detailed short-termand 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 ACTC 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 adopted in 2015 and readopted int the 2020RTP.  For the reasons discussed below, the 2024 RTP Update recommends changes to the policies that were 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. Forthis reason, the 2024 RTP Update includes changes tot the ACTC's existing policies byf focusing the goals  to prioritize cost-effective projects in an effort to deliver results more efficiently.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  55    3.G GOAL,OBJECTIVES, AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES  Goals are general, timeless. statements that reflect the Region's values andi its vision of the Desired Objectives are statements that serve as "standing direction" for the Commission in its regular decision making andj fort the ACTC's staff in carrying out the RTP on a daily basis. RTP Policies also provide guidance and recommendations. for the ACTC's partners on ways to achieve mutually 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,  Outcomes that the RTP: should achieve.  beneficial improvements in an efficient and effective manner.  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(considers sales tax measure) Goal #2. Encourage efficiency and Common-sense Planning: Create more efficiency and communication  2) Direct RTMF funding to local road projects  int the planning process with continuous and collaborative workingrelationships.  Objectives:  1) Improve the project delivery process 2) Improve training opportunities for public works staff 1) Employ 'best practices' training program:  Implementation Measures:  a) Pavement Management Distress Evaluation b) Mulb-jurisdictional roadway maintenance contracting  2) Collaborate with State andi 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 ini the community. Ina addition to wildfires, severe winter storms are another notable extreme weather event of concern to  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  56    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 oft transportation (Transit, bicycle/pedestran)  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    0770 BEBB3  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 Ast 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 thei top of the listi 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. Tierl I projects are those that do not expect any Environmental, ROW, or Design costs (shovelready 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. AIII local projects not eligible for regional funding are included ini 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 llo or Tier III project onto the Tierl 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  County, the action from the ACTC board is to "fix our roads firs!".  serves as a "living document". 2. REGIONAL PROJECT LISTING  Staff prepared revenue projections fort the next 20 years. While numerous federal, state, and localrevenue sources can help fund transportation improvements, four (4) of these sources have been specifically directed by ACTC 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 tot 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 I (fully funded) represents projects for which full funding is considered reasonably available based on thet four (4) revenue projections discussed int 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.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  59    Tier III (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 TierIn regional projects, as shown int the Financial Element.  Criteria  Performance Measure  Ranking  Ensure Efficient Funding Plan and Provide for a program that is affordable with forecasted revenue: and  Implementation 1 Project Phasing  can be constructed with minimal impacts to existing operations on the  system.  Ability to deliver projects over time: 1= Excessive non-construction project phase programming 3= Moderate non- construction project phase programming 5= No non-construction project phase programming owned roadways  1=Low 3=Medium 5=High  Preserve the Existing System  Invest in ther rehabilitation and maintenance of the Region's locally  Existing Pavement Condition Index: 1- condition, 7-10= Poor condition Functional Classification Rating: 1= Minor Collector/Local, 3= Major Collector, 5= Minor Arterial and new facilities.  1-10 (Ranging from 12-81PCI value) 1=Low 3=Medium 5=High  1 Pavement Condition Index 3= Good condition, 4-6=Average  2 Functional Classification Enhance. Safety  Provide safe facilities that meet all current design standards for existing  Evacuation Route Designation. 1= Non- =Primary Evacuation Route affordable, and convenient manner. Average Daily Traffic. 1-3= Low, 4-6= Average, 7-10-High  1=Low 3=Medium 5=H High  1 Improved Evacuation Routes evacuation route, 3= Alternate Route,5  Reduce Congestion and Improve  Provide mobility for people and goods throughout the region ina asafe,  Mobility  1-10 (Ranging from 527-12,407 ADT Counts)  1 Average Daily" Traffic  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 ACTC's annual Overall Work Program (OWP).and are typically completed through individual Work Elements. The Overall Work Program (OWP) is ACTC'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 ACTC'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 oft funding in order to provide the staff time and/or consultant support required fort 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, ort for competitive grant applications, ifoutside funding is needed to augment the ACTC'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 oft the Action Element is to assist the ACTCI 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 ACTC'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 LPRESERVE/MANTAN 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, forl 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 Bi-annually hold a' 'Call for Projects" for Project Study Report (PSR) Equivalent projects on the regional project listingt tol be submitted into the RTIP funding cycle. Assist cities/county  meetings.  