HIGHWAY AND ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ELEMENT

 

System Description

Humboldt County’s roadway transportation system accommodates motor vehicle traffic, goods movement, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian travel.  Motor vehicles that use the system include passenger automobiles, delivery vans, light- and heavy-duty trucks, and public and private sector operated passenger buses.  Non-motorized vehicles, most often bicycles, and pedestrians use the roadway system as well.  In Humboldt County the roadway system includes U.S. Highway 101, state highways, arterial streets, local paved access roads, unpaved rural roads, and public resources lands roads.  Most routes are controlled by traffic signals, stop signs, advisory signs, directional signing, street signs, and roadside markers. All travel modes use the roadway system to some extent.

 

Humboldt County’s roadway system has approximately 1,400 miles of county roads and city streets, 378 miles of state highways, including U.S. Highway 101, and roadways on federal lands.  These roadways provide for the inter-regional and intra-regional movement of goods and people on California’s north coast. Humboldt County roadways traverse varying degrees of flat, rolling, and mountainous terrain and provide for limited passing opportunities in many areas.   

 

The County-maintained roadways are integrated with an overall countywide circulation system.  The agencies responsible for roadway maintenance, include, but are not limited to: the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); the U.S. Forest Service, National and State Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs; cities; and private property owners.  This roadway network contributes to the economic vitality of Humboldt County, providing safe access and travel routes for Humboldt County citizens and visitors, from low-density rural areas to higher-density urban areas. 

 

While this Element focuses primarily on roadways, it is important to note that County’s circulation and goods movement systems also includes truck, marine, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and (currently unutilized) rail facilities.  These transportation modes are discussed in this RTP under the Bicycle and Pedestrian, Goods Movement, and Public Transit Service system elements.

Regionally Significant Streets and Roadways

Table HR1 lists significant streets and roadways identified by City and County staffs.

 

Table HR1  Significant Roadways

Location

Significant Roadways

Arcata

 

11th Street, Bayside Road/Old Arcata Road, Foster Avenue/Sunset Avenue, Giuntoli Lane, Janes Road/Spear Avenue, K Street/Alliance Road, L K Wood Boulevard, West End Road

 

Blue Lake

 

Greenwood Avenue, Hatchery Road, Railroad Avenue

 

Eureka

 

14th Street, Buhne Street, H Street, Harris Street, Harrison Avenue, Henderson Street (I to Broadway), I Street (Harris to Waterfront Drive), Myrtle Avenue, Waterfront Drive;  US 101, State Route 255

Ferndale

 

Arlington Avenue, Bluff Street, Centerville Road, Fifth Avenue, Main Street, Ocean Avenue, Van Ness Avenue

Fortuna

 

Main Street, Rohnerville Road; US 101

 

Rio Dell

 

Belleview Avenue, Blue Slide Road, Monument Road, Wildwood Avenue; US 101

 

Trinidad

 

Edwards Street, Main Street, Patrick’s Point Drive, Scenic Drive, Stagecoach Road, Trinity Street, Westhaven Drive; US 101 

 

Humboldt County

 

Alderpoint Road, Bald Hills Road, Bair Road, Blue Lake Boulevard/Glendale Drive, Blue Slide/Grizzly Bluff Road, Briceland-Thorne Road, Campton Road, Central Avenue (McKinleyville), Elk River Road, Fieldbrook Road, Freshwater/Kneeland Road, Humboldt Hill Road, Maple Creek Road, Mattole Road, Old Arcata Road/Myrtle Avenue, Redwood Drive (Garberville), Rohnerville Road, Shelter Cove Road, Sprowel Creek Road, Wilder Ridge Road, New Navy Base Road, Walnut Drive, Herrick Road, Murray Road

 

 

 

The figure on the following page shows the Highways and significant roadways in Humboldt County.

 
Needs Assessment

Critical highways and roadway needs are safety, capacity/functionality, maintenance/ rehabilitation, and environmental compliance.  Environmental considerations are increasingly becoming an issue, with concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the energy-consumption of many transportation modes and transportation system management.  In Humboldt County, measures have been taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the maintenance and rehabilitation of roadways through the recycling of asphalt (which reduces rock extraction, hauling, and sedimentation), the use of LEDs in traffic lights, and through the development of a more functional and efficient circulation system.  Increasing the use of transit and nonvehicular transportation modes also serves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Repetitive highway closures from natural disasters due to the unique geography of Humboldt County poses economic, social and environmental threats.  Landslides occur with regularity along US 101 and SR 299 along certain roadway segments.  These slides entail significant costs for roadway repair and maintenance and economic costs in the form of closures.  On US 101, the currently-underway $70-million Confusion Hill bypass project will provide new bridges that circumvent the chronically slide-prone area.  This will improve safety, minimize highway closures (thereby preserving an economic lifeline for Humboldt County), and significantly reduce the costs of slide clean-up and associated roadway maintenance.

 

Another area of concern for safety is the US 101 Eureka/Arcata corridor, which has a history of a higher-than-average number of accidents.  Caltrans, HCAOG and the Federal Highway Administration are currently cooperating on the Eureka/Arcata Route 101 Corridor Improvement Project to improve safety and reduce delay at intersections, reduce traffic conflicts, and rehabilitate existing facilities.  The development of a “safety corridor” in 2002 has improved safety along the stretch of roadway, though some of the early safety gains from lowered speed limits have been lost as many drivers have resumed driving above posted speed limits.

 

Roadways that are congested or that are in poor condition present safety concerns for drivers, bikers and pedestrians.  While roadway congestion in Humboldt County is not a major transportation issue, increased development pressures have added and are likely to add vehicle volume to the County’s roadways that will exacerbate existing congestion and lead to more congestion down the road.  Roadway maintenance is a challenge for rural areas such as Humboldt County because of lower population densities and long travel distances, which means that fewer funds are available on a per-mile basis. 

 

Estimates of roadway capacities and condition help to identify roadways where upgrades, expansions and/or maintenance may be needed.  As the County’s population grows over the next 20 years, the projected vehicle-volume growth will have impacts on the safety and functionality of County roadways.  Many roadways are already operating at or above capacity during peak hours and others are expected to have segments that reach or exceed capacity as traffic volumes increase over the next 20 years, with corresponding declines in levels of service.  In other cases, roadways currently able to accommodate existing traffic volumes are likely to develop areas of congestion as traffic volumes increase. 

 

While capacity concerns can be addressed by accommodating or managing increased volumes through roadway upgrades and expansions, capacity expansion can also be achieved through the expansion of transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and increased use of those modes, as they can offset vehicle volume growth and congestion from planned development.

 

In general, truck operations do not cause traffic congestion within Humboldt County.  The major exception is on US 101 along Eureka's retail and commercial area.  This portion of the highway is used for through travel as well as access to local stores and businesses.  Due to this roadway’s mixed use, heavy timber industry trucks can cause incompatible noise and vibration, as well as hazardous conditions for pedestrians and local crossing traffic.  The county and cities expend significant transportation funds to repair and maintain roadways used by timber trucks.  For example, the estimated cost to maintain and repair the roads used during a sustained logging operation is $9,000 per mile. 

 

The primary arterials used by the timber industry are US 101 and SR 299.  These major state highways provide adequate facilities and levels of service, except during summer months when congestion is highest due recreational travel.  Other State Routes experiencing truck volumes include SRs 36, 169, 200, 211, 254, 255, 271 and 283. 

