Calaveras County Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to

Transcription

Calaveras County Regional
Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Safe Routes to School Master Plan
June 2015
Calaveras County Council of Governments
Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to Schools Plan
June 2015
Acknowledgements
Calaveras Council of Governements
Council Members
Debbie Ponte (County)
Elaine Morris (City), Vice Chair
James Hemminger (Citizen Member)
John Gomes (Citizen Member), Chair
Steve Kearney (County)
Wes Kulm (City)
Technical Advisory Committee
Melissa Eads, CCOG Executive Director
Carl Baker, Caltrans District 10
David Hanham, City of Angels Planning Director
David Myers, City of Angels Engineer
Jeff Crovitz, Calaveras County Public Works Director
Peter Maurer, Calaveras County Planning Director
Robert Pachinger, Calaveras County Public Works
Joan Mazzetti, Calaveras County Public Health Services
Amber Collins, Project Manager, CCOG Transportation Planner
Alta Planning + Design
Brett Hondorp, Principal-in-Charge
Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Project Manager
Paul Martin, Senior Associate
Brianne Clohessy, Planner
Emily Tracy, Planner
Paris Latham, Planner/GIS Analyst
Table of Contents
6 Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 2 3 4 5 Vision, Goals and Objectives ............................................................ 1-2 Existing Conditions ................................................................... 2-1 Implementation......................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Project Evaluation Strategy .............................................................. 6-2 6.1 Project Evaluation Strategy .............................................................. 6-2 6.2 Cost Estimates: Unit Cost Assumptions ....................................... 6-3 6.3 Priority Plans, Programs, and Projects .......................................... 6-3 6.4 Project Evaluation Summary............................................................ 6-8 2.1 Setting...................................................................................................... 2-1 6.5 Project List ............................................................................................6-10 2.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 2-5 6.6 Maintenance ........................................................................................6-21 Needs Analysis ........................................................................... 3-1 7 Funding ...................................................................................... 7-1 3.1 Bicyclists’ General Needs and Preferences .................................. 3-1 7.1 Federal Sources .................................................................................... 7-1 3.2 Pedestrians’ General Needs and Preferences ............................ 3-3 7.2 State Sources ......................................................................................... 7-6 3.3 General School Needs and Preferences ....................................... 3-4 7.3 Regional & Local Sources .................................................................. 7-7 3.4 Community Participation .................................................................. 3-5 7.4 Private Sources ..................................................................................... 7-8 3.5 Attractors and Generators ............................................................. 3-17 7.5 Other Sources ........................................................................................ 7-9 3.6 Current Commuting Patterns by Area ....................................... 3-19 3.7 Collision Analysis............................................................................... 3-21 3.8 Existing Transportation Network ................................................ 3-34 Appendix A.
Bicycle Design Guidelines ..................................... A-1 3.9 Summary of Needs Findings ......................................................... 3-35 Appendix B.
Pedestrian Design Guidelines .............................. B-1 Recommended Infrastructure Projects ................................... 4-1 Appendix C.
Plan Review ............................................................ C-1 4.1 Global Recommendations ................................................................ 4-2 Appendix D.
Detailed Survey Results ........................................ D-1 4.2 Recommended Improvement Types ............................................ 4-8 4.3 City of Angels Camp Recommendations .................................. 4-10 Appendix E.
ATP Guidelines Compliance ...................................E-1 4.4 Calaveras County Recommendations........................................ 4-14 Appendix F.
Past Expenditures ...................................................F-1 Recommended Programs ......................................................... 5-1 5.1 Education ................................................................................................ 5-2 5.2 Encouragement .................................................................................... 5-4 5.3 Enforcement .......................................................................................... 5-7 5.4 Evaluation ............................................................................................... 5-8 Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Plan | i
Table of Tables
Table 2-1: Calaveras County Jurisdictions and Populations ................................2-2 Table 2-2: Calaveras County Schools by Community .............................................2-5 Table 2-3: Sumary of Existing Bikeway Miles .............................................................2-5 Table 2-4: Existing Bikeways ......................................................................................... 2-17 Table 3-1: Top 5 Locations of Survey Respondents ............................................. 3-11 Table 3-2: Survey Respondent Preference for Bicycling Facilities .................. 3-14 Table 3-3: Parks in Calaveras County ......................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-4: Calaveras County Schools ......................................................................... 3-18 Table 3-5: Major Employers .......................................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-6: Means of Transportation to Work .......................................................... 3-19 Table 3-7: County Mode Split Comparison ............................................................. 3-20 Table 3-8: Bicycle-Related Collisions in Calaveras County, 2008-2013 ......... 3-21 Table 3-9: Pedestrian-Related Collisions
in Calaveras County, 2008-2013 ............................................................ 3-21 Table 3-10: Collisions by Community........................................................................ 3-21 Table 3-11: Collisions per Month ................................................................................ 3-32 Table 3-12: Bicycle Collision Locations ..................................................................... 3-32 Table 3-13: Pedestrian Collision Locations.............................................................. 3-33 Table 3-14: Bicycle-Related Collisions, Party at Fault .......................................... 3-33 Table 3-15: Pedestrian-Related Collisions, Party at Fault ................................... 3-33 Table 4-1: Recommended Guidelines for Bicycle Parking
Location and Quantities ..............................................................................4-4 Table 4-2: Short-Term Bicycle Parking Locations and Number of Racks .........4-5 Table 4-3: City of Angels Camp Bikeway Recommendations ........................... 4-10 Table 4-4: City of Angels Camp Sidewalk Recommendations ......................... 4-11 Table 4-5: City of Angels Camp Pedestrian Facility Recommendations ....... 4-11 Table 4-6: Calaveras Countywide Bikeway Recommendations ....................... 4-14 Table 4-7: Calaveras County Bikeway Recommendations................................. 4-15 Table 4-8: Arnold Bikeway Recommendations ...................................................... 4-20 Table 4-9: Arnold Sidewalk Recommendation ...................................................... 4-20 Table 4-10: Arnold Pedestrian Facilities Recommendations ............................ 4-20 Table 4-11: Avery Bikeway............................................................................................. 4-23 Table 4-12: Avery Pedestrian Facilities Recommendations .............................. 4-23 ii | Calaveras County Council of Governments