with the process as needed.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  61    Research/assist with implementation ofa a sales tax measure for cities/county  GOAL #2-ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY AND COMMON-SENSE PLANNING Objective 1: Improve the project delivery process Objective 2:lmprove 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 Dscussion/Eecutive 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 AmadorTransit, Westover Field'sAirport Manager, as well as Amador County's General Services Administration and Airport Land Use Committee to identify anys ground-access and/or transit connectivity improvements that might be Maximize funding by performing Multh-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 fort transit dependent citizens.  warranted.  GOAL #3-IMPROVE SAFETV/REDUCE CONGESTION Objective 1: Improve emergency access (Evacuation Routes) Timeline: Short Term(4 years)/Long" Term (20 years)  Objective 2: Encourage alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle/pedestrian)  Implementation Measures: Update GIS mapping Update the 2017 ACTC Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan Services Transportation Plan. Implement Ped/Bike 'Call for Projects'. pedestrian, way-finding, and bicycle safety.  Update the ATS Short-Range, Long-Range Transit Plans, and the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Continue active participation with local/Caltrans BPAC meetings for opportunities on low-cost  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  62    Maintain SSTACfor continued collaboration regarding unmet transit needs within AmadorCounty to increase ridership and enhance connectivity throughout the region, in efforts to reduce 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  congestion and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.  the Road" driver and bicycle awareness projects.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  63    This page left intentionally blank.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  64    MTAEAL BBDARNS  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 int 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 oft both on-going operations and routine maintenance of the existing transportation system, as wella ast the cost of planned improvements across all modes of transportation, including the RTP's prioritized list of regional roadway projects. The figures contained in the Financial Element must also include projections off 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 int the Financiall Element helpsi identify thet totalf funding deficits facing thee entire Regional Transportationsystem. In order to help address these shortfalls, the Financial Element also includes various financial strategies that could be usedt to helpi increase the efficiency of the Region's existing funding, as wellastoh helpacquire  additional revenues tot the greatest extent feasible.  Based on this summary, the Financial Element is organized into thei four Sections listed below.  Revenue projections from various sources that are reasonably available to implement the RTP's A" financalyconstrained" or "funded" and prioritized list of regional roadway improvements Asummary of the estimated costs, projected revenues, and the anticipated shortfalls facing the Alist of financial strategies needed to help fund these needs to the greatest extent feasible.  Terlregonatroadway improvements.  (Tier1  entire Regional Transportation System.  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 oft 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 bei funded within the next 20 years unless new sources of funding are realized. The projects contained int the Tierl I list also include "shovelr ready" pavement improvement projects in addition to other regionalroadwayi improvement projects, but with noi 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 fort 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 lland Tier III listings, ifs supported by the public and Four (4) funding sources are: specificallyt the responsibility oft the ACTCto programt towardregonairoadway  implementing agencies. improvements as described below.  State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Regional Improvement Program (RIP) The STIP is the ACTC's single largest source of reliable transportation funding. The STIPisa! 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 formula. 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 onpriorities established int their individual RTPS. Int ther most recent 2-year cycle, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) estimates that approximately $600k/year will be apportioned toi 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 thet 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 int the state's Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP). In order tot finalize and adopt the STIP in each 2-year cycle, the CTC must! balance thet funding requested by each region and Caltrans within the totala amount  Shares:  of funds available ini 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 byv way ofa at federal block grant tot 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 Actt that returns Y cent oft the states sales taxt to counties, primarily tot 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 Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Program: In the last RTP cycle, $12 million was estimated tol be available for programming to projects. While the actualr revenues are dependent upon local jurisdiction development activity, this estimate should be relevant for this 20-year RTP Update  this use. Over 20 years, this LTF revenue should total $5 million.  cycle.  