IV. ACTION ELEMENT

The Action Element serves as the RTP's implementation strategy and is linked to projected revenues and costs in the Financial Element that follows. The Action Element sets forth a plan of action to address issues and needs identified in accordance with the Plan's goals, objectives and policies. The Action Element identifies short-range (present to 2010) and long-range (2011 to 2025) transportation improvements by mode. The Action Element also contains a mechanism to assist with prioritizing the projects for funding. A set of specific criteria are applied to the projects and an overall score is provided based on the criteria. As is discussed later in this chapter, the technical prioritization tool is one mean of determining projects that may receive priority for limited transportation funding. Future updates to the prioritization tool should evolve as HCAOG and its member agencies engage in this process.

PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Despite funding shortfalls and cutbacks that have occurred over the past several years, the HCAOG member entities and Native American tribes have accomplished many regional transportation improvement projects and developed plans for future transportation improvement projects. This is due to considerable efforts by HCAOG members and tribal leaders alike, and reflects local commitments to develop Humboldt County's multi-modal transportation system. A number of these accomplishments are described below.

Caltrans initiated System Planning in the 1980’s to help direct the long-term maintenance, management, and development of the transportation system. The primary product of System Planning is the Route Concept Report, which is developed in cooperation with the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. The Route Concept Report describes Caltran’s conceptual development options for a given transportation route or corridor. HCAOG, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Humboldt County, is responsible for reviewing and commenting on the Route Concept Report.

Humboldt County has completed bridge replacement projects, improved the secondary road system, and responded to higher maintenance road system requirements. The County continues its commitment to implementing the Humboldt County Trails Plan, particularly the Hammond Trail, which is scheduled for construction in 2007, as well as its commitment to public transit service and specialized transportation systems. The County continues to draft the Transportation Element of the General Plan, which will also include an updated trails plan.

Humboldt County is in the process of developing its new 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which guides the uses of the County’s transportation dollars over the next several years. The County is~~has~~ developinged a priority list of road projects from its pavement management system that determines the order of need in terms of maintenance and rehabilitation. The County also completed the Moving Goods and People Report, a phase of the General Plan Update. The report focuses on eight areas of transportation, as well as existing conditions and policy options. In addition, the County has been involved in a cooperative GIS based transportation modeling effort underway involving the County, the cities, HCAOG and CalTrans.

The City of Eureka has updated its Pavement Management System (PMS) in the spring of 2006 and continues to manage this program through its five year Capital Improvement Program. The PMS develops a priority listing of road projects, helps to determine the impacts of deferred maintenance, and guides the expenditure of limited funding towards the greatest maintenance needs.

Eureka’s General Plan was adopted in 1997 and includes a Transportation and Circulation Element with policies for roadways, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians, good movement and rail and water transportation. In 1995, the City of Eureka Trails Committee identified a series of “Waterfront Trail and Promenade” recommendations for use in the development of the Humboldt Bay Trail through the City limits.

The City of Eureka contracts with the Humboldt Transit Authority to manage the operations of the Eureka Transit Service, Redwood Transit System, and local para-transit programs.

The City of Arcata's General Plan: 2020 Transportation Element contains policies for a balanced transportation system, transportation system management, and other measures for managing the local transportation system. The City has also constructed traffic calming facilities, including roundabouts on Giuntoli Lane and Highway 101, and traffic circles at several residential street intersections. The City supports Arcata and Mad River Transit System (A&MRTS), the HTA, and a local para-transit system. The A&MRTS Transit Center serves as an intermodal facility for three transit lines, as well Greyhound and Amtrak. In addition, it serves as a park & ride facility.

Arcata has developed the Arcata Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Capital Improvements Projects Schedule, which will guide the future development of non-motorized projects. There are public indications for improved and safer pedestrian and bicycle facilities regionwide.

Fortuna has implemented a para-transit system and continues to implement the Rohnerville Road reconstruction project. Development of bicycle facilities were incorporated in the Rohnerville project and further aided by the cities adopted bike plans. Fortuna also participates in the HTA regional transit program and coordinates para-transit services with local health care providers.

The City of Ferndale continues to complete roadway maintenance and reconstruction projects as funds become available. The City has completed various sidewalk improvement and extension projects towards the goal of providing more pedestrian access and handicap accessibility throughout the City.

The City of Blue Lake continues to complete roadway maintenance and reconstruction projects as funds become available.

The City of Rio Dell sponsored a Safe Routes to School Workshop in November of 2005. The workshop outlined ways to increase the number of children who walk and/or bicycle to school, which will ultimately reduce overall traffic around the school, and increase the physical activity levels of Rio Dell students. The brainstorming session resulted in recommendations to create a ‘Safe Route to School Path’ with safety signage, develop of a pedestrian path behind the school, rerouting the already existing bike path in front of the school, creating cutouts at the end of sidewalks, and the placement of the “Safe Routes to School” topic on the Traffic Committee’s agenda.

The City of Rio Dell also completed the Wildwood Avenue Gateway project which included the installation of sidewalks, median strip, and landscaping from the southbound U.S. 101 Wildwood Avenue exit to the intersection of Wildwood Avenue and Davis Street. The project also included the installation of a “Welcome to Rio Dell” monument sign within the new landscaped median.