 

Private industry representatives have indicated that making US 101 a four-lane facility south towards San Francisco and north to Crescent City would benefit the Humboldt County economy.  Such improvements would provide cost savings to industries by reducing congestion and travel times.  The trucking industry could use longer trailers to help cut transportation costs.  These savings will have to be quantified to determine whether they are significant enough, when coupled with other factors such as safety and operational concerns, to warrant highway expansion.

 

A significant economic issue concerns the trucking industry’s use of longer trailers (53 to 56 feet) to help cut costs and improve efficiency.  Truck-length restrictions and backhaul opportunities in Humboldt County are preventing businesses from being profitable and competitive with similar business along the West Coast.  California currently allows trucks with 53-foot trailers to operate on the National Network and terminal access routes throughout most of the state.  Trucking companies operating trucks with two 28-foot trailers are carrying about the same capacity as a 53-foot trailer but their operating costs are much higher.  Longer vehicle lengths require significant roadway improvements including lane widths and curve radii.  The industry has expressed concern about the limitations imposed by narrow lanes and sharp curves on portions of US 101 (Richardson Grove) and SR 299 (Buckhorn Summit).  The industry is concerned that these roadway segments do not safely accommodate the longer vehicles.

 

The Humboldt County planning division, with Caltrans, has been exploring alternatives for safely providing larger truck and multimodal access on US 101 through Richardson Grove State Park.  Potential improvements include operational fixes (curve correction procedures) and added road-width capacity.  HCAOG and other planning agencies have also participated in planning efforts for SR 299 improvements to the east side of the Buckhorn grade from near the Trinity/Shasta County line to Yankee Gulch (approximately 7 miles).  The counties of Humboldt, Shasta, and Trinity, along with Caltrans Districts 1 and 2 have participated in funding the environmental component of the SR 299 Buckhorn Grade Improvement Project.  The project is a priority for Humboldt and Trinity Counties but has been deemphasized by Shasta County in favor of I-5 corridor improvements; a preferred alternative has not been selected but Humboldt County continues to program safety and long-term improvements.

 

Level of Service

Traffic operations can be assessed using the Level of Service (LOS) concept, a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions.  A letter grade, A through F, representing progressively worsening traffic conditions, is assigned to a roadway segment or an intersection.  In areas such as Humboldt County, LOS C or better has generally been considered an acceptable traffic operating condition. LOS C provides for stable flows of traffic during peak conditions, and allows drivers at signalized intersections to (typically) proceed in one signal cycle.  LOS D can be acceptable in some instances, such as during peak travel times, when rights of way must accommodate multiple travel modes, or when existing developments or budgetary restrictions reduce the ability of service providers to remediate congestion problems through costly capacity-expansion projects. 

 

County and city staff identified roadways with the most severe congestion problems (LOS E or F), shown in Table HR2 below:

 

Table HR2  Congested Roadways (LOS E or F)

Location

Congested Roadway

Arcata

Alliance Road and Foster Avenue

15th Street & Alliance Road (Arcata High School)

11th & "K" Streets

Eureka

SR 101 (Broadway) Hilfiker Lane to Del Norte Street

SR 101 (Broadway) 15th Street to 14th Street

SR 101 (4th St) 4th Street from "X" to "V" Streets

SR 101 (5th St) 5th Street at Umpqua Bank Plaza ramps

Fairway Drive Entire length

F Street Manzanita to Harris

F Street City Limits to Laurel

F Street Laurel to Oak

Myrtle Avenue Harrison Ave to West

Fortuna

Highway 101, Kenmar Exit (southbound)

Rohnerville Rd. westbound left turn at North Fortuna Blvd./Main St. intersection

Humboldt County

Central Avenue at northbound 101 exit (McKinleyville)

Elk River at Herrick (South Eureka)

Hubbard at Myrtle (Myrtletown)

Park Street (McKinleyville)

School Road (McKinleyville)

Walnut from Hemlock to Cypress

Roadway Maintenance

Roadway maintenance programs must be properly funded and managed to have a lasting beneficial effect on roadway condition and public safety.  Maintenance benefits can only be achieved if substantial improvements are made to assure the long-term performance of the County’s roadways.  Whether a roadway maintenance program effectively and economically preserves the investment is not easy to determine, as many factors confound the long-term performance of roadways.  Perhaps the most significant factor is the availability and allocation of funds for roadway maintenance and construction.  And the amount of funding needed is determined by roadway design, construction, maintenance and rehabilitation, which all affect the rate of roadway deterioration.

 

The 2003 Humboldt County Road and Bridge Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) report notes that, overall, the County’s roads are in “poor” condition, with the County’s Overall Condition Index (OCI) rated at 40 on a scale of 1-100.  The report notes that, in 2000, there was approximately $100 million in deferred maintenance on the County’s roadways (not including maintenance costs for local streets).  In 2008 County Public Works staff estimated that the total backlog in roadway maintenance and rehabilitation had grown closer to $150 million.  City staffs noted an additional backlog of $72-80 million in maintenance and rehabilitation of city streets.  As Table HR3 shows, the total roadway maintenance backlog in Humboldt County is estimated at $222-230 million.

 

 

Table HR3  Roadway Maintenance Backlog

Location

 

Roadway Maintenance Backlog

($ million)

 

Roadway Rehabilitation Backlog

($ million)

Total

($ million)

Arcata

 

 

17

Blue Lake

2 - 3

5 - 7

7 - 10

Eureka

1.2

6.3

7.5

Ferndale

1.5 - 3

4 – 7

5.5 - 10

Fortuna

1.0

1.7

2.7

Rio Dell

32

2.4

34.4

Trinidad

.1

.17

.27

Humboldt County

 

 

150

TOTAL

224 - 232

 

 

Guiding Goals, Policies and Objectives

The Highway and Roadway goals, policies, and objectives presented here address the economic implications of policy decisions that affect highways and roadways, and point to appropriate investment strategies and policies for improving circulation and condition issues.  These goals, policies and objectives as address the issues identified in the Needs Assessment, and reflect the short- and long-range projects identified in the Action and Financial sections below.

ROADWAYS (State Highways, County Roads and City Streets) 

 

Goal:  Build, maintain a safe and efficient highways, roadways, and streets system that will accommodate, balance and provide appropriate incentives for consumers to use multiple modes of transportation.

 

Policy HR-1: Support efforts to preserve the existing state, county, city, and reservation road system from further deterioration. 

 

Objective:  Support efforts to promote and fund a local road maintenance program-similar to Caltrans' SHOPP program-which would receive adequate funding.

 

Policy HR-2: To facilitate road and highway improvements where feasible to provide additional secure access for communities whose access is threatened by road failure or other conditions.

 

Objective:  Identify communities in the region with a history of access problems of isolation due to roadway failures and facilitate local government efforts to eliminate those conditions.

 

Policy HR-3: Project Study Reports shall be developed for RTIP candidate project nominations which include a (1) statement of need, purpose, and description of project; (2) estimated costs; and (3) delivery schedule.

 

Objective:  Completed project study reports from project applicants prior to programming.

 

Policy HR-4: Support safety improvements on highways, roadways, and streets in the HCAOG region.

 

Objective:  Secure funds for efforts to promote non-motorized access with bridge and shoulder widening, and improve overall safety for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users on all county, city, and state highways and streets.

 

Policy HR-5: Support barrier stripe mitigation efforts, in mountainous and rural areas, that alleviate travel delays.

 

Objective:  Identify locations where there is a lack of passing opportunities in mountainous and rural areas of the region.

 

Policy HR-6: Support non-freeway alternatives for US 101 through Eureka.