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) through a cyclical, competitive selection process. Highway Bridge Program (HBP)  Thel HSIP was created to fundi improvements' to public roadways andp pedestrian or bicycle facilities with high accident rates or other safety concerns. This federal funding is awarded by Caltrans  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 upt to $2.4 million of additional HBP funds overthe 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 991 to encourage use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. The goals of the ATP include, increasing the proportion ofi trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non- motorized users, advancing efforts ofr regional agencies to achieves greenhouse gas reductiongoals,  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  67    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, ori increasing congestion. These projects arei includedi int thes statewide program of SHOPP projects that is adopted by Caltrans every2years. 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 off funding The degree to whicht 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 forf funds that are not guaranteed and take a concerted 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  available tot the Region.  effort to acquire.  Region's control.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  68    Itis 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. Ifso, 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 Tierl I list are consistent, such that the total cost of all Tierl I projects matches thet totala amount of revenues that are projected tol be availabie from existing sources. This allows the amount of projected revenues to acta as a' control-total to govern how many regional roadway projects canr 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 ofTieriregional roadway projects overt the next 20 years. However, if the current funding programs described are changed or eliminated, or if additional funding programs are created in thet future, then the Financial Element willl 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 financalyconstrained" regional roadway improvements that are organized into the following categories based on projected funding availability: Tier 1, Tier II, and' Tier II. 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 ofi 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 hasi 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  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  69    jurisdictions or agencies as an amendment request for inclusion to the Tier land become eligible for The Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan includes project proposals from local jurisdictions that can bei incorporated withi the scope and cost of planned roadway projects wheret 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 byt thel law. It alsol helps the ACTC, cities, and county to maximize the effectiveness oft the Region's limited transportation funding by reducing administrative and project development costs that would be  funding from the ACTC.  required ift 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 annuall 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 ont the project scope fore each improvement. The submittals responded toi the newly-adopted Goals  and Policies approved for the 2024 RTP Update.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  70    This page leftintentionally blank.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  71    Table 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers  Revenuet1. 000s)  2024Cost Estimate (*3year) $a.300 (*3yea) 52.480 (-3year) 52.126 (+3year) 51.908 (+3year) 53.758 (1ysar) 54.625 (+3year) $3.093) (-3year) 50.199 HA $0-105 Mdar 1447 PyA 40404 134044 10000 Hyow 40449 x $0.742 $0.742 (+5year) $3.000 cuivers. milland 50.792 $0.792 (-5year) millanu (+Syear) 50.174 $0.174 epairs. cuiverts. miland (-Syear) 50.605 $0.005 pairs. cuiveris. milland (-5year) 50.539 $0.638 (-Syear) $2.500 epairs. culveris. milland (-10yeari 50.935 $0.335 signig. andstriping (-10year) 51.077 (-10year) 52.155 $2.156 (-10year 52.300 $2.300  Source Tax (HBP, AC HP HP HDP SP  Duscription Previously Programmed Projects  Rankl Location  ProjectLocation  Time Frame' (1.000s) RIP LTF RSTP RTMF Measurei  NA County SR 3MPine Grove Corridori ingrovementProject Salelylprovements  NA. County Fiddlelonn RoadBridge County OlJA Amador RcadBridge VA County Ge!R RacdE Bridge County Ca:bondale RosuB Brisgu Jacksor French Sar Road idge Jackson Souh AvenueB Bridge NIA Jackson HSIPLighting Projuc:  Bridye replacement Bridger Bridger ruplcement Bridger Bridger Sridye SRS 83/490 Corider  Tierl-i Regional Projects (Funded)  VA NIA NIA  * * * 53.000 * * * : * 52.500 * $1.077 :  County-22 Ridge Roadi (lomF Running Gold RoadiocayLimits) Minory pavernentn repairs. cuiverts milland (+5year)  overlay Asphat concreleo overlay  2 Sutter Creek ols SR4 49hlains SL-SR 4910Curch St. County-22 RidgeF Road( (from Rigsv View Drivete LOF Risge Frontage RoadWest) County-30 Argonauitane County-22 Riuge Roud (from Ridge Frontages RoadWesi)lo Vino Counly-22 RidgeRoad (fom Ckmax RoadtoRiegey ViewDrive) Minory Sutter Creek Main StreeHanford! Stresl-lield tonorhdiylinits Asphak concrutec averlay County-80 Buena VistaR Road lroms Stony Creek Road loWaters Minor Ranch) Mlains StreetPaving 10 County-22 RiigeRoadl (from SRSStO Climax Read) 12 County-52 Fiduletovn Road firom HaleR Road loBrockmann Reconstruction 13 County-9 Shske Ridger (rom Buckeye Drives toBollinore Minorg  overiay gwarisy Reconstruction ovrigy gverky Drive (west) Minorp overlay overlay vatiay overiay  lepairs. cuivers. miland (-15ysar) 50.565 $0.566 culveris. mifa and (-15year) 50.571 $0.671 Minorp paverneni repairs. cuiverts. millanu (-15year) 50.523 $0.522  County-55 Sngnandoai: Road Plymouth Cilyl Limistu tuF PMO.751 Minorp pavement apairs. cuiverts. milland (-15year)  $0.413 $0413  15 Cuunty-258 County-20 Jackson GaleF Road County-43 County HWYA Courty-9 Road Fasty County-9 County-9 Drive) County-9 HIDrive) Courty-258 Ena Roal County-80 County-252  Norn  (fitom Sutler Creeko CryLimitstoA Amador Minors repairs. ciiveris. miland (-15yearl 50.479 $0479 major CityCKyL