The smaller cities in Humboldt County must continually look for funding to adequately maintain existing streets and roads. At the present time some of these smaller cities have public transit service, either through their HTA membership or their own municipal system operation.

The Blue Lake Rancheria began dial-a-ride transit service in spring 2001. In 2004 the DAR served 3,953 individuals and in 2005 is served 3,313 individuals. The Blue Lake Rancheria also began a fixed route intercity bus service in the fall of 2002 that serves the Rancheria, Blue Lake, Glendale, HSU and the Arcata Transit Center. In 2004 it provided service to 11,091 individuals and in 2005 it served 15,981 individuals.

Klamath Trinity Non Emergency Transportation (K/T NET) commenced transit operations in January 2003. K/T NET is a non-profit community based organization in eastern Humboldt County to provide needed service in underserved areas, including tribal lands such as Hoopa, and connections to other existing transit systems, such as Humboldt Transit Authority. Existing or planned transportation service, depending on funding availability, will connect the communities of Pecwan, Orleans, Weitchpec, and Willow Creek with Arcata in Humboldt County, and Salyer, Hawkins Bar and Burnt Ranch in Trinity County with Willow Creek along the SR 299 corridor.

The Yurok Tribe completed the Yurok Tribal Transportation Plan (TTP) in 2006. Included in the TTP is a list of projects for the Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP). The Yurok Tribe also completed a comprehensive update of Indian Reservation Road Program inventory (IRR).

Hoopa Valley Tribe released the Traffic Calming and Safety Enhancement in the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation: A Conceptual Plan for “Downtown” Hoopa in January 2006. The Plan involved community members in crafting design solutions to traffic and safety problems, specifically along the “critical injury sites” of Highway 96, while supporting existing community development efforts. The Plan includes traffic calming improvements for Downtown Hoopa, re-alignment of Tish Tang Road, proposed access controls along portions of Highway 96, and pedestrian improvements. The project complemented economic development, tourism planning, and injury prevention programs and other efforts to improve the quality of life currently underway in the Hoopa Valley.

In an effort to improve Safety on Highway 255 for Manila residents, the Manila Community Services District (MCSD) released the Manila Community Transportation Plan – Phase II in December of 2005. While the Plan outlines a number of suggested improvements to assist in reducing the safety risks related to State Route 255, the Plan recommends that improvements which are relatively inexpensive be implemented first. The installation of left turn lanes at Pacific, Carlson, and Stamps intersection; lighting at all intersections in Manila, with a prioritization at S.R. 255 at Dean and Pacific; installation of fog lines and reflective delineators at all intersections; and striping and painting or surfaced landscaped medians to create narrower lanes have been identified as priority projects in the Plan.

Rehabilitation, reconstruction, and overlay projects for the local entities were programmed in recent STIP Augmentation cycles. This includes projects totaling more than $28 million which is the current balance of projects programmed in the 2006 STIP. Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) improvements were also programmed totaling $1.7 million. The RTIP processes significantly reflect and serve to implement the RTP through programming the region's highest priority projects. These include numerous transit vehicle and public transit improvements, as well as facilities for bicycle and pedestrians in all of the incorporated cities and Humboldt County.

In terms of measurement parameters, the County and incorporated cities are progressing towards the multi-modal goals and objectives of the RTP. The realization of these goals will result from adherence to the comprehensive policies adopted in the RTP, and the development of a balanced transportation system in Humboldt County.

STATE AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING

The state and regional planning processes are defined by legislation on the federal and state level. In the last several years TEA-21, SB 45, SAFETEA, CTC guidelines, the past state budget crisis, and more recently the adoption of SAFETEA-LU, have all had profound effects on regional transportation planning processes. For example, the legislative bills and acts have included new requirements for transportation planning, air quality conformity, project selection and delivery responsibility, and the allocation of federal funds. However, the bleak economic status of California has caused many delays in project funding and delivery, with future delays eminent. Following is a discussion of state and regional planning processes as they relate to this RTP.

State Transportation Planning Process

State planning for highways is accomplished through several processes that identify needed improvement projects. These planning processes culminate in the biennial STIP for capacity-increasing projects. The STIP is a list of projects selected from the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) and the Caltrans Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). With the advent of SB 45, the biennial STIP changed from a four-year to a five-year program adopted by the CTC by April 1 of even numbered years.

In Humboldt County, as in many other rural counties, the planning policies revolve around conformity with state law, as well as Federal SAFETEA-LU and other legislation. Additionally, Caltrans is responsible for state highway improvements of a non-capacity-increasing nature for rehabilitation, safety or operational improvements via the State Highway Operation and Protection Plan (SHOPP).

The current STIP process requires local jurisdictions to present their RTIP programming documents to the CTC biennially, usually at the end of each odd numbered year. Local agency RTIP products and individual projects must meet specific criteria and must have an approved Project Study Report (PSR) to be formally accepted by the CTC. HCAOG, as the regional agency, may program projects for the state highway system, local county road and city street networks, transit improvements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, rail improvements, and other projects benefiting the regional intermodal transportation system.

Caltrans also has a long-term system planning process. Initiated by Caltrans in 1983, this process undergoes periodic review, and updates to conform to current requirements. Caltrans has developed Route Concept Reports for all of the State Highways in Humboldt County.