 

Objective:  Program improvements needed to correct identified congestion and safety problems on US 101 through Eureka.  Allocate program revenues generated from the sale of bypass rights of way, for non-freeway alternative congestion reduction measures including Transportation System Management techniques, and non-construction solutions.

 

Policy HR-7: Promote at-grade intersection improvements.

 

Objective: Identify all existing at-grade intersections where improvements are needed, including those on State Routes where Caltrans would be the lead agency for improving circulation and safety for the region's motorists.

 

Policy HR-8: Support corridor protection measures for future highways and major streets.

 

Objective: Protect future routes, rights-of-ways, and alignments identified in state and local route planning through state, county, city and tribal government partnerships; secure state funding commitments, approved route plans, environmental analyses, and implementation of city and county land use plans.

 

Policy HR-9: Route Public Roadway Access to Resource Lands to avoid environmental constraints that would cause significant impacts.

 

Objective: Prior to approval of major maintenance or reconstruction, analyze the potential environmental impacts of access roads to resource lands, and demonstrate that adverse impacts can be mitigated to "less than significant" levels.

 

Policy HR-10: Support efforts to reduce energy consumption and associated air quality and environmental impacts of the highway and roadway system.

 

Objective: Analyze the potential for reducing energy consumption and associated air quality and environmental impacts of the highway and roadway system from roadway improvement and maintenance projects, and through projects that reduce congestion and shorten vehicle trip length.

 

Policy HR-11: Use Level of Service (LOS) standards to measure the performance of all regionally significant roadways that contribute to the regional transportation network.

 

Objective:  Develop and maintain a list of regionally significant roadways with minimum acceptable LOS for each, and periodically conduct traffic volume counts to determine whether minimum LOS levels are being maintained.

 

Objective: Coordinate traffic volume LOS with other bicycle and pedestrian LOS to achieve balanced multi-modal use of roadways.

 

 

 

Policy HR-12: Pursue legislation that will insure adequate funding to maintain existing roadways in Humboldt County region.

 

Objective: Educate and lobby legislators to pursue such legislation, including providing them with costs and sample legislative language to generate revenue sources for local street and road maintenance and rehabilitation.

 

Objective: Support CTC guidelines that allow continued use of STIP funds to preserve and maintain the existing road system, and explore local options for developing a regional maintenance and preservation program.

 

Policy HR-13: Promote equity, cost effectiveness, and modal balance in programming processes.

 

Objective:  Program all funds based on multi-modal transportation needs and priorities as established in the RTP.  Prioritize and balance projects based on cost effectiveness as well as need.

 

Policy HR-14: Promote a balanced fund distribution among regionally significant projects.

 

Objective:  Develop and adopt flexible funding and allocation guidelines to ensure a balanced and equitable distribution of funds between regionally significant projects.  These guidelines are to include a process, using all funds available to HCAOG, to plan for and program projects based on anticipated receipt of funds.

 

ACTION PLAN:  PROPOSED PROJECTS

Projects listed below identify the key short-term and long-term roadway improvements for Humboldt County's regional road system through the RTP's horizon year of 2028.  Table HR4 summarizes the dollar amounts for the short- (0-10 years) and long-term (11-20 years) projects for Humboldt County based on information provided by City and County staffs.  Total project costs are $275.2 million.  Detailed tables follow below.

 

Table HR4  Summary of Short- and Long-term Highway and Roadway Project Costs

Project Type

Funding Source

Amount ($ million)

Short-Term

Various (not STIP or SHOPP)

$33.9

 

STIP

$73.4

 

SHOPP

$159.3

 

Illustrative (no funding source)

$7.7

 

Short-term Total

$274.3

Long-Term

Various

$20.8

TOTAL

$295.1

 

Short-Term Projects Not Funded by STIP or SHOPP

Table HR5 lists short-term planned projects identified by City and County staff as not funded by STIP or SHOPP, but which do have a funding source (“constrained” projects). 

 

Table HR5  Short-term Projects not Funded by STIP or SHOPP

Project

Description (Program)

Cost

($000)

Funding Source

Year

Humboldt County

Alderpoint Road

Storm Damage Repair

6,254

Federal Highways Admin. (FHWA) with Caltrans

2008/09

Benbow Drive

Storm Damage Repair

220

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Office of Emergency Services (OES)

2008/09

Blue Slide Road

Storm Damage Repair

41

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

Briceland-Thorne Road

Storm Damage Repair

67

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

Butler Valley Road

Storm Damage Repair

220

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

Cathey Road

Storm Damage Repair

160

FEMA/OES

2008/09

Elk Creek Road

Storm Damage Repair

392

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

Kneeland Road

Storm Damage Repair

334

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

Lower Cappell Road

Storm Damage Repair

95

FEMA/OES)

2008/09

Mattole Road

Storm Damage Repair

1,194

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

Sprowel Creek Road

Storm Damage Repair

139

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

Thomas Road

Storm Damage Repair

855

FEMA/OES

2008/09

Tompkins Hill Road

Storm Damage Repair

103

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

Trinidad Scenic Dr.

Storm Damage Repair

385

FEMA/OES

2008/09

Zenia Bluff Road

Storm Damage Repair

50

FHWA (o/s Caltrans)

2008/09

TOTAL

10,509

 

 

Honeydew

Bridge Replacement 

6,000

Highway Bridge Program

2008/09

Martin Ferry

Bridge Repair

5,950

Highway Bridge Program

2008/09

Waddington Road

Box Culvert

978

Highway Bridge Program

2008/09

Trinidad Scenic Drive

Repair & Realignment

900

BIA

2008/09

Williams Creek

Bridge Replacement

1,028

Highway Bridge Program

2008/09

TOTAL

14,856

 

 

Briceland -Thorne Road

Curve Correction

900

High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR)

2008/09

Grassy Creek

Culvert Replacement

335

Fish Passage

2008/09

Mill Creek

 

120

Fish Passage

2008/09

Indian Creek

 

800

Fish Passage

2008/09

 

Total

2,155

 

 

Humboldt County TOTAL

27,520

 

 

Arcata

"H" Street; Sunset Avenue; and Alliance Road, 29th Street to Spear Avenue

Overlays

 500

Prop. 1B

2008

Residential City Program

Maintenance

 100

207 Funds (Gas Tax)

2008 – Annual

Giuntoli Lane - Boyd Road to West End Road

Rehabilitation

 105

Gas Tax & General Fund

2008

Janes Road - Spear Avenue to Upper Bay Road

 Rehabilitation

 80

Gas Tax & General Fund

2009

Spear Avenue - Ribeiro Lane to Alliance Road

Overlay

 75

Gas Tax & General Fund

2009

Samoa Blvd. - Union Street to Bayside Road

Rehabilitation

 700

Gas Tax & General Fund

2012

11th Street - "G" Street to "F" Street

 Rehabilitation

 30

Gas Tax & General Fund

2010

St. Louis Overcrossing - Janes Creek Meadows to L K Wood Blvd.

Overlay

 60

Gas Tax & General Fund

2010

Alliance Road - 27th Street to 29th Street

 Overlay

 164

Gas Tax & General Fund

2010

Spear Avenue - Janes Road to Ribeiro Lane

 

Overlay

 380

Gas Tax & General Fund

2014

Ericson Way - Belle Falor Ct. to Giuntoli Lane

 Rehabilitation

 95

Gas Tax & General Fund

2013

L K Wood Blvd. - 14th Street to Granite Avenue

Rehabilitation

 380

Gas Tax & General Fund

2013

Valley East Blvd. - Giuntoli Lane to end

Rehabilitation

 150

Gas Tax & General Fund

2009

Valley West Blvd. - Giuntoli Lane to end

 Rehabilitation

 160

Gas Tax & General Fund

2009

Arcata TOTAL

2,979

 

 

Blue Lake

Fourth Avenue

Reconstruction (Sidewalks, Drainage, Asphalt)

1,000

Community Development Block Grant

 

Ferndale

Fifth St.