Limils(Wito Blinor Tépaits. cuiverts. milland from ChetoF Readleastllod Quartz Minorg pavernent repairs. cuiveris milland (-15year) $0.748 $0.748 Ridge Road( (lion Quartz Mounlain Ruade Easito Minor pavemant leyairs. cuiverts. milland I-15year) $0.682 Ridge Ruad flron Ponierosah AmnextoSuckeye Minor pavement cuiverts ml'and Riloe Roadciom FurnrigeR Ruadk Wondetey Minor pavement repairs, Culvers. milland  (-15year) $0.330 $0.330 (-15year) $0.825 (-15yean (-15year) (15-20year)  50.692 $0825 50.677 $0.7541 Si018 50.594 : 50.401 $0.775 $0.628 51.513  $0.677 $1,018 50.776  County-9 Shake RijguR Roadi iromy Wordleringk HitDrivetos SRBBI Minor srlaw pavemenl repairs. cuiverts milland -15year) $0.7541  Parkwayl Nonti from Currann Roads Coal VistaF Road ionCarrarcher Parkuay? Northso Minor Nonhe fon: Coal Vine Roaclo Minor  rpairs. cuiverts mil'and  Coumty-55 Slenancoan Rusd/ftomF PM3.01EIDorado CounlyLinl County-9 Shake RicgeR Ruad (lcmo CityL Limitst loP Pine Culch: Rouci! Cuunty-9 Shake RitgeR RoadllonF Fiddletown Roadi Wacon County-30 Buunal Vista Rcad from SRS 53105 SR 124) 32 County-52 Fiddistoan Rosd trom PM30DQuarz Mlountain Reau Alinor Norti:) Cuunty-62 Fridlietonns Roadr romE Brocknan MAIR Rosuto  epairs, cuiverts mdlanu (15-20yeari $0.594 pairs. cuverts. mland (15-20ywari $0.401 repairs. culverts. rrilland (15-20year) $0.639 repairs. Culverls malland (15-20ysar) 51.513 mits and (15-20ysar; $0.640 (15-20year)  County-55 Shienanioani Roadi from Ostrun RosdicPMS.01 lnor pavement mpairs. cuiverts. miland (15-20year $0776  repairs. ciivarts. miland  $1.034  verlay  Minor avementr repairs. cuiver's miland (15-20ywar) $0.709  cts aoprovedfor: pagramng lvouan? 2034 RTIPRSTP lundngl lor Ds cton" TeDby RTMFOC TBO: Dy Callrans  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  72    Table 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers  County-e Shake Ridge Roadiron? Pned Guich RosdioOneto Minor pavementr repairs. is. tanu Road County-9 Shake Ridger Roaufirons Stagec Diivetor 30 Coums-e Shake Ricge a( (from Botnorac CourtloP Pondaresa Minor 37 County-a (rum Wagon Wneal Drivelo Road) 38 Coumty-t York Ranch Road Cordor (lrom ClyLimits OPM 39 Couny-55 Shenandoeh Road (om Steiner Rossw)oOstuma Ro! 40 Coury-74 Roadi Sutar Cresk Gopher FlutRuad- Mains Stresilociylim's Caunty-52 PM62)  (15-20yaar) 50.924  Mnor  culverts. mlland (15-20year) $1.020 epairs. culvarts. mland (15-20ymar $0.924 pairs. culverts. mifs and 15-20yesr) culverts. mdant (15-20year) $0.825  *  50.996  (15-20ysar) $1177 (15-20year) $0.847 (55-20year) $2.500 (15-20year) $9.726 TIERITOTAL $39.629  fromCountyl Linet Carbondsle Minorp repairs. cuivers. nsland Road( (irom Ouarzhuntain RoadNortilo Minerp pavesnent repairs. cuiverts. mland  Asphalt concrelvo overlay  $39.029 512071  Tier II- Regional Projects (Unfunded)  43 County-90 Camanchef Road ftirom ReservorE Entranceto Minorpavement: repairs. cutvorts.r mianc (ZOyeart Rosarvation Road) 44 Counsy-255 Camanche Parkway? Nonth! (romF PM1.5bLokeview Mhorpaverentn repairs. culverts.r mlfand Orive (wost) 45 Coanty-2 CimaxF Road (iromo ChaseR Roadi SR38) 46 Couney-s2 Fiacletona Ready ffrom Shonandoah Roadu toPM3.01 Minorp pavement ropairs. cuiverts.n mtand (*20year; $1.550 47 Caury-i Mewy VorkR Ranch Rondo Corisori thempM15to Minorp pavemont ropals. culrerts.n miliand Coventry Cour) Sutter Crack SutterHaR Road- Eurokal Readio oi! Ridge Road Apatoreiscrely Sulter Croek Sulterk kene Road- SR 45t0 toHanfords Stroet 51 Piymouth SnenansoanResd- Iomi Rounsaboitio: iy" linits 52 Couniy-16 Tabenud  overlay cverlay overlay cverlay Aupstcsneeiecreisy cvertay  51.199 (20yean $0525 (20yeari 50.805 (20yoar) 50,405 zoyeari 51.500 (20year; $1.309  Mhnorpaverent: overlay ropairs. cuiverts. miand (z0yoar $1.001  50 Couny55 Snonandcanf Roadi PVO.7515 Stoiner Roadiws Minorp paverent: epars. cuverts.r milane (20yean $2.035 53 Coursy-74 Michigan Barloadi lorm Carooncaler Roadio SR 104) Minorp verlay pavementre repairs. culverts.n miland p20yeari 50.502 54 Couny-1 Mew YorRanchi Road Cordoriromd Coventyo Ccutio Minorg pavementn ropairs. culverls.r mitans (20year 50.347  PM47210HWY8S)  Mnorpavementa ropsis. culvens.r mlra ant 2Dyeari $1,100  RiageRoady 55 lona s. Sacramenofor. MarketioJ Jackson 56 SulterCrock Sumer) HilF Ross- Main SL toEurekaR Roas Valey Roadi 59 Sutter Crock Bryson  orerlay HMACvetayt (279'x18) Asphali conaretec cvertay everiay Asphot concreteo ovorlay overiay Asphal: concreteo overlay Conrerts Suter Widens sroukdors. resurlace. ete.  (-20yeari 50.115 (-20yea 50.810 ("20year 51.161 P20year: $1.200 #20yeari 50.575 1-20year 50400 (20yemi 57.000 Paoyean 56.214 p30year 53.346 (20yeart $0.360  57 County-eo Camanchei Readi tron ReservaionRcadio Jackson Minorp paverent ropairs. cuiverts. miland  58 Counay-255 Camanche Parkway Nonh drom Countyl LireioPM15) Mnorp overlay paverenta ropairs. cuiverts. mlland 020year 50.625 80 Courv-2 Cimax Readi Irom Ricgef Roods toChase Roas) Minorpavement ropairs. cuivens. mand (20yeari 50.660 81 County-52 Fidciotown Roadi firomF Pondercsa Dne: Shake Ridgo Minorg pavementn ropairs. cutverts.r mla anc (20year: 52398  4915 SuiterH Road  Readi 62 Suter Creek Cauren Stroct-N Mans S:. toctyi liris 63 Plymouth Mans Sroes-t tromR Roundacoutto: sly urrs 55 Jacison Suler S:ExtesicnA. Aaul 67 Jacksor Cnine Gravey Vardhd. 68 acksan Jackser Gaten R:. 9 acison Jacksont Locs Colccior  64 Phymouth ous SarramentpRcas-Cw lmtstol Latrobe Road Asphalt cencro:ec overlay 56 accson Sumors SExtensicnB Hictmanir IroTS Sutors Stree:ls mpreve 3Calectors Sandards  Widen shoulders drainage. shoskiers. sa'cly 20year: $0.383 Constructiccal cclecior troms SRIBSSIOSR 29yean $18.170  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  73    Table! 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers  70 Jackson NorhManSL. Jackson GateR Rd.ld loSr49 71 Jackson Broadway: Cin:ntoSR49 73 Marten Siera PacificDrive oWicklow 76 County Latrobe Road-various' locatons 77 County Latrcbel Roac @Lorentz 73 County-63 Latrabe Roado Corndor 79 County Shenandoah Rd. @ 80 County Fiadlatown Rd. @PM9.0 81 County Newy York RanchRd Corridor 82 County MichiganBarR Rd. Comdor 83 County Shenandoah Rd. varicus locations B County FidcletownR Rd @PM6.45 85 Counly Newy YorkR RanchRd. @PM1.81 86 Courty Ridge Rd/Running Geld 87 County Jackson ValleyF Rd. @e BonngR Rd. 88 County CamaxRd. 