Table 4-13: Copperopolis Bikeway Recommendations ...................................... 4-26 Table 4-14: Copperopolis Sidewalk Recommendation ...................................... 4-26 Table 4-15: Copperopolis Pedestrian Facility Recommendations .................. 4-26 Table 4-16: Mountain Ranch Pedestrian Facility Recommendations ............ 4-31 Table 4-17: Murphys Bikeway Recommendations ............................................... 4-33 Table 4-18: Murphys Sidewalk Recommendation ................................................ 4-33 Table 4-19: Murphys Pedestrian Facility Recommendations ........................... 4-33 Table 4-20: San Andreas Bikeway Recommendations ........................................ 4-36 Table 4-21: San Andres Sidewalk Recommendation ........................................... 4-37 Table 4-22: San Andreas Pedestrian Facility Recommendations .................... 4-37 Table 4-23: Valley Springs Bikeway Recommendations ..................................... 4-40 Table 4-24: Valley Springs Sidewalk Recommendation ..................................... 4-40 Table 4-25: Valley Springs Pedestrian Facility Recommendations ................. 4-40 Table 4-26: West Point Bikeway Recommendations ........................................... 4-43 Table 4-27: West Point Sidewalk Recommendation ............................................ 4-43 Table 4-28: West Point Pedestrian Facility Recommendations ....................... 4-43 Table 6-1: Project Evaluation Criteria ...........................................................................6-2 Table 6-2: Unit Cost Assumptions .................................................................................6-3 Table 6-3: Priority Plans and Programs ........................................................................6-3 Table 6-4: Priority Bikeway Projects ..............................................................................6-4 Table 6-5: Priority Sidewalks Projects ...........................................................................6-6 Table 6-6: Priority Pedestrian Projects .........................................................................6-6 Table 6-7: Priority Project Cost Summary ...................................................................6-8 Table 6-8: Bikeway Project Summary ...........................................................................6-8 Table 6-9: Sidewalk Project Summary ..........................................................................6-9 Table 6-10: Pedestrian Project Summary ....................................................................6-9 Table 6-11: Bikeway Project List .................................................................................. 6-10 Table 6-12: Sidewalk Project List................................................................................. 6-16 Table 6-13: Pedestrian Project List ............................................................................. 6-17 Table 6-14: Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs ............................................... 6-21 Table of Contents
Table of Figures
Figure 2-12: Calaveras County Land Use Map ..........................................................2-3 Figure 2-2:City of Angels Camp Land Use Map ........................................................2-4 Figure 2-3: Northeastern Calaveras County Existing Bikeways ..........................2-6 Figure 2-4: Central Calaveras County Existing Bikeways.......................................2-7 Figure 2-5: South Central Calaveras County Existing Bikeways..........................2-8 Figure 2-6: South Calaveras County Existing Bikeways .........................................2-9 Figure 2-7: City of Angels Camp Existing Bikeways ............................................. 2-10 Figure 2-8: Arnold Existing Bikeways ........................................................................ 2-11 Figure 2-9: Mountain Ranch Existing Bikeways ..................................................... 2-12 Figure 3-19: City of Angels Camp Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ............. 3-26 Figure 3-20: Copperopolis Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions .......................... 3-27 Figure 3-21: Murphys Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions .................................... 3-28 Figure 3-22: San Andreas Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions............................. 3-29 Figure 3-23: Valley Springs Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ......................... 3-30 Figure 3-24: West Point Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ................................ 3-31 Figure 4-1: Types of Bicycle Racks .................................................................................4-5 Figure 4-2: Caltrans Bikeway Classifications ..............................................................4-8 Figure 4-3: Pedestrian Facilities Overview..................................................................4-9 Figure 4-4: City of Angels Camp Bikeway Recommendations ......................... 4-12 Figure 2-10: Murphys Existing Bikeways .................................................................. 2-13 Figure 4-5: City of Angels Camp
Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendation.................................. 4-13 Figure 2-11: San Andreas Existing Bikeways........................................................... 2-14 Figure 4-6: Central Calaveras Bikeway Recommendations ............................... 4-16 Figure 2-12: Valley Springs Existing Bikeways ....................................................... 2-15 Figure 4-7: Northeast Calaveras Bikeway Recommendations.......................... 4-17 Figure 2-13: West Point Existing Bikeways .............................................................. 2-16 Figure 4-8: South Central Calaveras Bikeway Recommendations .................. 4-18 Figure 3-1: Types of Bicyclists .........................................................................................3-1 Figure 4-9: South Calaveras Bikeway Recommendations ................................. 4-19 Figure 3-2: North County Community Identified Challenge Areas ...................3-7 Figure 4-10: Arnold Bikeway Recommendations ................................................. 4-21 Figure 3-3: Central County Community Identified Challenge Areas ................3-8 Figure 4-11: Arnold Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations: ............... 4-22 Figure 3-4: South Central County Community Identified Challenge Areas ...3-9 Figure 4-12: Avery Bikeway Recommendations.................................................... 4-24 Figure 3-5: South County Community Identified Challenge Areas ................ 3-10 Figure 4-13: Avery Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations: ................. 4-25 Figure 3-6: Reasons for Bicycling ................................................................................ 3-11 Figure 4-14: Copperopolis South Bikeway Recommendations ....................... 4-27 Figure 3-7: Bicycling Days per Week.......................................................................... 3-12 Figure 4-15: Historic Copperopolis Bikeway Recommendations.................... 4-28 Figure 3-8: Average Bicycle Trip Distance ............................................................... 3-12 Figure 4-16: Copperopolis Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations ... 4-29 Figure 3-9: Barriers to Bicycling ................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 4-17: Historic Copperopolis
Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations ................................ 4-30 Figure 3-10: Reasons for Walking ............................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-11: Barriers to Walking .................................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-12: Distance Students Live from School ................................................. 3-16 Figure 3-13: Modes of Transportation to School .................................................. 3-16 Figure 4-18: Mountain Ranch
Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations ................................ 4-32 Figure 4-19: Murphys Bikeway Recommendations ............................................. 4-34 Figure 3-14: Modes of Transportation from School ............................................. 3-16 Figure 4-20: Murphys Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations ............ 4-35 Figure 3-15: Northeasterm Calaveras County
Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ..................................................... 3-22 Figure 4-22: San Andreas Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations ..... 4-39 Figure 4-21: San Andreas Bikeway Recommendations ...................................... 4-38 Figure 3-16: Central Calaveras County Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ... 3-23 Figure 4-23: Valley Springs Bikeway Recommendations ................................... 4-41 Figure 3-17: South Central Calaveras County
Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ..................................................... 3-24 Figure 4-24: Valley Springs Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations .. 4-42 Figure 3-18: South Calaveras County Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ...... 3-25 Figure 4-26: West Point Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations ........ 4-45 Figure 4-25: West Point Bikeway Recommendations.......................................... 4-44 Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Plan | iii
Introduction
1 Introduction
Walking and bicycling are primary forms of transportation, exercise and social
activity. Whether taking transit, walking the dog, going to school, or exercising,
many Calaveras County community members walk or bicycle regularly.
Ensuring walking and bicycling as viable everyday options requires working
with community members to build a shared vision for how to accommodate
facilities and to identify what is the most achievable in the short, medium and
long terms.
Studies show that these efforts are also good for a community’s economic and
social stability. Highly walkable downtowns, employment centers and
community service nodes help reduce the need for wider streets and expensive
improvements and are essential to the long term ability to attract jobs and
preserve existing neighborhoods. Such locations also bring greater
community benefits as more space can be devoted to people rather than
storing cars. Lastly, walkable and bikeable communities are inclusive
communities: seniors, children, and the mobility impaired have greater access
to services and are able to lead more independent lives.
This Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School plan provides recommended
bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs for Calaveras County and the
City of Angels Camp. The Calaveras Council of Governments (CCOG) is a Joint
Powers Authority and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for
the County of Calaveras and City of Angels.
CCOG, in coordination with member agencies and through public outreach,
developed this plan to identify bikeways and pedestrian projects in order to
improve connectivity, provide access, prioritize funding, and facilitate
implementation.
Mokelumne Hill
Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Plan | 1-1
Introduction
1.1 Vision, Goals and Objectives
Vision Statement
Objective 1.B.
Develop and construct a pedestrian network that
enhances safety and convenience of walking to key destinations within the
County.
The Plan envisions an improved and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian network
within Calaveras County that addresses the mobility needs for people of all
ages and abilities, while improving the economic health of the county.
Policy 1.B.1.
Provide safe and convenient access to existing and
future transit facilities, stations, and terminals within Calaveras County.
Goal 1. Provide an efficient network of bikeways and pedestrian
facilities throughout Calaveras County.
Policy 1.B.3.
Coordinate with local agencies regarding the
implementation of the proposed facilities improvements.
Objective 1.A. Develop and construct a bikeway system that enhances
safety and convenience of bicycling to key destinations.
Policy 1.A.1.
Provide connections to the proposed system from
existing and future transit facilities, stations, and terminals within
Calaveras County.
Policy 1.A.2.
Integrate bicycle facilities as part of the design and
construction of new roadways and, where there is available right of
way, upgrades or resurfacing of existing roadways within existing
surface width.
Policy 1.A.3.
Coordinate with local agencies and Caltrans
regarding the implementation of the proposed system.
Policy 1.A.4.
Provide support facilities, such as bicycle parking
and wayfinding at appropriate locations such as employment centers,
schools, and commercial centers.
Policy 1.A.5
Ensure new development accommodates bicycle
activity and circulation with bikeways and support facilities.
Policy 1.A. 6
bicycle network.
Prioritize projects that close gaps in the existing
1-2 | Calaveras County Council of Governments
Policy 1.B.2.
Integrate facilities as part of the design and
construction of new roadways and, where warranted, upgrades or
resurfacing of existing roadways within existing surface width.
Policy 1.B.4.
Ensure new development accommodates
pedestrian activity and circulation with sidewalks and crossing facilities.
Policy 1.B.5
Design facilities to meet the needs of all users
including older adults, children, and people with disabilities.
Policy 1.B.6
Prioritize projects that close gaps in the existing
pedestrian network.
Goal 2. Improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety.
Objective 2.A. Reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian related
injuries and fatalities by 50% from 2010 levels by 2025.
Policy 2.A.1.
Annually review the number of bicycle and
pedestrian related collisions to identify and implement ongoing
improvements at locations throughout the transportation network.
Objective 2.B.
Improve conditions at locations with high numbers of
bicycle and pedestrian related collisions.
Policy 2.B.1.
Coordinate and work with implementing agencies
to implement projects identified in this Plan.
Introduction
Goal 3. Ensure the timely funding and construction of the bicycle and
pedestrian improvements described in this plan.
Objective 3.A. Work to fund construction of the bicycle improvements in
this plan and maximize the amount of local, state, and federal funding for
bikeway facilities that can be received by agencies in Calaveras County.
Policy 3.A.1.
Pursue grant-funding programs for implementing
the bikeway network.
Policy 3.A.2.
Partner with local agencies to pursue funding for
bicycle projects as stand-alone grant applications or as part of larger
transportation improvements.
Objective 3.B.
Work to fund construction of the pedestrian
improvements in this plan.
Policy 3.B.1.
Pursue grant-funding programs for implementing
the pedestrian improvements.
Policy 3.B.2.
Partner with COG and other agencies to pursue
funding for pedestrian improvement projects as stand-alone grant
applications or as part of larger transportation improvements.
Goal 4. Increase the number of commute, recreation, and utilitarian
bicycle and walking trips.
Objective 4.A.
by 2025.
Goal 5. Increase the awareness of bicycling and pedestrian travel
through encouragement, education, enforcement and evaluation
programs.
Objective 5.A. Introduce and promote education, encouragement, and
outreach programs for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Policy 5.A.1.
Partner with and support local groups that promote
bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Objective 5.B.
Support Safe Routes to Schools projects that increase the
safety and numbers of students walking and biking to school.
Policy 5.B.1.
Partner with local schools and organizations to
support the Safe Routes to School projects recommended in this plan.
Objective 5.C.
Work to incorporate active transportation into promotion of
tourism and economic development.
Policy 5.C.1.
Partner with tourism and economic development
agencies to evaluate the existing impact and the potential for increased
impact of recreational walking, running and cycling on local economies.
Policy 5.C.2.
Support existing programs and establish new
programs to promote Calaveras County and its communities as
destinations for active recreation.
Increase pedestrian and bicycle travel mode share by 50%
Policy 4.A.1.
Accommodate the needs of all travelers through a
complete streets approach to designing new transportation projects.
Policy 4.A.2
Consider bicyclist and pedestrian needs in traffic
impact fee and capital improvement program updates.
Introduction
Existing Conditions
2 Existing Conditions
2.1 Setting
2.1.1 Overview
The study area of this Plan includes all of Calaveras County including the City of
Angels Camp.1 Calaveras County has a diverse topography and geography
ranging from elevations of about 300 feet above sea level in the western end of
the County to almost 9,000 feet above sea level at the eastern edge. West to
east, the rolling hills of developed areas including Angels Camp, Valley Springs,
San Andreas and Copperopolis give way to more mountainous areas such as
Arnold, West Point, Dorrington, Murphys and Rail Road Flat. The eastern
portion of the county has popular recreation destinations that provide
opportunities for snow sports, golfing, hiking, camping, fishing and road and
mountain bicycling. The County is situated between two major recreational
and scenic destinations: Lake Tahoe to the north and Yosemite National Park to
the south.
1ThroughoutthisPlan,theincorporatedcitywillbereferredtoas“the
CityofAngelsCamp”inordertodistinguishitfromthebroaderAngels
Campcommunity.
Calaveras County
Existing Conditions
The majority of the county’s population resides along Highway 4, Highway 49
The county has the highest number of residents between the ages of 55 and
and Highway 12/26. The county and communities’ populations with Census
59, which is older than the predominant national age group of 45 to 49 years.
data are shown in Table 2-1. The estimated population is 45,507, a 12%