Pavement Rehabilitation from Shaw Ave. to Arlington Ave.

138

Proposition 1B funds.

2008

Arlington Ave.

Pavement Rehabilitation from Fifth St. to Main St.

98

Proposition 1B funds and gas tax.

2009

 

Ferndale TOTAL

236

 

 

Fortuna

Ross Hill Road

Reconstruction

421

Proposition 1B (anticipated)

 

Rio Dell

Third and Fourth Avenue

Rehabilitation

877

CDBG

2008

Trinidad

Main and Trinity

Road, sidewalk, ramp, and pedestrian improvements (School to

Hwy 101)

416

Federal

2008

Park and Museum

Construction of access road

260

State and Federal

2008

TEA Gateway Project

Road, sidewalk, ramp, pedestrian improvements, and beautification.

180

State

2008

Trinidad TOTAL

856

 

 

OVERALL TOTAL

33,889

 

 

 

Short term (0-10 years) STIP-Funded Projects

Table HR6 lists the STIP projects and costs.  The total cost of these projects is $69.3 million.


Table HR6  Short term (0-10 years) STIP Projects

 

Roadway

Description

Cost ($000)

Program Fiscal Year

Caltrans

US 101/SR 36

Interchange and Frontage Road          

21,600

2008/09

US 101/SR 36

Interchange, Construction       

3,616

2006

US 101

Eureka-Arcata corridor improvement

5,109

2007/08

Caltrans TOTAL

29,325

 

Humboldt County

Old Arcata Road/Myrtle Avenue

Three Corners to Stephens Lane - shoulder widening and roadway rehabilitation

5,500

2008/09

Fieldbrook Road

PM0.0 to 2.8 – overlay

831

2008/09

Central Avenue Shoulder widening

Widen shoulders from Turner Draw to Bella Vista

270

2008/09

Fieldbrook Road

PM 3.5 to PM 5.0 - shoulder widening for pedestrian & bicycle

591

2008/09

Herrick Avenue

Construct sidewalks to infill existing system

302

2008/09

Humboldt Hill Road

Hwy 101 to PM 1.0 - overlay

898

2008/09

Indianola Cutoff

City of Eureka to Myrtle Ave - Reconstruct & overlay

344

2008/09

Murray Road

Murray R. PM 5.1 to Fieldbrook Rd PM 2.8 – overlay

844

2008/09

Myrtle, Harris and Lucas

Construct sidewalks to infill existing system

714

2009/10

Railroad Crossings

Reconstruct railroad crossings at various locations

100

2009/10

Redwood Drive

Redway to Hwy 101 - overlay

629

2008/09

Union Street and Sea Street

City of Eureka to Higgins Street - shoulder widening and roadway rehabilitation

2,481

2009/10

Humboldt County TOTAL

13,504

 

 Arcata

Old Arcata Road/Samoa Boulevard

Old Arcata Road between Samoa Blvd./US 101 interchange and Jacoby Creek Rd. Rehabilitate roadway, construct bike lanes, sidewalks and traffic calming improvements at major intersections and school pedestrian crossings, drainage improvements.

1,050

2011/12

Foster Avenue to Sunset Boulevard Extension

Construct new roadway and bike and pedestrian pathway connecting Foster Ave to Sunset Ave. between Eastern Ave and Jay St. Rehabilitate existing roadway with bike lanes and sidewalk where needed. Install traffic calming/pedestrian improvements at Sunset

2,563

2008/09, 09/10, 01/11

Various Locations

Railroad crossings, 16 locations, rehabilitation

70

2007/08

Highway 255 and Highway 101 Intersections

Roundabouts (with Caltrans)

1,200

2013/14

Arcata TOTAL

4,683

 

 Blue Lake

Various

General roadway rehabilitation and repair in downtown, ped and bike improvements

505

2007/08

 Eureka

Waterfront Drive

Extension

18,000

2007/10

Waterfront Drive

Waterfront Drive Connection Phase II G to J Streets - Construct coastal access roadway, bike lanes and sidewalks to reduce congestion on Highway 101

4,255

2011/12

Eureka TOTAL

22,255

 

 Fortuna

Rohnerville Road

Widening  between Newberg  and Strong’s Creek

433

2008/09

Rohnerville Road

Widening  between Redwood and School

834

2008/09

Fortuna TOTAL

1,267

 

 Rio Dell

Wildwood Avenue and View Street

Paving from Side Street to Eagle Prairie Bridge

852

2011/12

 Trinidad

Azalea Avenue, Pacific Avenue

Reconstruction - Azalea from Edwards to Pacific, and Pacific (approx. 500 ft.)

493

2007/08, 08/09

Trinidad Park & Museum Access

 

260

2007/08, 08/09

Trinidad TOTAL

753

 

 HCAOG

HCAOG

Planning, programming and monitoring

772

2007/11

OVERALL TOTAL

73,411

 

 

 

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 HR7 lists the short-range SHOPP projects programmed by Caltrans in the 2008 SHOPP through 2012; total cost is $159.3 million.

 

 

Table HR7  Short-Term Highway Operations and Rehabilitation Projects (SHOPP; 2008)

Route

Location/Description

Total ($000)

FY

Category

 

 

101

Near Phillipsville, from 1.4 miles south of Richardson Grove to south of Prairie Creek Park at various locations. Reconstruct guard railing.

 11,005

2010/11

Collision Reduction

 

101

Near Arcata, from south of 14th Street to north of Sunset Ave; also 3.5 miles south of Del Norte County line (PM 133.6). Repair slipout, realign roadway, install drainage.

 1,297

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

101

Near McKinleyville, at the Vista Point.  Required wetland mitigation.

 1,417

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

101

In and near Rio Dell, from Eel River Bridge and overhead to 0.5 mile south of Van Duzen River Bridge. Rehabilitate roadway.

 20,072

2008/09

Roadway Preservation

 

101

Near Eureka, from Eureka Slough Bridge to Arcata overhead. Rehabilitate roadway.

 40,643

2011/12

Roadway Preservation

 

169

Near Weitchpec, from 8.9 miles east of Johnsons to 3.7 miles west of Route 96.  Replace bridges.

 12,181

2008/09

Bridge Replacement

 

169

Near Johnsons, from Wautec to Weitchpec at various locations. Install guardrail.

 5,572

2010/11

Collision Reduction

 

169

Near Hoopa, from 0.6 mile east of Cappell Creek Bridge to Rube Creek Bridge. Construct retaining wall, realign roadway, install drainage.

 1,157

2009/10

Emergency Response

 

169

In Humboldt County, at various locations 1.9 miles west of Cappell Creek Bridge to 0.9 mile west of Route 96.  Repair slipouts, drainage and roadways.

 1,495

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

169

Near Weitchpec, from 3.4 miles west to 2.6 miles west of Cappell Creek Bridge. Repair slipouts, drainage and roadways.

 2,625

2009/10

Emergency Response

 

254

In Humboldt County, at various locations from Ohman Creek Bridge #4-7 to Bear Creek Bridge #4-12.  Replace bridge rails and widen shoulder.