89 County Buena Vistag. Jackson Vallay Rd. so County Shake Rdgel Rd.c corndar 91 County NY.F Ranch Rd. Ridge Rd. tolingoy May 92 Counly RidgeR Rd/ClimaxRd, 93 County CimaxRd. loPonderosav Way. 94 Counly Ponderosay WayloSRSU 95 Counly Sutterk loneR Rd 66 County Camanche Rd. Southof. Jacksony ValleyRd 97 County CimaxRa.: RiageR Rd. lOSRBS 98 County Jacksonv Valey Rd Duena VisaSR8B 99 County RicgaR Rd. Newy YOrkR Ranchk Rd. toc ChmaxRd. reconstructon 100 County Mictigan Bark Rc. 101 County RidgeR Rd.:: Suiter Craeko city! ImistoNewy York Ranchre 102 County RuagaRd. Camax Rd. 1SR88 103 County Shensndoah Ra: Fiomto ofFiddietown ouDcracoco. reconstruction Line 104 ione ShakelayLane 105 iene West) Marlette 106 Suter Creek RidgeR Rd: SuterHhERd. loOic RidgeRd. 107 Sutter Creek RidgeR Ra/ /OIdR RidgeR Rd. 10a Suter Crsek OMR Ridge RdEurekaRd. 109 Sutter Craek Eurekal  idens shoulcar &2 adds sidevaiks Adds rafic calming. NEViDike) lanes. pads crossing Construclin intarnald connectorforn Marien businassoak Widenr rcadwaya and's shoulders Curvec correction, widens shoulders. overlay (-20year) 50.670 fAinorp cverlay Improves houicersidranage. pavementrehsb (-20yesn $1.550 Improves Improves curve corractions pavemenir rehab, (-20year) 50.870 Improves houldersh sidranage. pavemen! rehab. (-20year) 50.500 curve Widen shoulders. improved drainage. overlay (-20year) $1.120 Improves correction shouiders. Improves shoulders. andr rehaby WGr recelving pockeis.a aftturnp accel (-20year). $0.960 lane Improves shoulders. drainage. rehab pavement [*20year $0.540 Improves curvec correction improves snouidersicranage. rehab; pavement. I-20year 50.280 Widne shoulders. drasinage. cracks seal Widens safetys signage Realignintersection: andre revises stopc conrol (-20year) so.780 Widens shouldersa andimprovad drainage Improved Cranage. Bdds sicewaiks. salely icnane Roadwayr rehabitason reconstrucion reconstructon reconstruction Improve3 3RRO crossings sidewalksa andbles ignage Dicycle andp padestnan improvements wdens shoudlarsa andrenabp pavement intersectonk improvamens ntersecionit intersecion  (-20year) $1.200 (-20yaan 51.430 (-20yaar) $3.350 $3.110 (+20year) $5.020 (+20year 53.110 (-20year) 50.810 mJland (-20year) 53.820 (+20yean $1.310 (-20yean $0.450 (-20yean $0.860  72 Jaciscn Nevy York RanchRd: Courts SLI tChinaG Grave) Vard add5 bkel lanes ands sidewalks 74 County Wickiowy Way Extansion: B.Wickiow Wayios Stonyo Creek Contruct Collectory WNew Develapment 75 County Wichlowy Way Extension:o C Stony Creek fromA Argonaui Improvet toColleciar Sisndards  pavement  renabp pavement, (-20year) 50.890  (-20year; $1.010 (+20yean) $0.500 (-20yaar) $0.120 (-20year) $0.510 (+20year) $3.350 (-20year) $15.300 (+20year) '$16.130 (-20ysar $3110 (-20year). $8.960 (+20year) $1.550 (-20year). $44.340 (-20year $27.130 (-20year; $27.730 (-zoyear) $0.560 (-Z0year) $0.600 (-20year) 50420 (-20year) $0.540 (-2Uyean $0.090 -20yaar) 50.120  $2424 $0,000 $8.000 0 $8000 $6.000 56000  TIERIITOTAL:  $242.4  $0.000  2024/ Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  74    Table! 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers Tier I: Regional State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Candidate Projects  Revenue ACTC  2024Cost Estimate TimeFrame' (1,000s) STIP SHOPP RTMF (*-29)yr $1.300  Description  Other Sources'  Location Plymouth SR49Plymoutho CorridorPAED Plymouth SR4 49Plymouth CorridorA Mains SttoPoplar Plymoumn SR49Plymouhc Corridorc: SR4 49/Empire Plymouth SR49: SR1 16toPlymouth Jackson SR 49/88J Jackson Corridor PAED Jackson SR 49/88J Jackson CorridorF PS&E SR 49/88J Jackson Corridor ROW Jackson SR 49/88J Jacksond CorridorA SR4 49/86 from" Jackson Curbramps8 &sidewalks LocalCollector"t toMainst Jackson SR4 49/88 Jackson CorridorE BSR4 49/88f from MainStto Curbramps8 &sidewalks, crosswalks SRBBhlersecdion SR 49/88J Jackson Corridorc: SR49/881 SR 49/88 Jacksono CorridorD: SR491 froms SRE BBto Adds SBlanes sidewalk fromF FienchB Barto ClintonRdsfroms SouthAve.B Bridgel loFrenchE Bar Clinion Jackson SR 49/88J Jackson CorridorE: SR4 49/So. Broadway Realignas signalizeir intersection Jackson CourtStreet SR4 49/88J Jackson CoridorFs SRE B8frome Broadwayto signalizes SRE 681 Mssiona procrossmg. ands SR8 88/Court SR 49/88: Agonaughtio.VeganT TollRd lone SR1 /GolfLinksDr lone WRISA lone WRISB lone WRISC lone WRISD lone WIRISE lone WRISF lone WRISG WRISH lone WIRISI lone SR1 104@PM5.82 lone SR 104:E EMainto ElementarySchool lone SR 104: Mchigane BartoF FoothiBlvd County SR1 104/MchiganBar lone SR1 104: ShakelylnioSutertn SR 124/HowardPark/ lone ParkwayDr SR1 124:6 Main SttoHowardPark lone SR 124:E. Mains Stio Sutterk oneRd lone SR1 124/104/Preston/ AvenuelShakeleylane SutterCreek SR1 1O4PospeDr/Bowest Dr County SR26/Bobbieln RdtoBerryst County toTabeaud Rd County WickiowV WayE County SR 104:5 SR8B1SR49  ProjectLocation  PAED  &muli-modalin improvements (*-20)yr $3.000 Intersectionan muli-m modalir improvements (#-20)yr $3.500  Plymouth SR4 49Plymoutho CorridorB:P PoplartoEmpire Intersections &mull-modalir improvements (4-20)yr $3.500 Plymouth SR 49Plymouth CorridorD: SR4 49/ZintandelRd Intersections &mull-modalir improvements (*-20)yr 82-600  Plymouth SR 49Plymoutho CorridorE:Z Zinfandello CityLimits Addmulti-modal, pathway  (*-20)yr $2-600 (*-20)yr $0.340 (*-20)yr $1.200 (*-20)yr $1.400 (*-20)yr $1.800 (4-20)yr $2.400 (4-20)yr $6.700 (+-20)yr $3.600 (420yr $2.400 (4-20)yr $7.200 (*-20)yr $1.200 (*-20)yr $1.500 (4-20)yr $0.722 (+20)yr $0.629 (*-20)yr $2.700 (*-20)yr $8.100 (*-20)yr $22.300 (*/-20)yr $11.000 (*-20)yr $46.000 (*-20)yr $1.200 (W-20)yr $15.000 (*-20)yr $0.149 (*-20)yr $0.250 (*-20)yr $1.500 (*-20)yr $21.000 (4-20)yr (+-20)yr $1.600 (w-20)yr $0.090 (4-20)yr $8.200 (*-20)y $10.800 (*-20)yr $4.000 (*-20)yr $4.200  Widens shoulder, addt bikel laneasalety