Regional Transportation Improvement Process

In response to AB 69 (1972), the regional transportation planning process was initiated throughout California in 1973. The Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) was designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Humboldt County.

A primary responsibility of the HCAOG is to adopt and update the RTP and RTIP in accordance with state law. HCAOG is also responsible for determining the priorities for all proposed new transportation facilities shown in the RTP. HCAOG is required to submit the RTP biennially to the CTC and Caltrans by December 1 of all even-numbered years. The RTIP is due biennially on December 15 of odd-numbered years.

Each fiscal year, HCAOG approves the Overall Work Program (OWP). The OWP document outlines the transportation planning work to be accomplished, responsible agencies, and funding. The OWP helps ensure that an adequate and up-to-date RTP is maintained. The OWP must be approved by Caltrans before State and Regional Planning Assistance Funds (SRPAF) can be used for transportation planning studies or administration. The state funds are used to reimburse local funds and no local matching funds are required.

The OWP also includes regional agency use of Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) resources. One of the significant purposes of the OWP is to serve as the tool for addressing issues emanating from the RTP and its processes, thereby creating an implementation mantle for the RTP, RTIP, and OWP.

It is HCAOG's responsibility to prepare an RTP that identifies projects needed in Humboldt County, and to comply with RTP guidelines adopted by the CTC in 2000. In preparing both the RTP and RTIP, HCAOG works cooperatively with Caltrans District 1, local transit authorities and transit agencies, Native American Tribes, residents, and HCAOG member entities, which include Humboldt County and the cities of Arcata, Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Fortuna, Rio Dell, and Trinidad, ~~Caltrans, the County and~~to ensure consistency with their system planning and other processes. The RTP must be financially constrained based on realistic funding expectations.

Consistency with Goals, Policies, and Financial Constraints

The RTP’s regional and local action programs are a compilation of projects already proposed and/or planned for Humboldt County in past RTPs and planning studies, as well as new projects necessary to provide adequate operation of the various transportation systems. These current and future projects and programs are supported by the goals and policies contained in the RTP’s Policy Element.

The recommended improvements for the roadway system, the transit system, aviation facilities, bikeway and pedestrian facilities, and the goods movement system are important steps towards achieving the region’s transportation goals. Action programs for Transportation Systems Management (TSM), Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and air quality are also selected for their ability to meet transportation program goals and carry out policy.

Some larger transportation system improvements being considered for Humboldt County, such as bypasses, interchanges, or regional express bus service, are costly to develop and operate. The Financial Element program funds come from a variety of sources, to carry out both long-term and short-term projects identified in the Action Element. Projects and programs are considered financially constrained when the necessary funding is lacking.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of RTP improvements are to: improve safety on state highways, county roads, and city streets; increase transit ridership; expand non-motorized facilities; increase pedestrian and bicycle travel; make goods movement more efficient; maximize local aviation linkages to the national network; improve infrastructure and facilities for recreational travel; maintain pipeline transmission systems; utilize Transportation System Management techniques and technologies (ITS and ATS); reduce transportation related air pollution; and promote coordinated land use and transportation planning.

PLAN ASSUMPTIONS

Regional transportation planning is a critical process because it affects all residents. The Regional Transportation Plan is based on a set of assumptions regarding the future needs of those residents. These assumptions were updated by the CAC and TAC as part of the 2006 update. The assumptions, listed in the RTP Introduction and Needs Assessment, address projected growth, travel patterns, transit ridership, fuel and energy costs, goods movement, and use of alternative travel modes. Actions are based on projected needs derived from these assumptions.

SHORT AND LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS BY MODE

The transportation improvements proposed in this RTP are separated into short-term (0-10 years) and long-term (11-20 years) projects to conform to RTP Guidelines. The following improvements for the roadway system, the transit system, aviation facilities, bikeway and pedestrian facilities, and the rail and goods movement system are proposed to alleviate existing transportation problems (short-term) or accommodate future (long-term) travel demand.

A. ROADWAYS

To improve and maintain a regional road system, both short-term and long-term projects are needed. Projects listed below identify the key roadway improvements for Humboldt County's regional road system through the RTP's horizon year of 2025. These improvements are in addition to critically needed road maintenance.

Short term (0-10 years) STIP Funded & Candidate Roadway Projects: Table IV-1 lists the current 2006 STIP improvement projects and their costs for roadways in Humboldt County. In addition, other projects that are not currently in the STIP, but have been identified as near term, are also included. Despite being programmed in the STIP, most projects have not been voted to receive actual funding by the state CTC. The total cost of the short term road projects is $70,109.

Long term (11-20 years) Roadway Projects: Table IV-2 lists the proposed candidate long-term improvement projects and their costs. The projects identified in the table are necessary to maintain service levels and accommodate projected traffic growth over the next twenty years. The total long-range cost estimate could exceed $203,677.

Short-term (0-10 years) SHOPP Funded Roadway Projects: Short-term improvement projects for the State Highway System will be funded through the Caltrans SHOPP and "Minor" programs. Although Caltrans is responsible for these programs, the County may have limited input into those projects that are programmed for SHOPP funding. Table IV-3 lists the short-range SHOPP projects that are either programmed by Caltrans in the 2006 SHOPP, projects listed in the 2005 SHOPP Ten Year Plan, or are deemed necessary for implementation in the near term. Total cost is $$336,837.