 10,290

2011/12

Bridge Replacement

 

254

Near Miranda, 0.6 mile south of Post Office; also 0.2 mile north of Bridge Creek. Repair slipouts.

 6,391

2009/10

Emergency Response

 

254

Near Miranda, 1.3 miles south of Post Office; also 0.8 mile south of Post Office. Repair slipouts.

 4,373

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

254

Near Redcrest, at various locations 1.6 miles north of Mattole Road to 0.8 mile south of Bear Creek Bridge. Repair slipouts.

 925

2009/10

Emergency Response

 

254

Near Miranda, at 0.3 mile south of Miranda Bridge Road; also 0.4 mile north of Bridge Creek #4-9. Repair slipouts.

 810

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

299

West of Willow Creek, 0.8 mile west of Redwood Creek Bridge. Construct wall.

 1,405

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

299

Near Blue Lake, at 1.8 miles east of Buckley Road; also at 0.1 mile east of County Road 375 Right.  Repair slipouts.

 3,310

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

36

Near Bridgeville, from 0.6 to 0.8 mile east of Van Duzen River Bridge. Repair slipout.

 3,975

2009/10

Emergency Response

 

36

Near Bridgeville, from 0.6 mile west of Bridgeville Post Office to 0.3 mile east of Little Larabe Creek Bridge. Repair slipouts.

 1,435

2009/10

Emergency Response

 

36

Near Bridgeville, from 3.8 to 4.3 miles east of Little Larabe Creek Bridge.  Repair slipout.

 1,434

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

36

Near Bridgeville, 0.1 mile west of Van Duzen River Bridge. Repair slipout.

 2,023

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

36

Near Bridgeville, 1.0 mile west of Van Duzen River Bridge. Repair slipout.

 2,155

2009/10

Emergency Response

 

36

Near Carlotta, from 0.7 mile to 2.5 miles east of Carlotta Post Office. Widen shoulders.

 9,722

2010/11

Mobility

 

96

Near Hoopa, from 0.8 mile south of Rock Chute Bridge to 1.9 miles north of Sidehill. Install guardrail.

 4,004

2009/10

Collision Reduction

 

96

Near Willow Creek, from 0.2 mile west of Pipeline overcrossing to 2.6 miles west of Klamath River.  Reconstruct roadway, repair slope and drainage.

 822

2009/10

Emergency Response

 

96

Near Weitchpec, from 0.1 mile west of Route 169 west to 0.4 mile east of Weitchpec Road. Repair roadway and construct drainage gallery wall.

 1,630

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

96

Near Orleans, from 0.3 mile west of Beach Access Road to 0.8 mile west of Siskiyou County line. Repair roadway and drainage.

 1,710

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

96

Near Weitchpec, 1.2 miles west of Klamath River Bridge. Repair slipout.

 2,200

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

96

Near Hoopa, at 0.3 mile east of Tish Tang Sidehill Viaduct.  Repair slipout.

 3,260

2008/09

Emergency Response

 

 

SHOPP TOTAL

 159,338

 

 

 

 

Long-term (11-20 years) Roadway Projects

Table HR8 lists the proposed candidate long-term improvement projects and their costs for Humboldt County.  The projects identified in the table are necessary to maintain service levels and accommodate projected traffic growth over the next twenty years.  Total Cost is $68.05 million.

 

Table HR8  Long-term (11-20 years) Roadway Projects

Route

Description

Cost

($000)

Fiscal Year

Humboldt County

Walnut & Hemlock Intersection

Roundabout or signals with dedicated turn pockets

1,592

2016-25

Fern Street Extension

Complete connection from Walnut to Campton

1,161

2016-25

McKay Tract Connector

Northerly connection to Harris at Hubbard

2,912

2016-25

Campton Road Widening

Eliminate parking and improve pedestrian facilities

1,225

2016-25

Fairway Drive Connector

Construct new connector to Fairway Drive in vicinity of Lunbar Hills

2,809

2016-25

Reardon Ranch Road

Construct new connector to Elk River Road from area behind Westgate

3,589

2016-25

Intersection at Harris & Harrison

Widen intersection to better deal with left and right turning movement

1,200

2016-25

Walnut Drive

Intersection improvements at Cypress and Campton

 500

2016-25

School Road - McKinleyville Avenue

Extend McKinleyville Ave directly to School Rd.

1,000

2016-25

School Road Widening

Widen from Fischer to Washington to provide sidewalks, bike lanes, and turn lanes

1,800

2016-25

McKinleyville Avenue

Reconstruct & overlay Murray to Halfway St. Connector

200

2016-25

London Drive Connector

Extend London Drive to South Broadway

800

2016-25

Humboldt Hill to Tompkins Hill

Connect Humboldt Hill Road to Tompkins Hill Rd.

1,000

2016-25

Herrick and Elk River

Signalize intersection with left turn pockets

300

2016-25

Freshwater and Myrtle Intersection

Construct a roundabout

700

2016-25

OVERALL TOTAL

20,788

 

Illustrative (Unconstrained) Roadway Projects

The following table lists roadway projects identified by City staffs that are currently without funding but which have been identified as necessary to maintain roadway condition, reduce congestion, and improve safety.  Total cost for these projects is estimated at $9.4 million.

 

Table HR9  Illustrative (Unconstrained) Roadway Projects

City

Project

Description

Cost ($000)

Blue Lake

Greenwood Avenue

Pavement Rehab or Reconstruction

1,000

Railroad Avenue

Pavement Rehab or Reconstruction

2,000

Hatchery Road

Pavement Rehab or Reconstruction

2,000

I Street

Sidewalks, Pavement Rehab or Reconstruction

1,000

Eureka

Wabash Street

Eliminate northbound Fairfield entering intersection and install new traffic signal at Hawthorne Street

500

Ferndale

Bluff St. from Craig St. E to City Limits

Pavement Rehab or Reconstruction

133

Eugene St. from Berding Street  to Harrison Ave.

Pavement Rehab or Reconstruction

18

Lincoln St. from Grant Ave. to City Limits

Pavement Rehab or Reconstruction

49

Herbert Street from Berding Street  to Rose Ave.

Pavement Rehab or Reconstruction

49

Rio Dell

Wildwood Avenue

Downtown Roadway Improvement Project

800

Douglas Street

Overlay Paving Project

50

Trinidad

Stagecoach Road

Paving (cemetery to city limits)

80

Frontage Road

Crack Sealing

20

TOTAL

7,699

 

 

Financing

 

Federal, State, and local funding sources and programs which are driven by State and Federal fuel taxes, and some sales taxes, available to the Humboldt County region are described in the following section.

Federal Sources/Programs for Roadways and Related Facilities

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU):  The act authorizes $244 billion nationwide for transportation between 2005 and 2009.  This represents a 42 percent increase in average annual funding over the previous program, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).  The general structure of SAFETEA-LU is relatively similar to TEA-21.  The act also guarantees “donor” states such as California a minimum rate of return on state fuel tax contributions annually, with the rate increasing from 90.5 percent in 2006 to 92 percent in 2009.  Additionally, the act includes a number of provisions that influence the way that transportation facilities are planned, built, and administered.  Specifically, SAFETEA-LU encourages private investments and partnerships in constructing transportation facilities, in addition to providing opportunities for environmental streamlining, design-build contracting, and private toll projects.  A summary of key federal programs is provided below. 