Calaveras County residents have an estimated per capita income of $28,892.
increase from 2000, slightly higher than the national increase of 10%. Though
2.1.2 Land Use
the overall population increased between 2000 and 2012, the population has
decreased slightly (one percent) since 2010. Rancho Calaveras has the highest
The 1996 Calaveras County General Plan divides the county’s land uses into
population with 6,223 people, followed by Copperopolis, which has 4,174
two basic categories: Natural Resources Lands and Community Development
people. The area with the lowest population is Rail Road Flat, with a total of 121
Lands. Natural Resource Land consists of lands that are used for resource
people.
development including agriculture, timber and mining and sensitive habitats.
Table 2-1: Calaveras County Jurisdictions and Populations
Jurisdiction
Calaveras County
Population
45,507
City of Angels Camp
3,824
Arnold
2,552
Avery
Copperopolis
Dorrington
Forest Meadows
Mokelumne
503
688
2,012
121
Rancho Calaveras
6,223
San Andreas
3,015
674
3,619
Wallace
495
West Point
837
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year estimates (2008-2012)
County and City of Angels Camp land use maps.
1,313
1,600
Valley Springs
considered for future development. Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-2 show the
588
Murphys
Vallecito
include existing residential, commercial and industrial lands as well as areas
4,174
Mountain Ranch
Rail Road Flat
These lands make up 55 percent of the total county area. The remaining lands
Downtown Murphys
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-1: Calaveras County Land Use Map
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-2:City of Angels Camp Land Use Map
Existing Conditions
Table 2-2: Calaveras County Schools by Community
2.1.3 Roadways
Community
Number of Schools
City of Angels Camp
4
Arnold
1
Avery
1
Copperopolis
1
Jenny Lind
1
Mokelumne Hill
1
State Route 4 from Arnold to Markleeville was designated Ebbetts Pass
Murphys
1
National Scenic Byway in 2006. State Route 49 provides north to south
Rail Road Flat
1
connections, and links Mokelumne Hill, San Andreas and Angels Camp to
San Andreas
8
Amador and Tuolumne Counties. State Route 26 goes through the northwest
Valley Springs
1
West Point
1
Calaveras County has approximately 1,059 miles2 of maintained roadways
managed by the City of Angels Camp, Calaveras County, Caltrans, Federal
Agencies and State Parks.
Most maintained roadways are county roads (689.8 miles, 91.7 miles of which
are unpaved). State highways account for 149.4 miles within the County. Four
state highways serve the area; State Routes 4, 49, 26 and 12. State Route 4 goes
east to west from Stanislaus County to the high Sierra and Bear Valley ski resort.
corner of the county between the San Joaquin County and Amador County
Lines. State Route 12 connects to San Joaquin County to the west.
City-owned roads make up 32.2 miles of the maintained roadways, while 128
miles belong to federal agencies and 60 miles are within state parks.
2.2 Existing Conditions
2.1.4 Transit
2.2.1 Bicycle Infrastructure and Support Facilities
The County is served by Calaveras Transit, serving most of the population,
There are nearly 22 miles of bikeways and trails in Calaveras County and Angels
employment centers and recreation areas. Regional connections are available
Camp.
to Tuolumne County (Columbia College) and Amador County (Jackson). The
Table 2-3: Sumary of Existing Bikeway Miles
buses are equipped with front bicycle racks, but bicycle parking is currently not
available at transit stops.
Class
Trail
2.1.5 Schools
I
2.5
II
0.8
Calaveras County has 21 schools, displayed by community in Table 2-2. The
III
schools are dispersed throughout the communities, which includes four school
Total
districts.
Length (mi)
17.6
0.9
21.8
The existing bikeways are displayed in Figure 2-3 to Figure 2-13, and described
2CalaverasCounty2012RegionalTransportationPlan
in Table 2-4.
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-3: Northeastern Calaveras County Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-4: Central Calaveras County Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-5: South Central Calaveras County Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-6: South Calaveras County Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-7: City of Angels Camp Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-8: Arnold Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-9: Mountain Ranch Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-10: Murphys Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-11: San Andreas Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-12: Valley Springs Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Figure 2-13: West Point Existing Bikeways
Existing Conditions
Table 2-4: Existing Bikeways
Location
Arnold Rim
Trail
Start
Dunbar Rd
End
Hwy 4
Class
Trail
2.2.2 Walking Infrastructure and Support Facilities
Length
Community
(miles)
17.6 Arnold/
Avery/
Hathaway
Pines
Mountain
Ranch Rd
Garabaldi St
Michel St
I
0.59 Mountain
Ranch
Government
Center
Bikeway
County
Government
Offices
Library
I
0.44 San Andreas
Gold Strike Rd
Gold Strike
High School
Pixley Ave
I
0.32 San Andreas
Paloma Rd
Sequoia Ave
Rose St
I
0.07 Valley Springs
Whiskey Slide
Rd
Mountain
Ranch Rd
200 ft west of I
El Dorado
Creek
0.10 Mountain
Ranch
Blagen Rd
Dunbar Rd
D St
0.85 Arnold
Hwy 4
Bret Harte Dr
Creekview Dr I
0.08 Murphys
Cowell Creek
Pathway
Oak Cr
Pine Dr
I
0.14 Arnold
Daphne St
Rose St
Pine St
II
0.36 Valley Springs
Hwy 49
Mark Twain
Rd
Gold Country II
Inn
0.12 City of Angels
Camp
Oak Cr
Hwy 4
Dead end
II
0.25 Arnold
Government
Center Dr/Jeff
Tuttle Dr
Government
Center Rd
End of Jeff
Tuttle Dr
II
0.10 San Andreas
Blagen Rd
Henry St
Dunbar Rd
III
0.92 Arnold
I
Unlike bicycle facilities, the small scale of pedestrian infrastructure does not
lend itself to a regional inventory analysis. Calaveras County has a mixture of
developed areas with sidewalks and crossing treatments as well as more rural
areas that do not have significant walking infrastructure.
City of Angels Camp
Existing Conditions
2.2.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Education,
Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation
Programs
Bicycle Safety Training
Safe Routes to School
Encouragement
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) refers to a variety of multi-disciplinary programs
Mr. Frog’s Wild Ride
In 2011, the County provided bicycle safety training and helmet giveaways at
several schools throughout the County.
aimed at promoting walking and bicycling to school, and improving traffic
safety around school areas through education, enforcement and engineering
measures. SRTS programs typically involve partnerships among local agencies,
school districts, health organizations, community and parent volunteers, and
law enforcement agencies.
The Feeney Park Foundation in Murphys holds the Mr. Frog’s Wild Ride biking
event annually. The ride goes through the Sierra Foothills, and ends with a
barbeque in Feeney Park. All of the proceeds benefit Feeney Park, a non-profit
community sports and recreational facility. Participants are encouraged to
spend the following day in the area to visit other local attractions.
Public Health Services, of the Calaveras Health and Human Services Agency
(Public Health Services), is currently working with a number of schools in the
Mark Twain 5K Fun Run/Walk
County to develop SRTS programs and evaluate engineering challenges and
Each year, the Mark Twain Medical Center hosts a 5K run/walk event to benefit
improvements.
the health community or raise awareness of healthcare issues. Past causes have
included a Run Against Cancer and a Walk for Lupus Awareness. The events are
Education
held in conjunction with health fairs hosted by the medical center.
Angels Camp Police Department Explorers Program
The Death Ride
The Angels Camp Police Department provides a program called the Explorers
The Death Ride takes place primarily in Alpine County, but passes through
group for students 18 and under interested in law enforcement. The group
Calaveras County by way of Ebbetts Pass. Cyclists start and finish at Turtle Rock
organized a 2005 Child Safety Fair, where they sold bike helmets at a reduced
Park, two miles north of Markleeville. The ride covers 129 miles and 15,000+
rate and distributed coloring books and pamphlets related to bicycle safety.
feet of climbing.
California Highway Patrol Safety Course
Party Pardee Ride
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) in San Andreas organizes safety courses
The Party Pardee Ride is a 100K metric century (65 mile) or 50K event through
that include roadways and bicycle safety. The safety courses are mainly offered
the rolling foothills of Amador and Calaveras Counties, passing Lake Camanche
at grade schools (K-8) upon request.
and Pardee Reservoir, through Campo Seco, and Valley Springs. The ride is
organized by the Sacramento Bike Hikers and promoted with the Sacramento
Wheelmen.
Existing Conditions
Additional Events