signage PAED PSSE ROW pedcrossing Widens shoulders Intersectionl improvements Constructe collectorw w/newd development (*-20)yr $6.900 Constructo Collectorw w'newo development (4-20)yr $6.000 Upgradeto Collectors standard Upgradetoc Collectors standard(bridge) Upgradetoc Collectors standard ConstructBypass ConstructBypass Constructe Bypass ConstructBypass WBturlane Mnori Improvements Intersectionin Improvements andbikes signage Tumpockets Major improvements improvements Signalizei intersection Intersectionk Improvements Rehabilitation: andw wideningo O/SRB 88, schoola access. addsidewalks Way Aligni intersectionw w/S SierraF & signalize Widen  Widenb bridge& addlefttump pockets. improve (4-20)yr $6.400  Sidewalks, bikela lanes.s schoola access &safely (W-20)yr $0.350  Compleles andpedestrianc crossings (*-20)yr $0.175  County SRB 88/Pine Grovel Improvements BS SR866 trom Climax Realigns SRB 88ClimaxRdin inlersection, add Counly SRB8Pine GroveAs SR88B BerrySL toHiltopRd. signalize intersections. pedo crossing. revse  pocket Ridger rdinimps. addED (+20)yr $14.200  Grovel Improvements C:SRB B8trom Hillop Signalizei intersection  SRB  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  75    Table! 5. Amador County Regional and State Highway Project Listing Tiers  County SR1 16/LatrobeRd County SR1 16/SR124 County SR4 49,8/argonautlane! Counly SR49/BellRd County SR4 49/MartellF RdlJackson Gate Counly SR 49/SR1 104/RidgeF Rd County SR49: SR 16toDrytown County SRE 88/AqueductRd County SR 88/Buckhorn RidgeF Rd County SRE 88/Buena VistaRd County SR 88/ ClintonRd SR County SR County 38/ Raven Rd County County SR 88/Sugar Pine Dr unty SR 88/Taves Rd SR 38/Tiger Creek Rd County SR 88/Toyon Rd County SR 88; Columbial Dr. Antelope Dr County SR 88; SR 1041 Wicklow Way County SR 88; Wayto SR4 49 County SR 88/Jackson ValleyRd. (w) County SRE 88/Omo Ranch Rd. County SR 88/MolfinoF Rd. County SRE 88/Martell Cutoff County SR8BI /Inspiration Drive  AadWBi rightturn! lane SEBI receingpocket (*-20)yr $0.750 Intersectionl Improvements Realigns &signalizeir intersection Curve correcion, widens shoulders, intersection imps Addleftturnle lane ands sidewalks Addrightlurl lanes dadds sidewalkst tos Sutter HIIRd Widens shoulders, improvep pede crossing. safety signage Intersectioni improvements Widen EBs shoulder, correctsightdi Intersectionl Improvements Intersectionl Improvements Signalizei intersection Intersecionl Improvements Intersectionk Improvements Intersectionl Improvements Intersectionk Improvements Intersecionl Improvements Correcisightdistance AddwBletump pocket Intersection! Improvements AddWBI letmump pocket NobH Hille curve correction Widen Widen Signalizei intersection Intersectionin Improvements AddEBle leftturnp pocket Signalizei intersection, accessc control, salety improvements Addlettumpocket State Highway SHOPP Candidate  (+-20)yr $1.400 (*-20)yr $3.000 (*-20)yr $0.281 (*20)yr $0.875 (+-20)yr $1.800 (*20)yr $0.250 (+20)yr $0.700 (*20)yr $0.300 (*20)yr $1.500 (*-20)yr $0.542 (*-20)yr $1.500 (*-20)yr $0.149 (*-20)yr $0.149 (+-20)yr $0,150 (*/-20)yr $0.350 (*-20yr $0,149 (*-20)yr $0,600 (*-20)yr $0,650 (*-20)yr $0,500 (+-20)yr $0.600 (+-20)yr $2.500 (*-20)yr $4.600 (+-20)yr $2,800 (*20)yr $1.500 (*-20)yr $0.250 (+-20)yr $0.650 (*20)yr $1.500 (*-20)yr Total  ValleyRd. (E) Cr. Rd  $268.391  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  76    4. SUMMARY OF COSTS, REVENUES, AND SHORTFALLS  In order to help identify the totali funding shortfalls facing the entire Regional Transportation System, the CTC's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines require that the RTP include a summary of the costs needed and revenues available to maintain andi improve all aspects oft the Regional Transportationsgtem. This includes the regional roadway improvements shown in the Tierland Tier II 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. Iti 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,, iti is recommended that the ACTCreview thei information contained withint the Financial Element on an annuall basis, in orderi tor 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 thei information contained within iti is provided by agencies other than the ACTC. Given that small rural agencies such as those in Amador County frequently have smallstaffing! levels and competing priorities that may prevent themf from regularly updating their planning documents, this policy simultaneously fulfills two purposes: A) it allows the ACTC 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 II.  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. Toaddress this deficit, some local jurisdictions are actively seeking additional revenue sources, including the possible enactment of locals sales taxi measures dedicated to roadway maintenance  projects.  The 2024 RTP Tierl la and Tier H 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 toi implement the Amador region jurisdictions' planned improvements. By comparing these projected revenues with estimated costs, The Tier I (unfunded) project listing shows that at 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 helpr 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 eachj 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 ACTC RTP implementation effort may result  inp project delivery scope and cost efficiencies.  Developer Mitigations  Ina addition toi thel RTMF fees discussed above, new development often creates the need fori 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  2024A 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. Itis difficult to determine with precision when a specific development will actually occur afteri 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, iti is difficult to determine when the various "fair-share" funds collected by individual: agencies willl be coordinated to build projects that ares shared regional responsibilities. Fort 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 Tierland 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  Asr 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 fori 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 intot the Highway User Tax Account (HUTA). These funds are redistributed by a formula directly back to the cities and counties from which they originate forl localr 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 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 oft these funds willl likely be used to fund on-going road maintenance as opposed to implementing local  maintenance costs of thej jurisdictions.  