National Highway System (NHS):  The NHS funding level is $30.5 billion nationwide over the life of SAFETEA-LU.  California would receive 9.6 percent of NHS funds or $2.8 billion over the life of SAFETEA-LU.  The formula for distribution of funds is based on lane-miles of principal arterials (excluding Interstate), vehicle-miles traveled on those arterials, diesel fuel used on the State’s highways, and per capita principal arterial lane miles.  The Act expands eligibility of NHS funding to include environmental restoration and pollution abatement to minimize the impact of transportation projects, control of noxious weeds and aquatic noxious weeds, and establishment of native species.

 

Surface Transportation Program (STP):  The STP provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and public bus terminals and facilities.  The Act expands STP eligibilities to include advanced truck stop electrification systems, high accident/high congestion intersections, and environmental restoration and pollution abatement, control of noxious weeds and aquatic noxious weeds, and establishment of native species.  A total of $32.5 billion in STP funds is authorized through 2009.  California is expected to receive $3.2 billion in STP funds.  Funds will continue to be distributed among the States based on lane miles of Federal-aid highways, total vehicle-miles traveled on those Federal-aid highways, and estimated contributions to the Highway Account of the HTF.  Each State must set aside a portion of their STP funds (10 percent or the amount set aside in 2005, whichever is greater) for transportation enhancements activities. 

 

Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA):  TEA funds represent 10 percent of the statewide STP funds.  TEA offers broad opportunities and federal dollars to take unique and creative actions to integrate transportation into local communities and the natural environment. The Program is designed to promote livable communities and strengthen partnerships.

 

Areas eligible for TEA funding include the following 12 categories:

 

1.        Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.

2.        Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

3.        Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic/historic sites.

4.        Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provisions of tourist and welcome center facilities).

5.        Landscaping and other scenic beautification.

6.        Historic preservation.

7.        Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals).

8.        Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails).

9.        Control and removal of outdoor advertising.

10.     Archaeological planning and research.

11.     Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff and reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.

12.     Establishment of transportation museums.

 

HCAOG is responsible for ranking and programming TEA projects countywide, in the same manner as for RTIP projects, but the California Transportation Commission bears final authorization.

 

Bridge Program:  A total of $21.6 billion is authorized nationwide for this program through 2009 to enable States to improve the condition of their eligible highway bridges over waterways, other topographical barriers, other highways and railroads.  California will receive $1.9 billion.  Each State must spend at least 15% of its bridge apportionment for bridges on public roads that are not Federal-aid highways (off- system bridges).  The discretionary bridge program was funded only through 2005; beginning in 2006, $100 million was to be set aside annually to fund designated projects.

 

Railroad/Highway At-Grade Crossing Program:  The purpose of this program is to reduce the number and severity of highway accidents by eliminating hazards to vehicles and pedestrians at existing railroad crossings.  Railroad/highway at-grade crossing improvement projects include, but are not limited to, installation and upgrade of railroad protection systems to a state-of-the-art condition at grade crossings and grade crossing eliminations.  Eligibility is rather strict, as there are several requirements to qualify, including the following:

·      Project must be on a public road.

·      Project must be sponsored by a city or a county or a railroad company.

·      The railroad/highway crossing must be included on the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) “Recommended List of Public Crossings in California for Improved Crossing Protection with Federal Funding.”

·      Projects (or lump sums to cover all projects) must be included in the appropriate Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) developed by a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

 

Since the beginning of the program in 1974, $3.8 billion has been obligated for grade crossing improvements.  Annually, $155 million is allocated to the states. 

 

Federal Lands Highways Program (FLHP):  The Federal Lands Highways program authorizations thru 2009 a total of $4.5 billion for Indian Reservation Roads (IRR), Park Roads and Parkways, Public Lands Highways (discretionary and Forest Highways), and Refuge Roads programs.  FLHP funds can be used for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways and transit facilities within public lands, national parks, and Indian reservations.  In addition, FLHP funds can be used as the State/local match for most types of Federal-aid highway funded projects.  New eligible uses of Public Lands Highways funds include up to $20 million per year for maintenance of Forest Highways, $1 million per year for signage identifying public hunting and 12 fishing access, and $10 million by the Secretary of Agriculture to facilitate the passage of aquatic species beneath roads in the National Forest System. 

 

SAFETEA-LU provides significant changes in the IRR program.  IRR funding may be provided via a funding agreement in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to a requesting Indian tribal government(s) that has satisfactorily demonstrated financial stability and financial management to the Secretary.  IRR funds shall only be expended on projects identified in a transportation improvement program approved by the Secretary.  The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, is required to complete a comprehensive national inventory of transportation facilities that are eligible for assistance under the IRR program within 2 years of enactment of SAFETEA-LU. 

 

Up to 25% of a tribe’s IRR program funds may now be used for the purpose of IRR system maintenance as defined in 25CFR170, although the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will retain primary responsibility for IRR maintenance programs through DOI appropriations.  Funding for the BIA’s program management and oversight expenses is provided, although this amount now includes BIA project-related administrative expenses.  An Indian tribe may enter into a road maintenance agreement with a State to assume the responsibilities of the State for roads in and providing access to Indian reservations.  A new position in DOT is established for a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Tribal Government Affairs. A total of $70 million is authorized separately (no longer a set-aside) through 2009 for projects to replace structurally deficient or functionally obsolete IRR bridges.

 

U.S. Forest Service:  The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) places a fee on all timber receipts from federal lands.  Humboldt County and the school districts receive half of these receipts, and the USDF receives the remaining half.  These monies become part of the County Road Fund and are used for operational improvements.

 

Safe Route to Schools:  Authorized by Section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU the federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program came into effect in August of 2005 and is set to expire September 2009.  This federal funding program emphasizes community collaboration in the development of projects that target grades K-8, and projects that incorporate elements of the 5 E’s – education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation.  The program seeks to increase the number of children who walk or bicycle to school.  Eligible agencies include state, local, and regional agencies; cities and counties; non-profit organizations; school districts; and Native American Tribes.  Eligible projects include stand alone infrastructure within 2 miles of a grade school or middle school or non-infrastructure projects. 

 

Emergency Relief Program (ER):  Congress authorized in Title 23, United States Code, Section 125, a special program from the Highway Trust Fund for the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and roads on Federal lands which have suffered serious damage as a result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures from an external cause.  The funds received through the ER program are intended to supplement the commitment of resources by States, their political subdivisions, or other Federal agencies to help pay for unusually heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions. 

 

Damage to highways must be server, occur over a wide area, and result in unusually high expenses to the highway agency in order to be eligible for ER funds.  In addition, catastrophic failure due to an external cause is based on the criteria that the failure was not the result of an inherent flaw in the facility, but was sudden, caused a disastrous impact on transportation services, and resulted in unusually high expenses to the highway agency.  The Federal Highway Administration can provide up to $100 million in ER funding to a State for each natural disaster or catastrophic failure that is eligible for ER funding.  For a disaster that exceeds the $100 million per State cap, Congress may pass special legislation lifting the cap for that disaster. 

State Sources/Programs for Roadways and Related Facilities

As described earlier, past state budget problems have directly impacted the core state programs supporting transportation, including the State Highway Account and Proposition 42.  State support for transportation in general has been waning, especially from loans taken from transportation to offset the state deficit, without guaranteed payback.  The overall state program consists of five main broad categories:

1.     State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) which is funded off the top from the State Highway Account;

2.     Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funded from 75% of the STIP;

3.     Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funded from 25% of the STIP;

4.     Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) and Proposition 42 funded from the retail sales tax on gasoline and diesel.

  1. Prop 1B--The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, And Port Security Bond Act Of 2006

 

Brief summaries of these programs are provided below along with other potential state funding sources.