Long-term (11-20 year) SHOPP Funded Roadway Projects: In the long-term, Caltrans is expected to continue funding certain State highways improvements in Humboldt County through the SHOPP program. Caltrans District 1 was very helpful in identifying both short and long term SHOPP projects. The long term projects identified in Table IV-4, including rehabilitation and operations, cost $117,757.

Local Streets, Hazard Elimination Safety, Emergency Repair and Bridge Replacement: Important Humboldt County roadway, safety, emergency repair and bridge projects are listed in
Table IV-5. This table also indicates the likely funding sources for these projects.

Inventory of Ten-Year Funding Needs (SR 8): State Resolution 8 requires that the State report unfunded costs of operating, rehabilitating and expanding the State's transportation system over the next ten years. Through requests of the State's regional transportation agencies and Caltrans, the California Transportation Commission prepared an inventory of unfunded transportation needs in May of 1999. The statewide funding shortfall is dramatic, upwards of $53.6 billion of improvements are needed for highways, arterials, bridges, rail, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The following summarizes SR 8's inventory of Humboldt County's needs for the next ten years:

Pavement rehabilitation on local streets and roads: $157,870,900
Local bridge replacement and rehabilitation: $27,311,333
Native American reservation roads and access roads (federally funded): $89,831,300
State highway bridge and highway rehabilitation (SHOPP funded): $220,700,000
State highway safety improvements (SHOPP funded): $16,900,000
State highway operational improvements (SHOPP funded): $32,900,000
State highway recurring problems: $63,500,000
Total SHOPP needs in next ten years: $334,000,000

The SR 8 inventory identifies specific projects in Humboldt County including:

Richardson Grove Bypass ($250,000,000)
Eureka-Arcata Freeway Gap ($28,000,000)
NWP Railroad damage repair ($52,500,000)

The project at Richardson’s Grove was portrayed in SR 8 products, but has since been eliminated as a candidate in Caltrans US 101 Route Concept Report (October 2002) due to cost and environmental impacts. Although the Richardson Grove Bypass has been eliminated as a candidate project, the Caltrans US 101 Route Concept Report Route identifies Richardson Grove (PM 2.1/3.5) as being a STAA Truck Restriction Location. In addition, the area directly North of Richard Grove (PM R5.6/74.8) is reported as having collision rates greater than 1.5 times of the statewide average.

The Eureka-Arcata Freeway Gap is now referred to as the Eureka-Arcata corridor after its conversion to a safety corridor. The 2006 STIP has allotted $2,613,000 towards P & E for the Eureka-Arcata corridor project. The 2006 STIP allocation does not cover the entire cost of the Eureka-Arcata corridor project. According to HCAOG staff, the current estimate for the project is between $25 and $30 million dollars. However, the total price tag for the corridor project will be determined at the outcome of the environmental review process.

The North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) released a 2006 Strategic Plan that estimates $106 million dollars will be needed to reopen the entire line.

Operational Benefits Resulting from the RTP Improvements: Regional circulation system benefits from RTP projects include reduced roadway congestion and increased safety. If all of the listed projects were implemented, most of the regional roadway facilities in Humboldt County would operate at acceptable levels under 2025 conditions based on average daily traffic. However, some locations will continue to experience increases in traffic during peak periods due to recreational travel that may cause some delay or added congestion from time to time. Further physical improvements required to maintain better-than-average traffic operations along these segments would be financially infeasible and would cause additional environmental impacts.

The remainder of this page intentionally left blank

B. TRANSIT

Very few ~~Several~~ funding sources are available for rural, public transportation. Funding sources for rural, public transportation include~~, including~~ FTA Section 5311 funds, Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, fare revenues, State Transit Assistance and advertising revenues. Section 5311 funds are available for capital purposes on an 80:20 federal to local matching ratio, and for operating purposes on a 50:50 matching ratio. Each year approximately $200,000 is regionally apportioned from these sources for vehicle replacement.

FTA Section 5310 also funds private non-profit agencies' vehicle acquisitions for transporting the elderly and handicapped. However, this program is very competitive considering the limited funds that are made available by FTA. Transit agencies and RTPA's may also apply for FTA/Technical Planning Assistance projects through Caltrans Mass Transportation Program.

Short-term Actions (0-10 years)

Table IV-6 shows short term improvements for the region's primary public transit operators: Humboldt Transit Authority, Eureka Transit Service~~ystem~~, and Arcata & Mad River Transit System~~ervice~~. The improvements are primarily for the expansion or replacement of the existing transit vehicle fleet.

Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA): The Authority provides transit services to all communities participating in their JPA or individually contracting for services. HTA updated its Transit Development Plan in August 2002. The 2006 updated HTA transit developed plan is scheduled to be released in June. Significant new services beyond operational changes of current programs are not anticipated to be added by the Authority. The Authority anticipates use of RSTP transit set-aside and regional FTA Section 5311 for capital uses ~~transit vehicle replacement~~ on an ongoing basis.