Off the Beaten Path Walk/Run for Autism Awareness

San Andreas Community Health Walk

Hernia Hill at Twisted Oak Winery

Annual Copperopolis Road Race

Calaveras High School 5K Fun Run

Copper Town Circuit Race

Turkey Trot Run/Walk

Mokelumne Hill 5K Run/Walk & Festival

“Pedaling Paths to Independence” Century Ride
Enforcement
Student Patrol Crossing Guards
Calaveras High School provides a program for which high school students
serve as volunteer crossing guards at San Andreas Elementary School. The
program started in 2013 and has been noted as having contributed to better
driver behavior in the school area.
Existing Conditions
This page intentionally left blank.
Needs Analysis
3 Needs Analysis
The walking, bicycling and school travel needs of the Calaveras County
community are diverse and are influenced by experience, confidence, age, trip
type and many other factors. This examination begins with an overview of
needs by travel mode followed by community input. This chapter also reviews
American Community Survey travel data and a collision analysis.
3.1 Bicyclists’ General Needs and Preferences
This Plan seeks to address the needs of all bicyclists and potential bicyclists and
therefore it is important to understand the needs and preferences of all types
of bicyclists. Needs and preferences vary between skill levels and their trip
types. In addition, the propensity to bicycle varies from person to person,
providing insight into potential increases in bicycling rates. In the general
population, bicycling propensity levels can be classified into four categories,
displayed in Figure 3-1.

Strong and Fearless bicyclists will ride on almost any roadway despite
the traffic volume, speed and lack of bikeway designation and are
estimated to be less than one percent of the population.