 

State Highway Operations & Protection Program (SHOPP):  The purpose of the SHOPP program is to maintain the integrity of the State Highway System. Funding for this program is provided through gas tax revenues deposited into the State Highway Account. Projects are nominated within each Caltrans District office and are sent to Caltrans Headquarters for programming. Final project determinations are subject to CTC approval.

Several categories of projects are contained in the SHOPP, including collision reduction, bridge preservation, roadway preservation, roadside preservation, mobility enhancement, and preservation of other transportation facilities related to the state highway system. 

SHOPP projects are based on statewide priorities within each program category for state highways (i.e., safety, rehabilitation, operations, etc) within each Caltrans District and are not subject to county minimums.  SHOPP funds cannot be used for capacity-enhancing projects.

 

Minor Program:  The Minor A Program is a district-discretionary SHOPP program based on annual statewide/district allocations.  This program provides some level of discretion to Caltrans District Offices in funding projects up to $1,000,000.  Minor B funds are used for projects up to $147,000.  The advantage of this program is the streamlined nature of the funding process and the local nature of the decisionmaking. Funding is competitive within the funds allocated to a given District.

 

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP):  The STIP is a five-year capital improvement program to assist the state and local entities to plan and implement transportation improvements and to utilize resources in a cost effective manner.  All STIP projects must be capital projects (including project development costs) needed to improve transportation, including improvements to mobility, accessibility, reliability, sustainability and safety.

A Fund Estimate is prepared every two years by Caltrans and approved by the California CTC.  Regional agencies and Caltrans must submit their project lists by the end of the year.  The California CTC then adopts the STIP by the following April. 

 

In August 2008, CTC adopted Resolution G-03-13 (TE Program Reform) integrating the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program into the STIP.  The 2008 STIP Guidelines further clarify and direct programming of TE funded projects, or project enhancement elements, into the STIP. 

 

From passage of SB 45, the STIP is split 75 percent to Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), decided by regional agencies such as HCAOG, and 25 percent to Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), projects nominated by Caltrans.  Below is a description of each program.

 

Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP): The RTIP receives 75 percent of STIP funding.  The 75 percent is further subdivided by formula of population (25 percent) and road mileage (75 percent) into county shares.  A primary source of funding is the motor vehicle fuel excise tax and the retail sales tax on motor vehicle fuel.

 

Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP):  The ITIP receives the remaining 25 percent of STIP funding.  This program is controlled by Caltrans, but regional agencies can provide input and seek co-funding on the specific ITIP projects for their region.  Caltrans nominates projects totaling the first 10 percent of the ITIP, including State highways, intercity passenger rail, mass transit guideway, or grade separation projects.  Non-capital costs for transportation system management or transportation demand management may be included where Caltrans finds the project to be a cost-effective substitute for capital expenditures.

 

The remaining 15 percent is limited by statute to intercity rail projects (including interregional commuter rail and grade separation projects) and to improvements outside urbanized areas on interregional road system routes (which are specified in statute), selected by Caltrans.

 

Prop 1B: The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorized nearly $20 billion in general obligation bond proceeds to be available for the following programs:

·       Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA)
A total of $4.5 billion is to be allocated to this program. The funds in the CMIA are to be available to the CTC for allocation for performance improvements on the state highway system or major access routes to the state highway system. The CMIA presents a unique opportunity for the state’s transportation community to provide demonstrable congestion relief, enhanced mobility, improved safety, and stronger connectivity to benefit traveling Californians.

·       STIP Augmentation
Two billion dollars will be allocated to the STIP program to augment funds otherwise available for the STIP from other sources.  Funding constraints in the 2006 STIP cycle prevented or delayed the funding of many important transportation improvement projects.  The primary intent of STIP augmentation is to advance programming of funds for STIP projects that can be delivered prior to the adoption of the 2008 STIP.

·      Port Air Quality
One billion dollars will be available to CARB for emission reductions from activities related to the movement of freight along trade corridors.

·       State-Local Partnership Program Account
 Over the period of five years, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will use $1 billion in funds to match dollar-for-dollar local funds for eligible projects.

·       Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit
This program will provide the11.5 percent match for federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Repair funds available for seismic retrofit of local bridges.

·       Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Account
This account will provide $250 million for completion of high-priority grade separation and railroad crossings safety improvements.

·       State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP)
An additional $500 million will be available for SHOPP projects.

·       Traffic Light Synchronization
This account will provide $250 million to fund traffic light synchronization or other technology-based solutions.

·       Port, Harbor and Ferry Terminal Security
The Office of Emergency Services will allocate $100 million to award grants for port, harbor and ferry terminal security improvements.

·       Transit - $3.6 billion will be allocated to transit projects.

·      Local Streets and Roads - $2 billion will be allocated by the State Controller for local streets and roads projects. The formula distribution of funds is based on the number of vehicles registered in the county relative to all counties in the State (75 percent of funds) and the number of county maintained road miles relative to all county maintained road miles in the State (25 percent of funds). Timing and exact amounts of these allocations are being debated by the California legislature.

 

Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Program:  Similar to TEA, the EEM offers funding to remedy environmental impacts of new or improved transportation facilities.  Applicants may apply for these funds to undertake environmental enhancement and mitigation projects which are directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of modifying existing transportation facilities, or for the design, construction or expansion of new transportation facilities. The related transportation facility must be modified or constructed in 1990 or later and the EEM project must be over and above the required mitigation for the related transportation project. All participating cost incurred on a project are funded in arrears on a reimbursement basis of the states proportionate share of actual costs. No matching funds or cost shares from the applicant or other funding sources are required to apply for an EEM grant, however, projects that include the greatest proportion of other monetary sources of funding will be rated highest. Grants are generally limited to $350,000.

 

Highway-Railroad Grade Separation Program:  The purpose of the Program is to improve safety and to expedite the movement of vehicles by eliminating highway-rail crossings at grade.  Agencies with jurisdiction over public roadways that cross railroad tracks are eligible to receive funds under this program.  Three types of projects are considered:

1.     The alteration or reconstruction of existing grade separations; and

2.     The construction of new grade separations to eliminate existing or proposed grade crossings; and

3.     The removal or relocation of roads or tracks to eliminate existing grade crossings.

 

On grade separations, the project includes all approaches, ramps, connections, drainage, and other construction required to make the grade separation operable and to effect the separation of grades.  Annual budget can be $15 million for grade separation projects under this program.  In general, State participation per project is limited to $5 million or 80 percent of the project cost, whichever is less.  There is also a matching requirement of 10 percent local and 10 percent railroad.

 

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC), prior to July 1 of each year, establishes a list of projects, in priority order, which it has determined to be the most urgently in need of separation or alteration.  The criteria for project prioritization are established by the PUC.  Allocations for projects are made by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), although this authority is currently delegated to Caltrans.  A project must meet certain readiness criteria in order to receive an allocation the most important being that an agreement with the railroad must be in place.

 

Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA):  Funds from the PVEA are intended to result in energy savings or displacement of nonrenewable energy.  PVEA funds are available as a result of Federal Court decisions and settlement agreements against a number of oil companies and producers which ordered refunds to the States for petroleum product price overcharges.  PVEA projects must result in energy savings or displace nonrenewable energy and provide restitution to the motoring public who were injured by the oil price overcharges.  PVEA funding cannot be used to:

·      Supplant funds which are already available for the proposed project; or

·      Fund projects with restitution too far into the future; or

·      Fund projects whose primary concern is environmental, safety, or has very little energy saving; or

·      Fund studies because they might not result in project implementation, or fund administrative expenses that exceed 5 percent.