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  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  79    transportation funding due tot the high demand on them to serve other public priorities. Therefore, none  are assumed over the next 20 years.  Transit  As described in the. ACTC'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 andi tools. Future captalimprovement costs included various items such as fleet replacement vehicles, bus stops, new technologies, and maintenance facility upgrades. Because the planning period fort the LRTDP extends to2030, 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 willl be needed for planned improvements within the next 10 years.  The LRTDP 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 ift the same grants continue to be funded by FTA or through the State. When combined, these revenues are expected to totalf $55 million. By comparing these projected revenues with the estimated costsneeded tos 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. Itis 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 6s 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 shorfalls/surpluses cited above  would need to be amended accordingly. 2024A 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 neart 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 $6.8r million over the next 10 years and $13.61 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. Ifthese costs are more distinctly separated through an update oft the Westover Field Airport Master Plan in thet 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 int 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 AIP 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 theset funds on national priorities and objectives. Based ont thes success Amador County has hadi ina 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 overt the last 5 years. Similartot the Region'stransit: system, this lack off funding deficit is becausei 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 Pedestriana 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 oft 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 at 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 ofi 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 curbr 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 ift the cities and county allocate their local revenues toward these purposes,  thereby lowering this deficit, the Financial Element would be amended accordingly.  2024A 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 ACTC'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 distinctlyi in Table 6, which shows that approximately $600,000 isn needed to operate and maintain the ACTC'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 recently-installed  solar-power generating parking shade structures at the Sutter Hill Transit Center.  There are various funding sources that can be usedi 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 overt the next 20y 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. Int 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.  Ins summary, approximately $68 million in combined costs would be needed to operate and maintain all  aspects oft the existing Regional Transportation System overt 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 fort the RTP's 20-year planning horizon.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  83    Table 6: Summary of Costs, Revenues, and Shortfalls Short-Range Long-Range Costs  Improvement Projects  Costs (2024-2034) NA NA  (2024-2044-)  Projected Revenues NA NA  Funding Shortfall  Operations & Maintenance State Highway System Regional Roadways Public Transit Aviation Pedestrian & Bicycle Alternative Strategies  NA NA  NA NA  Total: $17.2m  $52m $16.3m NA $600k $68.9m2  $52m $16.3m NA $600k $68.9m2  $0m1 $0 NA $0 $0m2  $8.1m NA $300k $25.6m2  Planned improvements State Highway System Regional Roadways Public Transit Aviation Pedestrian & Bicycle Alternative: Strategies  NA  NA  NA  NA  $19.5m $8.3m $6.6m $0m $1.4m $29.2m Total: $45.1m2  $39m $17.3m NA $0m $3.4m $59.7m $128.6m2  $39m $17.3m $6.3m $340k $0 $56.6m $125.5m2  $245.7m $0m $330k $265m -$3.4m $514m $514m2  Total:  Foot Notes  1.Assumedi ink LRTDPa asr revenue forp planned transit capitali improvements.  2. Summary of Operational and Maintenance Costs, Revenues, and Shortfalls does noti include Local Streets and Roads or Pedestrian: and Bicycle needs duet toa al lack ofa accurate data. Therefore, overall shortfalls may bel larger than can ber reported. Newi informationi from pending studies will be  usedt to update Table 6 when available.  2024A 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 thei financial strategies outlined int the following section. However, thei information cited above is designed to provide abasic 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 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-allocatedi 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 additionalfunding 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 Thel 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 ofi investment currently beingi made Inl 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  maintenance, ifs so, directed by the Amador Transit Board of Directors.  available.  facilities.  through existing programs in ordert to address these deficits.