Eureka Transit Service~~ystem~~ (ETS): The City of Eureka updated its Transit Development Plan in July 2001, which provides for five-year capital planning. This includes the acquisition of replacement vehicles for the ETS program, and a passenger shelter program to accommodate recent route modifications. The 2006 updated ETS transit development plan is scheduled to be released in June.

Arcata & Mad River Transit System~~ervice~~ (A&MRTS): The City of Arcata also updated its Transit Development Plan in July 2001. The 2001 TDP recommends some routing and scheduling improvements. Bus schedules and transfers will continue to be coordinated with the intercity bus system. The 2006 updated A&MRTS transit development plan is scheduled to be released in June.

Long-term Actions (11-20 years)

Table IV-7 shows long term improvements for the region's primary public transit operators. The improvements are primarily for the expansion or replacement of the existing transit vehicle fleet. In addition, a bus shelter improvement program is proposed for each of the systems.

Table IV-6: Humboldt County Short-Range Transit System Improvements

Table IV-7: Humboldt County Long-Range Transit System Improvements

C. AVIATION

The forecasts contained in the HCAOG 2002-04 RTP Update and incorporated into this RTP Update, were developed from several sources. For all airports except Eureka Municipal, the Federal Aviation Administration has developed forecasts as part of its annual Terminal Area Forecasts. Caltrans developed forecasts as part of the California Aviation System Plan (CASP). However, the CASP forecasts for Humboldt County have not been updated since 1988. Therefore, they are judged not to have any utility for this Plan. The airport master plans prepared for all airports but Eureka Municipal in 1993 also contain forecasts. Although these plans are now eight years old, they contain the only forecasts developed with a consideration of local growth patterns. Current updates are in the process, having been started in 2004 ~~2002~~ for ~~ACV/Kneeland, and~~ ~~2004 for~~ Dinsmore, Garberville, Murray Field and Rohnerville.

Airport Capital Improvement Program: Capital investments are planned by the four jurisdictions that own the public-use airports in Humboldt County, including the City of Eureka, County of Humboldt, Shelter Cove Improvement District, and Hoopa Valley Tribe.

D. BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

The 2004 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan for Humboldt County identifies potential bicycle projects, bicycle routes, facilities, and improvements for the region. The list of projects in the plan is detailed in the Needs Assessment section of this document. HCAOG's Pedestrian Needs Assessment was updated in June 2003 which provides recommendations for future pedestrian projects throughout the region. The complete list of recommendations is also included in the Needs Assessment.

At the initial set of RTP workshops, comments were received regarding the need for the establishment of a bicycle and pedestrian trail between Arcata and Eureka. Recently, a technical Assistance Grant from the National Park Service was issued to identify the opportunities and constraints in the development of a multi-use trail facility in the NCRA corridor between Eureka and Arcata. A group of multi-jurisdictional stakeholders affected by the trail development (HCAOG, RCAA, City of Arcata, City of Eureka, County officials, National Park Service, Caltrans, Humboldt Bay, NCRA) has been established to assist the National Park Service. The group has met on several occasions and is currently in the process of conducting a visioning. The group anticipates community workshops being held in the fall of 2006 that will include design charettes.

High priority bicycle and pedestrian projects identified and updated by respective entities are illustrated in Table IV-8. However, it is important to note that the Pedestrian Needs Assessment and the 2004 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan identify additional projects throughout the county.

Table IV-8: Humboldt County Non-Motorized Projects

E. GOODS MOVEMENT

Truck Transport

Truck transport will continue to be the primary method of goods movement into, within and out of Humboldt County. Cooperative efforts are needed between the trucking industry, Humboldt County, and Caltrans to assess the impacts that trucks have on the roadway network, and to create regulatory guidelines for truck travel, such as designated truck routes. This effort should also be coordinated with the County's pavement management program. Even with the limited roadway network in the County, trucks should not be permitted on facilities that are not designed or constructed for heavy vehicles if there are alternatives..

Because of the restrictions on trailers longer than 28 feet and the expense of improving US 101 north of Mendocino County, there is a need to support the efficient movement of goods for the economic benefit of the Ccounty. Alternative methods of accessing the County by large, legal trucks should be reviewed. Alternative methods could include the legal entry of large trucks into the County during night time hours.

Rail Transport

The North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) released and updated Capital Assessment Report-Russian River Division, in November of 2005. The report is a comprehensive condition assessment of the railroad from Lombard to Willits. The updated report provides recommendations for improvements and processes to reopen the railroad, details capital repairs, deferred maintenance, storm water repair, and related environmental requirements to reopen the railroad.

Subsequently, in March 2006, the NCRA released a Strategic Plan and Progress Report. The Strategic Plan has been refined to reflect available funds and the requirement to have completely operable segments to attract and support an operator. The Strategic Plan calls for an eventual reopening of the entire line. In order to maximize funding sources and begin construction, the construction is expected to be phased based on a strategy of operable segments that produce return on investment to an operator. The Strategic Plan identifies current funding sources for each of the nine operable phases, which are as follows: TCRP $22.3 million, ISTEA $8.6 million, Measure M $3 million, private $30.2 million, other $41.9 million for a total of $106 million.