 

Annual funding varies.  PVEA funds must be allocated to transportation projects through special legislation carried in behalf of Caltrans for inclusion in the Budget Act or for allocation to local agencies.  Upon legislative approval, the Department of Finance determines which specific court case has funds available to fund the project.  Each project must be submitted as a proposal to the California Energy Commission and approved by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).  Funds can only be encumbered following DOE approval.  Any project costs incurred prior to DOE approval will not be paid.

 

Traffic Congestion Relief Program/Proposition 42: The general electorate in March 2002 overwhelmingly voted in favor of dedicating retail sales tax revenues from the sale of gasoline to transportation, indefinitely, thereby expanding the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) created in 2000.  Proposition 42 revenues go toward several programs, including specific projects selected by the Governor, State highways, local streets and roads, and transit.  The percentage of revenues allocated to each program is as follows:

·      Governor’s Traffic Congestion Relief Program ($678 million per year through 2008)

·      State Highways (40% of remaining revenues)

·      Local Streets (20% of remaining revenues)

·      County Roads (20% of remaining revenues)

·      Transit (20% of remaining revenues - 10% goes to intercity rail, 10% for local transit)

 

Gas Tax Subventions: The 18 cent per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel is divided among several programs, including the State Highway Account which funds the SHOPP and STIP, and local city and county street and road maintenance, often referred to as subventions.  State law designates the amount of revenues that are allocated to each program.  In turn, formulas based on mileage of maintained roads, vehicle registration, and population determine the share of subventions to each county and city.

 

Safe Routes to School:  Established in 1999, the State-legislated Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program came into effect with the passage of AB 1475. In 2001, SB 10 was enacted which extended the program for three additional years. In 2004, SB 1087 was enacted to extend the program three more years. And in 2007, AB 57 was enacted to extend the program indefinitely.   Eligible applicants include cities, counties, and school districts.  Eligible projects include infrastructure projects located in the vicinity of a school; projects must be completed within four state fiscal years after project funds are allocated.  Targeted beneficiaries include children in grades K through 12. 

Regional and Local Sources and/or Programs for Roadways 

As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Humboldt County, HCAOG administers several state and federal government fund sources.

 

Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds:  Since 1972, TDA funds are generated from a ¼ cent of the state retail sales tax. Revenues from the sales tax are deposited into the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) which is one of two programs under TDA.  These funds are apportioned to the Association's member entities on a population percentage basis.  The primary use of TDA funds is for public transportation; however, streets and roads are eligible for the LTF revenue after HCAOG undertakes the annual transit “unmet needs” process.  In recent years, little LTF remains available for streets and roads at the end of the allocation process.  TDA revenue in Humboldt County has grown an average 4 percent annually since 1996, which is slightly above the rate of inflation.  The state also provides funds from the Public Transportation Account (PTA).  This is divided between regions for State Transit Assistance, which is the second program under TDA, and Caltrans for state rail commute/passenger programs.

 

Humboldt County Transportation Systems:  Revenues available to support the county road system, including gas tax subventions, are projected to increase slightly in the short-term; however, the actual purchasing power of the available dollars will likely further decline as a result of increased inflation and better auto fuel economy.  The funds available for new facilities have become virtually non-existent at all levels of government, forcing a focus on maintenance of current levels of service.  The Humboldt County Public Works Department displays similar conditions as shown by their limited programming of transportation construction dollars.

 

City of Eureka Transportation Systems:  The City of Eureka will continue to face long-term financial challenges in providing for new facilities projects.  Available local revenues will be focused on street maintenance, e.g. overlays, slurry seals and crack filling. 

 

Arcata City Streets:  General fund and other city revenues range from 40 percent to 50 percent of the total revenues.  Influencing factors include limited federal funding for city streets and static state revenues.  Transportation Development Act funds available are used for public transit.  The city is currently discussing a Local Transportation Sales Tax.  Estimated local backlog needs are 17 million dollars. 

 

Small Cities Programs:  All of the smaller cities in Humboldt County, (Fortuna, Rio Dell, Blue Lake, Ferndale, and Trinidad) have major problems in financing street maintenance and construction.  In general, state gas tax revenues are only sufficient to cover maintenance costs, leaving street construction or reconstruction projects under-funded.  There are projects which these cities would like to implement, which as a practical matter, cannot be constructed because the cost far exceeds projected revenues.

 

Projected revenues for the smaller cities are expected to grow at an annual rate of 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent, unless otherwise provided by the entity.  For the most part, revenues fall short of expenditures, which reflects the inadequacy of revenue levels.  Of the five cities, only Fortuna receives RSTP revenues in a significant amount.  HCAOG has developed a small cities program to supplement the funding hardship facing the region's smaller municipalities.

 

Potential Funding Sources for Roadways 

The following local funding sources may potentially be considered in Humboldt County.  Although grants and loans can provide for infrastructure funding, other options can be implemented to support needed public systems and facilities. Impact fees and development mitigation measures and agreements are other funding options, discussed in more detail below.

 

New Development/Traffic Mitigation Fees:  Traffic mitigation fees are one-time charges on new development to pay for required public facilities, and to mitigate impacts created by the development or reasonably related to it.  There are a number of approaches to charging developers for the provision of public facilities.  In all cases, however, the fees must be clearly related to the costs incurred as a result of the development.  AB 1600, which was passed to govern the imposition of development fees, requires that a nexus, or rational connection, be made between a fee and the type of development on which the fee is based.  Furthermore, fees cannot be used to correct existing problems or pay for improvements needed for existing development.  A county may only levy such fees in the unincorporated area over which it has jurisdiction.

 

Development Mitigation Measures/Agreements:  Development mitigation measures are imposed whenever developments require approval by a local entity.  Generally, mitigation measures are imposed as conditions on tentative maps.  These conditions reflect on- and off-site project mitigation that must be completed in order to be able to develop.  Development agreements are also used to gain cooperation of developers in constructing off-site infrastructure improvements or dedicating rights-of-way needed as a result of the proposed development.

 

Road Operations and Maintenance:  Besides the major capital projects recommended in this transportation study, Humboldt County has significant, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) needs.  To some extent, the funding for O&M and capital projects overlap.  Therefore, it is important to understand the annual O&M funding sources.  Each source is briefly described below.

 

State Gas Taxes:  The State of California returns a portion of the statewide gas tax revenues to each jurisdiction for the purpose of maintaining roadways.  These funds are restricted for use to the City's Road Fund and are accrued on an annual basis.  The formula for determining the amount of allocation to each City is complex, but primarily determined based on population.

 

Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees:  The Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees are motor vehicle registration funds returned to the County from the State based on a jurisdiction's population.  These funds are General Fund revenues and are not restricted for roadway use.  Therefore, the dedication of these funds to provide roadway O&M is essentially a use of General Fund revenues.

 

Local Transportation Fund (LTF):  As stated above, any funds not allocated to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements can be used for road operations and maintenance.

Benefit Assessment Act of 1982:  The Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 allowed for the development of County-wide assessments for drainage, flood control, and street lighting.  A 1989 amendment to the Act added street maintenance assessments.  To date very few cities or counties have instituted this assessment for street maintenance.

 

Costs and Revenues Estimated for Roadways 

Assumptions

During the plan’s development, it is required that reasonable estimates of expected revenues be forecasted during the life of the RTP.  The following funding assumptions are made for regional improvements contained in the Action Element.