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  85    impacts are adequately identified and off-set by related mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are effectively coordinated andi 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 overt 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 voters support neededt to pass al local, % cent sales tax that could raise at total of $378 million ini 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 estimatedi that "Measure K" could have provided approximately $15 millioneachi fortransit and pedestrian/bicycle improvements, $143 million for local road maintenance, and $197 million for improvementst tot the State Highway System. However, iti isi important to notet that the revenue projections and proposed expenditures cited above reflect the economic times and public preferences at the time Measure Kwas developed. Given newe economic forecasts such as the lower growth rates provided byt 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 al 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 These funds could be used to construct some of the regional roadway projects identified on Tier l,or; These funds could be used to build local road projects and a portion of proposed pedestrian and  though out the Region over the next 20 years, or;  bicycle improvements, or;  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  86    Thesei 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 oft the above" strategy to address each of these These are only illustrative examples of what this level of potential funding could be used to achieve. Ifthe 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.  areas.  5. FINANCIALS STRATEGY  An analysis of the costs, revenues, and shortfalls discussed above shows that significant funding constraints will continue to affect the ability of ACTCa andi its partners toi implement plannedimprovements: 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 ACTC 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 int the RTP ands specific  direction provided the Commission.  (1) Maximize the effectiveness of currently available funding.  Itisi 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 andf fatali flaws early in thei 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.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  87    Help Amador Transit identify and implement any productivity improvements needed to Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the design and construction of new Pursuel low-cost alternative: strategies, emerging technologies, andi innovative approaches that can! help address existing and future transportation needs and reduce the need for expensive  increase ridership and reduce operational costs. roadway projects where efficient and feasible.  infrastructure investments.  (2) Aggressively pursue existing and newj 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 ACTC and its partners. As shown in the Financial Element, there are existing funding opportunities that are reasonably available to help fund ac 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 andi federal competitive funds by assisting with project screening and providing preliminary analysis, designs, cost estimates, and grant 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 Help the cities and county identify and acquire adequate funding for their local road If warranted by voter support, assist with developing and implementing a regional transportation "Self-Help" sales-tax measure in order to generate additional transportation  support as requested.  available.  maintenance and improvement needs.  funding.  2024 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  88    (3) Leverage limited local and regionalj funds to obtain additional: state and federalj funds.  Use available RSTP, CMAQ, RTMF, and local TIM funds to pay for the local-match needed to Identify regional priorities that are competitive for SHOPP, Minor, and IIP funding ands strongly encourage Caltrans' partnership towardi the completion ofthese projects by contributing local 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  acquire additional state and federal competitive funds.  or regional matching funds.  construction.  (4) Increase the efficiency and timeliness ofproject 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 longert 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 byt these procedural challenges and are often "red-flagged" for not meeting delivery deadlines. This prevents them from applying for newi funding opportunities to complete additional projects. Fort this reason, it isi important toi improve the efficiency and timeliness oft 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 tot the cities and county in order to help resolve "critical-path" issues and accelerate project Develop increased expertise and efficiency in addressing Caltrans and FHWA process requirements and identify any means available to help reduce thet 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.  completion.  (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 beloware  recommended.  Regularly convene meetings oft the ACTC's Technical, Advisory Committee to monitort the status of priority projects, the funding available for those projects, and any action items needed to Help the cities, county, and Caltrans develop and implement the funding strategies and partnerships needed to complete the Region's priority improvements in at timely fashion. Help the cities and county implement adopted traffic impact mitigations and coordinate required "fair-share" financial contributions to complete regionallys significant projects. Assist the cities and county with maintaining and implementing local Pavement Management  accelerate their delivery.  Systems and Capital Improvement Programs, as requested.  (6) Influence state/federal regulation and legislation that affect transportation costs and funding 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  availability.  recommended.  Maintain memberships in various state and national organizations, committees, and/or workgroups that are involved withi 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.  2024A Amador County Regional Transportation Plan; Draft  90