Marine Transport

The following summary lists the current status of several Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation and Conservation District projects. Additional information on these projects can be found in the Harbor District's Five Year Operational Plan and recently completed Harbor Revitalization Plan.

Harbor Deepening Project: The Humboldt Bay deepening project for the Bar and Entrance Channels (from -40' MLLW to -48' MLLW), and the North Bay and Samoa Channels (from -35' MLLW to -38' MLLW) was completed in April 2000.

Maintenance Dredging: The Harbor District continues to work with the Army Corps of Engineers on maintenance dredging of Humboldt Bay Channels and entrance.

Fields Landing Channel: The proposed modernization of the Fields Landing Channel, by deepening it from the currently authorized -26' MLLW to -35/ MLLW, was identified as a federal cost share project in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, by the US Congress.

Humboldt Bay Management Plan: The Harbor District continues to work on the implementation~~update~~ of the Humboldt Bay Management Plan.

Redwood ~~Publicly-Owned~~ Marine Terminal Modernization: A project to establish a multi-purpose, publicly-owned marine terminal with two berths that would be available for cruise ships, cargo ships, visiting Naval vessels and seasonal or overflow commercial fishing activities. The first four of eight Public Terminal Implementation Plan tasks were completed in 1994. The survey of potential tenants was completed in 1997. The site analysis is continuing.

F. RECREATIONAL TRAVEL

Recreational travel needs have been given a lower priority than roadways, transit and other modes in Humboldt County. However some recreational travel needs can be met by incorporating solutions into traditional transportation projects. When incorporating recreational travel into the earliest stages of project planning and development, costs can be minimized and additional supplemental funding can be sought.

HCAOG has begun to and will continue to establish collaborative partnerships between transportation entities and economic development organizations. The County's Overall Economic Development Plan updates make transportation-related recommendations for improving recreational travel. Incorporation of recommendations from this document into transportation planning efforts benefit both regional transportation and tourism.

The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District and the City of Eureka are developing plans and projects for trail segments along the Humboldt Bay. The regional perspective and multi-jurisdictional assistance provided by HCAOG could facilitate development of a connected trail-a recreational and transportation attraction of regional significance. In addition, HCAOG co-funded a Redwood Trails planning project in Southern Humboldt during FY 2001-02 to identify trails candidate projects for future funding cycles.

G. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

HCAOG should continue to encourage Caltrans and local jurisdictions to investigate the feasibility of, and pursue Transportation System Management (TSM) measures as the first priority of improvements before implementing capacity enhancing projects. TSM encompasses the use of technology in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) or Advanced Transportation Systems (ATS), the use of computer and communications technologies to improve safety, productivity, and mobility even while traffic congestion increases. HCAOG should continue to support and encourage ongoing demonstration projects, such as Rural COATS, and to coordinate with Caltrans to identify federal and state funding for additional ITS/ATS projects for the rural and urban areas of Humboldt County potentially including the following types of projects:

Traveler safety through electronic information dissemination site-specific safety advisories using electronic detection, surveillance and monitoring of areas and transit vehicles, and in-vehicle monitoring and detection.
Emergency services to quickly alert dispatchers, advanced dispatching and vehicle-based response system, and emergency communications systems linking critical agencies.
Tourism and travel information services for route and destination guidance, mobility services including transit, para-transit and parking systems, transit and toll smart car payment systems, and event and incident management information systems.
Public transit services for improved dispatching and automatic vehicle location to improve transit timing and scheduling, smart card fare payment, and advanced ride sharing/matching systems to increase carpooling.
Infrastructure operations and maintenance systems such as traffic signal and management systems, automated bridge, pavement and roadside hardware management systems, and advanced work zone management and traffic control systems.
Fleet and commercial vehicle operations including dispatching and routing systems, advanced work zone management and traffic control systems.
Fleet and commercial vehicle operations including dispatching and routing systems, advanced vehicle tracking for snow plows, fleet maintenance management, rural addressing systems, enhanced weather advisory systems, and on-the-road communications for agricultural harvesting and migration activities.

TSM measures could be implemented in conjunction with a policy that allows large, legal trucks to enter the County. TSM measures could provide an alternative to costly road infrastructure improvements that would make it legal for STA approved trucks to enter the County.

HCAOG should continue to support and encourage local jurisdictions, transit agencies, institutions and large employers to implement Transportation Demand Measurement measures to reduce congestion, encourage people to walk, bicycle, use public transportation, carpool or use other alternatives to driving alone in a car. Measures can include:

Transit fare subsidies
Transportation allowances
Flexible work hours
On-site amenities such as lockers and showers
Preferential parking
Carpool matching services
Guaranteed ride home program
Shuttle service or vanpools

H. PIPELINE TRANSPORT AND ENERGY

The pipeline transport needs identified in this plan are generally being met by natural gas and water suppliers, through continued monitoring and upgrading of transmission systems. The major actions identified are upgrading Eureka's water transmission line from Arcata and the eventual upgrading or replacement of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) transmission line from the Mad River intake to Samoa. These water transmission improvements will likely be funded with bonds and ratepayer revenue. This plan also identifies the need for increased consideration of energy conservation in transportation planning.