Enthused and Confident bicyclists will ride on most roadways if traffic
volumes and speeds are not high. They are confident in positioning
themselves to share the roadway with motorists and are estimated to
be seven percent of the population.

Interested but Concerned bicyclists will ride if bicycle paths or lanes are
provided on roadways with low traffic volumes and speeds. They are
typically not confident riding with motorists. Interested but
Concerned bicyclists are estimated to be 60 percent of the bicyclist
population and the primary target group that will bicycle more if
encouraged to do so.

Source: Geller, R. "Four Types of Cyclists," Portland Bureau of Transportation, Portland, OR, 2006.
Figure 3-1: Types of Bicyclists
No Way No How bicyclists are people that do not consider cycling part
of their transportation or recreation options and are estimated to be
33 percent of the population.
Needs Analysis
The needs of bicyclists also vary between trip purposes. For example, people
who bicycle for sport recreational purposes may prefer long and unsignalized
roadways, while bicyclists who ride with their children to school may prefer
direct roadways with lower vehicular volumes and speeds. This Plan considers
these differences and develops a bikeway network to serve all user types. This
section describes the different types of bicyclists and the respective needs for
these categories of bicyclists.

Commuters - adults who regularly bicycle between their residences
and work.

Enthusiasts - skilled adults.

Casual / Family / Elderly riders - adults who use bicycles for running
errands, recreation, tourism, exercise, or as a family activity.

School Children - children who bicycle to school.
An effective bicycle network accommodates bicyclists of all abilities. Casual
bicyclists generally prefer roadways with low traffic volumes and low speeds.
They also prefer paths that are physically separated from roadways. Because
experienced bicyclists typically ride to destinations or to achieve a goal, they
generally choose the most direct route, which may include roadways with or
without bike lanes. Bicyclists of all abilities and purposes ride every day in
Calaveras County. People bicycle to work, community members bicycle to
transit stations, and recreational bicyclists ride on extended bicycle trips.
Bicycling in Calaveras County
Needs Analysis
3.2 Pedestrians’ General Needs and Preferences
Pedestrian needs encompass more than walking trips from one place to
another. At some point in nearly any journey, a person walks. After
disembarking from a bus or parked car, community members should be able to
walk comfortably, safely, and quickly to their final destinations.
Well-designed walkways
Narrow sidewalks, sidewalks that are directly adjacent to heavy-volume
roadways without vegetation or parking buffer, and sidewalks obstructed by
utility boxes or lighting poles detract from the walking environment and can
make it difficult or impossible for the mobility-impaired to use the sidewalk.
Well-designed walkways that are adequately wide, landscaped and free of
obstructions give pedestrians the ability to walk safely and comfortably.
Regardless of the nature of a walking trip, pedestrian needs include safety,
connectivity, and accessibility to destinations. Pedestrian infrastructure should
Slow traffic speeds
also consider those with special needs, including children, seniors and people
with mobility impairments. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The likelihood of pedestrian injury or death increases dramatically with
increasing motor vehicle speeds.
mandates the provision of reasonable accommodations for people whose
Reducing traffic speeds significantly increases pedestrian safety.
accessibility needs require such assistance.
The most critical needs of pedestrians and potential improvements include:
Direct connections
Pedestrians must sometimes walk long distances to access adjacent
destinations when the street network does not directly connect them to
destinations.
Pedestrian walkways and neighborhood trails that provide direct connections
can improve pedestrian mobility.
Clearly Indicated Crossings
Pedestrians and motorists must be aware of the marked crossing locations for
pedestrians.
Crossing facilities, including crosswalks and signage, alert both motorists and
pedestrians to the presence of marked crossings.
Continuous facilities
Sidewalk gaps, missing sidewalks and worn crosswalks are all barriers to
pedestrian travel.
Continuous facilities allow pedestrians to choose the safest and most efficient
path to and from their destination, encouraging them to choose walking as
their mode of transportation.
Downtown in the City of Angels Camp
Needs Analysis
3.3 General School Needs and Preferences
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program designed to create safer, convenient
and fun opportunities to walk, bicycle, take transit and carpool to school.
SRTS programs are intended to be a collaborative effort with participation from
the City or County, School District, Police Department, parents and the
community.
Projects include infrastructure improvements that are generally focused within
a two-mile radius of a school. Programs complement engineering
improvements by giving students the tools they need to safely and confidently
walk and bicycle to school.
SRTS programs provide benefits for both students and the environment.
Walking and biking to school can help with students’ physical and mental
health. According to the Center for Disease Control, children and adolescents
should get at least 60 minutes of physical activity per day, which many
students may not be getting. Walking, biking and carpooling also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and help improve air quality.
Successful SRTS programs incorporate the following Five E’s:
Engineering includes bicycle facilities, bicycle parking, crosswalks, as well as
signage and maintenance.
Education programs improve safety and awareness. These may be delivered
in schools as pedestrian or bicycle knowledge and skills programs, or provided
at low or no cost through non-profit and community organizations.
Encouragement programs such as suggested routes to school maps and
events such as Walk or Bike to Work and School Day reward current walkers
and bicyclists and motivate more people to try walking or bicycling.
Enforcement programs that reinforce legal and respectful driving, bicycling,
and walking make walking and bicycling families feel more secure.
Evaluation programs provide a method for monitoring improvements and
informing future investments.
Safe Routes to School projects can include fun and engaging programs
Needs Analysis
3.4 Community Participation
The Calaveras County community has played a key role in understanding the
existing conditions, community needs, and the development of
recommendations contained in this Plan. Through a project website,
community workshops and a community survey, residents shared their
thoughts and ideas.
3.4.1 Walk and Bike Calaveras Website
The project team built a website for the project
(www.walkandbikecalaveras.org) containing information on community
meetings, draft documents, and opportunities for community members to be
notified of community walking, biking or school events.
The project website is intended to live beyond the development of this Plan
and continue to be a community resource.
3.4.2 Workshops
The development of this Plan began with a set of community workshops held
in San Andreas and the City of Angels Camp (January 21 and 22, 2014,
respectively). Over 34 community members provided input on challenges and
opportunities for improvement.
Community Workshop
San Andreas, January 21, 2014
Needs Analysis
Community input gathered from the workshops can be categorized in a
Areas of concern identified by the community during the workshops are
number of categories, as listed below.
presented in Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-5.
Community identified Pedestrian Improvements
Sidewalks: Community members expressed a need for infill of sidewalk gaps in
the historic downtown areas throughout the county.
Crossing Improvements: Community members expressed a need for:

Additional marked crossings

Enhanced crossings at uncontrolled locations (pedestrian beacons,
curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, etc.)