Pipeline Transport

Short-term Actions (0-10 years): Water transmission lines have been upgraded, but will continue to be monitored to detect the need for upgrades, repairs, or replacements. Eureka's project to upgrade their transmission line will continue with selection and approval of a design alternative, engineering design, and phased construction. This plan also recommends that emergency equipment and plans for water transmission lines be reviewed and updated as needed to ensure that major pipe breaks are detected and stopped quickly, to minimize property and environmental damage. Also, as recommended by an engineering study in 1996, the HBMWD is being upgraded to reduce vulnerability to earthquakes.

Long-term Actions (11-25 years): It is likely that major upgrade, repair, or replacement of the HBMWD transmission pipe will be necessary within the next 25 years. Annually, it is expected that major pipelines will be assessed for breaks and leaks and will be repaired as necessary. Some top priority projects identified in the County’s March 2005 review of local priority infrastructure projects for regional consideration include the Samoa Peninsula Pipeline Replacements, Fortuna sewer line I & I Reduction, and Ferndale drainage improvements.

Energy Conservation

Over the short-term, this plan calls for Caltrans, Humboldt County, and other agencies to give greater consideration to designing energy conservation into transportation projects and selecting energy-efficient project alternatives. This action is a matter of recognizing the importance of energy conservation and giving conservation more importance in the planning processes. The Humboldt County Energy Element that was released in October of 2005, offers many different suggestions that both the County and local municipalities can do to improve energy efficiency and conservation. Some of the short-term actions that transpired from the document include the role of the Board of Supervisors, to help ensure that energy policies are incorporated into policy decisions. Additionally, the RCEA will continue to provide educational information to increase energy efficiency in the local region.

Over the mid and long range, the economic, environmental, and public policy recognition given to energy conservation is likely increase significantly. This increase is expected to come with increased recognition of the costs and environmental impacts of global climate change, and with recognition of the costs and risks of dependence on declining global petroleum reserves. There are important reasons why Humboldt County could be a leader in transportation energy efficiency, including:

High vulnerability to climate change impacts;
High petroleum costs;
HSU's pioneering transportation and energy research; and
A high level of involvement and concern within local governments and the public.

The actions recommended in this plan to reduce the energy and environmental effects of transportation are likely to grow over the long term into a more concerted and visible effort. This has also been reflected in the County’s Energy Element, which encourages the use of alternative energy sources, and the phasing out of goods and services that are not energy efficient.

I. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS

Through the interconnectivity of the RTP and General Plan documents individual Circulation Elements, as well as their incorporated policies supporting transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and congestion reduction considerations, the region's cities and County have clear visions of the land-use and transportation issue. This will continue to be important in the future, as the County grows, and planners and officials continue to balance jobs and housing needs.

J. AIR QUALITY

Low Emissions Program

Short-term Actions (0-10 years): Since the Air Resource Board (ARB) has classified Humboldt County as a nonattainment zone for PM_10,the County will need to begin a program to reduce the emissions. This could include the implementation of programs such as monitoring, modeling or permitting. These programs must be prepared by the local air district, and submitted to and approved by the ARB.

Long-term Actions (11-25 years): Over time, vehicle fleets will need to be converted so that they can use fuel that is more energy efficient than the status quo. This will entail both infrastructural changes as well as vehicle conversions. The following information pertains to the development of a natural gas fueling station necessary to serve a fleet of low emission transit and other fleet vehicles. Required items for a fueling station include:

New/remodeled maintenance facilities (for gas safety)
Trained maintenance staff
Fuel production or storage
New vehicles (diesel or gas vehicles cannot be retrofit)
Fuel and maintenance during operation
PG&E reports that maintenance facility upgrades at transit systems converting to natural gas have cost about $400,000.

CNG or LNG equipment requires specially trained maintenance staff. Several community colleges in California provide such training. The Schatz Energy Center at Humboldt State has a working relation with the leading training center, at College of the Desert in Palm Desert.
PG&E estimated a cost of $450-500,000 for a CNG fueling station for Humboldt Co. A LNG fueling station would have lower initial and operating cost, but the cost of purchasing LNG is unknown. Currently the only known supplier of LNG is in the Sacramento area.

Natural gas vehicles (cars, vans, transit buses, school buses, trucks) are production equipment, not special items. PG&E estimates $4,000-$7,000 additional purchase cost for light vehicles with CNG, and $40,000-$60,000 for heavy vehicles. Maintenance costs are generally lower compared to gasoline or diesel.

Phoenix estimated per-bus annual costs of $10,000 for LNG or CNG fuel and maintenance for a large fleet traveling 45,000 miles per year. PG&E estimates natural gas (in diesel gallon equivalents) is generally (but not always) 10-20% cheaper than diesel fuel.

Particulate Emissions: Public truck fleets, waste haul trucks and school buses (fully owned public trucks/buses) are subject to new California Air Resources Board (CARB) Particulate Reduction Program. The new regulations require that fully owned public trucks and buses switch to low sulfur fuels. All vehicles are being replaced with new vehicles on a strict time schedule.

REGIONAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA

New to the RTP are the evaluation processes that would be applied to help prioritize various types of improvement projects between 2006 and 2025. Consultant staff and the RTP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) developed evaluation criteria to help prioritize various types of transportation improvement projects. Projects provided by local jurisdictions were categorized as follows:

· Capacity increasing;

· Rehabilitation/safety (resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction projects);

· Bicycle and pedestrian; and

· Transit projects.

Subjective engineering and planning judgement must be applied to assist in the evaluation of projects. The methodology applied to analyze capacity increasing and rehabilitation/safety projects relies on traffic model output (AADTs), cost estimates, and knowledge of the Humboldt County regional street and highway system and environments. The methodology applied to analyze transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects relies on a qualitative assessment given the lack of quantifiable data available to assess the projects.

It should be emphasized that the technical evaluation process has been developed as one tool to assist decision makers to identify the important projects for the region. As a result, the prioritization process is not the only criteria that decision makers should consider during their process of identifying projects that may be included for programming and funding over time. Other possible factors that could be considered include:

· Equitable distribution of benefits

· Project readiness

· Timing and generation of other funds

· Connectivity or mitigation for future surrounding uses.

· Other local conditions that warrant priority

Performance Measurement

The RTP Guidelines identify the requirements for “performance-based” planning. The specific requirements contained in the RTP Guidelines are provided below and are referenced on pages 14 through 16 of the Guidelines. Performance measure requirements identify the criteria that should be applied to evaluate performance of the transportation system and identify the overall objective of the analysis. A project priority analysis has been developed that will enable HCAOG to fairly prioritize capacity increasing and rehabilitation/safety, bicycle and pedestrian and transit projects for purposes of the RTP.

RTP Guidelines

According to the RTP Guidelines, each RTPA should define a set of “program level” transportation system performance measures that reflect the goals and objectives adopted in the RTP. These performance measures are used to evaluate and select plan alternatives. Government Code Section 14530.1(b)(5) requires more detailed project specific “objective criteria for measuring system performance and the cost effectiveness of candidate projects” in the STIP Guidelines. The program level performance measures in the RTP set the context for judging the effectiveness of the RTIP, as a program, in furthering the goals and objectives of the RTP, while the STIP Guidelines address performance measurements of specific projects.

Caltrans has developed system performance measurements for interregional planning and the setting of State planning and programming priorities. The State performance measures focus on interregional trips between, into and through the regions.

The California Transportation Plan, Transportation System Performance Measures Report (August 1998) identifies the following, “desired outcomes" for the transportation system, which may be addressed in each region’s RTP:

· Mobility / Accessibility

· Reliability

· Cost-effectiveness

· Sustainability

· Economic Well Being

· Environmental Quality

· Safety and Security

· Equity

· Customer Satisfaction

Evaluation Process – Capacity Increasing and Rehabilitation/Safety Projects

To evaluate the street and highway projects, quantification and qualification evaluation criteria are developed that focus on project objectives or benefits. Application of evaluation criteria is a critical component of the RTP Update process. A capacity-increasing project is defined as a project that increases the volume capacity of a roadway project through physical improvements such as lane widening, passing lanes, signalization and signal coordination, etc. While a rehabilitation/safety project is defines as a project that serves to repair or improve safety measures. To evaluate these two categories of projects, quantification and qualification evaluation criteria focusing on project objectives or benefits were developed as identified in the project evaluation table.

Quantitative Evaluation Criteria

One important “quantitative” evaluation criteria required to evaluate regional capacity increasing and rehabilitation/safety projects includes Cost Benefit/Usage:

Cost Benefit/Usage – compares the benefit of the project to actual cost

Each capacity increasing project will be evaluated using the Project Evaluation Methodology (as referenced in the criteria tables). Model output adjusted to reflect Year 2025 volumes will be used to identify daily traffic applied in the equations.

In addition to the quantitative evaluation criteria described above, a list of “qualitative” and “performance-based” criteria has been prepared considering important data/information that should be considered during the initial project prioritization process. The criteria are “qualitative” because they are based upon expert or subjective judgement to evaluate the measures.

The qualitative and performance-based criteria consider relevant and recent issues of concern to residents and decision makers in Humboldt County, i.e.: a desire to improve air quality, improve travel speed, and improve safety along major regional routes. They also address performance-based measures contained in the RTP Guidelines and performance measures contained in the Policy Element.

The referenced criteria tables also provide guidance on the assignment of “2”, “1”, and “0” scores to individual projects. This guidance has been formulated so that the assignment process can be as quantifiable as possible.

Relative Weighting (Prioritization) of Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria

The following methodology are applied to evaluate the projects:

· Score the projects considering the relative weighting of Quantitative Criteria A and B (Cost Benefit/Usage and Design Standards/Improve Safety). The process will involve adding the resultant “2” and “1” scores of Criteria A and B and multiplying the result by 2 [(Cost Benefit/Traffic Usage + Travel Time Savings) x 2]

· Sum the scores from the other qualitative criteria (Qualitative Criteria C through I)

· Sum the results of the two processes described above– the higher the resulting score, the higher the priority

Evaluation Process – Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Projects

To evaluate the bicycle and pedestrian projects, qualitative evaluation criteria focus on project objectives or benefits (reference criteria tables for bicycle and pedestrian projects).

Evaluation Process – Transit Improvement Projects

To evaluate the transit projects, qualitative evaluation criteria focusing on project objectives or benefits (reference criteria tables for transit projects).