Enhanced crossings at controlled locations (textured crosswalks, curb
extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, etc.)

Streetscape improvements and placemaking
Community Identified Bicycle Improvements
Class I Multi-Use Paths: Community members expressed a need for Class I
Multi-Use Paths connecting residential areas to shopping and schools.
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-2: North County Community Identified Challenge Areas
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-3: Central County Community Identified Challenge Areas
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-4: South Central County Community Identified Challenge Areas
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-5: South County Community Identified Challenge Areas
Needs Analysis
3.4.3 Community Survey
Bicycling
As part of the community participation efforts for the development of this plan,
Respondents were asked about their bicycling travel patterns including why
a survey was distributed at workshops and was available online via the project
and where they bicycle, how many days per week, trip distance, favorite places,
website. A total of 237 responses were gathered from December 9, 2013 to
challenges and opportunities.
March 3, 2014.
Survey results indicate that most people who bicycle in Calaveras County tend
The purpose of the survey was to gather information about community
to do so for recreation purposes rather than utilitarian purposes. When asked
members’ travel patterns, challenges for walking and bicycling, as well as
their reasons for bicycling and where they go, most respondents indicated that
opportunities and suggestions to improve the network. The survey included
they bicycle for exercise/health reasons (44 percent) and for pleasure (34
questions related to school travel behavior and what projects would improve
percent). Many respondents also bicycle for on- and off-road recreation (30
safety around schools and encourage students to walk or bicycle to school.
percent and 16 percent respectively). Figure 3-6 displays the reasons for
Detailed survey results can be found in Appendix D.
walking and bicycling noted in the survey.
Respondents from many locations throughout the county gave their input.
Most respondents live in San Andreas (35 percent). Table 3-1 displays the top
five areas in the county where survey respondents live.
44%
42%
For exercise/health reasons
I don't bike
34%
30%
For pleasure/to walk pets
For on‐road recreation (i.e. road…
Table 3-1: Top 5 Locations of Survey Respondents
16%
13%
11%
For off‐road recreation (i.e.…
For shopping/errands
Location
Response
Response
San Andreas
Number
84
Percent
35%
Angels Camp
19
8%
To get to the bus stop
Valley Springs
17
7%
To get to school
Rail Road Flat
11
5%
Rancho Calaveras
9
4%
Other
4%
3%
3%
To get to work
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Figure 3-6: Reasons for Bicycling
Most survey respondents, aside from those who do not bicycle at all, bicycle
one day (27 percent) or three days (19 percent) per week. One percent of
respondents do so each day of the week. Nearly one half of bicycle trips are
under two miles. Six percent of trips average 25 miles or above, which likely
reflects the recreational purposes of most bicyclists in the county. Figure 3-7
Needs Analysis
displays the average days per week that people bicycle and Figure 3-8 displays
The survey asked people to note their favorite places or routes to bicycle.
the average trip distance.
Responses included a wide variety of areas, destinations and specific corridors
where people like to bicycle. There were many locations that were noted
7 days
multiple times. Popular locations include:
1%
6 days
3%
5 days
5%
4 days
6%
3 days

Downtown Angels Camp

Downtown Valley Springs

New Hogan Lake Park

New Melones Lake area and
trails

Mokelumne Hill

Sheep Ranch Road
19%
Popular corridors include:
2 days
13%
1 day
27%
0 days
27%
0%
10%
20%
Figure 3-7: Bicycling Days per Week
11‐24 miles, 7%
25 and above, 6%
6‐10 miles, 16%
Under 2 miles, 45%
3‐5 miles, 26%
Figure 3-8: Average Bicycle Trip Distance
30%

Library bike path in San
Andreas


Mountain Ranch Road
Jenny Lind Road


Pool Station Road
Highway 49


Church Hill Road
Gold Strike Road


Arnold Rim Trail
Jesus Maria Road


Railroad Flat Road
Calaveritas Road


Murray Creek Road
Dogtown Road

Highway 4
Needs Analysis
Respondents were asked what prevents them from biking more often,
A common theme in these responses was roadways that are too narrow and/or
displayed in Figure 3-9. The most commonly noted reasons were lack of paths,
lack shoulders. Many feel that there is not enough room for both cars and
lanes or routes (68 percent), volumes and speeds of cars (57 percent), and
bicyclists. Roadways with hills and curves also pose problems to bicyclists.
drivers that don’t share the road (41 percent).
The survey asked community members to identify where they would bike if
No bike paths, lanes or bike routes
68%
Too many cars/cars drive too fast
57%
Drivers don't share the road
41%
Bikeways/roads in poor conditions
34%
they could. Numerous respondents said that they would like to bike to work,
school and for errands such as grocery shopping. Common locations include:

Jackson

Pool Station Road
Destinations are too far away
20%

Mokelumne Hill

Copperopolis
Other
19%

Valley Springs

Pope Street

San Andreas

Highways 49 and 26
I travel with small children
15%
Insufficient lighting
Weather
Not enough time
I have to carry things
11%
8%
8%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Figure 3-9: Barriers to Bicycling
The question included an open ended comment area to allow respondents to
expand their answers. Respondents noted many places where bicycling is
difficult, as well as the reasons why. Common locations and reasons include:

Residential areas: narrow roads, lack of facilities

Gold Strike Road: lack of signage and lanes

Highways 4, 49, 26: lack of dedicated space, high traffic volumes and
speeds

St. Charles Street: lack of lanes, traffic

Arnold: insufficient roads

Pope Street: too narrow, no shoulder

Downtown San Andreas: too much traffic
Needs Analysis
Respondents were asked to rank their preference for bicycle facility types.
Walking
Table 3-2 shows the survey responses, the scale being one to four, four being
Respondents were asked about their walking patterns including why and
the highest. The average rankings for each facility were relatively close to one
where they walk, favorite places to walk, challenges and opportunities. Figure
another, the highest being bike routes or boulevards.
3-10 displays the reasons why people walk in Calaveras County. The most
Table 3-2: Survey Respondent Preference for Bicycling Facilities
common reason for walking is for exercise and health (88 percent), as it was for
bicycling.
Bicycle Facility
1
2
3
4
Rating
Off-street paved bike paths
51
32
34
34
Average
2.34
On-street bike lanes
40
41
34
37
2.45
Bike routes or boulevards
17
51
58
26
2.61
For shopping/errands
Unpaved trails or dirt paths
44
28
26
54
2.59
To get to the bus stop
For exercise/health
88%
For pleasure/to walk pets
61%
31%
14%
Other
Despite the fact that on-street bike lanes and off-street paths were ranked last,
these were frequently mentioned in answers to open-ended questions. Other
improvements include connections between communities, wider road
10%
To get to work
8%
To get to school
7%
I don't walk
shoulders, lighting and slower traffic speeds.
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 3-10: Reasons for Walking
Respondents noted their favorite locations to walk. Common locations include:

New Hogan Lake Park

Parks

New Melones Lake area and
trails

Libraries


Schools


Big Trees State Park
Pope Street


Mountain Ranch Road
Central shopping/dining
districts

Pool Station Road

Dogtown Road

Murphys
Needs Analysis
The survey asked respondents what factors prevent them from walking more
The survey asked community members to tell where they would walk if they
often, displayed in Figure 3-11. The main reason is a lack of sidewalks, noted by
could. Numerous respondents said that they would like to walk for errands.
the majority (61 percent) of respondents. Approximately half (49 percent) feel
Access to main parts of towns from residential is also something that is
that traffic volumes and speeds prevent them from walking.
important to community members. Commonly noted points of interest
include:
No sidewalks
Too many cars/cars drive too fast
Places are too far away
Difficult to cross the street
Drivers don't stop for pedestrians
Sidewalks are in poor condition
Other
Not enough lighting
I travel with small children
Weather is too hot/rainy. Etc.
No curb ramps
I have to carry things
61%
49%
28%
27%
27%
23%
21%
16%
15%
11%
7%
5%

Gold Strike Road

San Andreas

Government Center

Valley Springs

Pope Street

Murphys

Residential areas and
subdivisions

Highway 49


Mokelumne Hill
Shopping and errands
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure 3-11: Barriers to Walking
When asked about locations that are difficult for walking and why, respondents
noted many locations throughout the county. Common answers include:

Highway 49: dangerous traffic, no room for pedestrians, lack of safe
crossings

Pool Station Road: no safe place to walk, high traffic speeds

St. Charles Street: inconsistent sidewalks, no crosswalks

Pope Street: no room for pedestrians

Gold Strike Road: no room for pedestrians, high traffic speeds

San Andreas: busy downtown area, uneven pavement, many narrow
roads

Rancho Calaveras: narrow roads, no shoulders, high traffic speeds, lack
of paths
Needs Analysis
School Travel
The survey included questions about how far students live from school and
Family vehicle (only children in…
56%
how they travel to school. Almost half of students (48 percent) live more than
two miles away from school, and almost one quarter (23 percent) live between
one and two miles away.
School Bus
21%
Carpool (with children from…
Don't know, 6%
Less than 1/4 mile, 6% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile, 7%
1/2 mile up to 1 mile, 10%
Walk
7%
Other (skateboard, scooter, etc.)
3%
Bike
3%
Transit
0%
0%
More than 2 miles, 48%
1 mile up to 2 miles, 23%
11%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 3-13: Modes of Transportation to School
Family vehicle (only children in…
43%
School Bus
Figure 3-12: Distance Students Live from School
24%
Carpool (with children from other…
16%
Walk
Figure 3-13 and Figure 3-14 display the modes of transportation by which
11%
Other (skateboard, scooter, etc.)
3%
Transit
3%
students arrive at school and leave from school. The three most frequently
used modes of transportation both to and from school are the family vehicle
(56 percent arriving, 43 percent leaving), school bus (21 percent arriving, 24
percent leaving), and carpooling with children from other families (11 percent
arriving, 16 percent leaving). Walking is the fourth most common mode for
arriving at and leaving from school with seven percent of students walking to
school and 11 percent walking home from school.
Bike
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Figure 3-14: Modes of Transportation from School
40%
50%
Needs Analysis
3.5 Attractors and Generators
In addition to these parks, regional recreation areas include the Pardee,
Walking and bicycling can be a viable means of transportation if schools,
Camanche, New Hogan and New Melones Reservoirs.
employment centers, shopping and retail centers, and parks are accessible.
The County Library System operates the Central Library in San Andreas and
These “attractors” and “generators” are examined below and will be used to
seven other facilities in the City of Angels Camp, Arnold, Copperopolis,
inform project recommendations. The County’s top attractors and generators
Mokelumne Hill, Murphys, Valley Springs and West Point.
are outlined below.
Parks and Community Centers
There are numerous parks in the county with a variety of ownership. The
County does not maintain a system of park and recreation facilities, but does
own Murphys Park, located in the town of Murphys. Table 3-3 lists parks in the
County.
Table 3-3: Parks in Calaveras County
Park
County Fairgrounds
City/Community
Angels Camp
Gateway Park
Angels Camp
Tryon Park
Angels Camp
Utica Park and Mark Twain
Angels Camp
Calaveras Big Trees State Park
Arnold
White Pines Lake and Park
Arnold
Black Creek Park
Copperopolis
Stanislaus National Forest
Hathaway Pines
Marredda Park
Mokelumne Hill
Mokelumne Hill Historic Park
Mokelumne Hill
Mountain Ranch Park
Mountain Ranch
Feeney Park
Murphys
Murphys Community Park
Murphys
Alex Quinones Jr. Community Park
San Andreas
Nielsen Park
San Andreas
Turner Park
San Andreas
Jenny Lind Veterans’ Memorial Park
Valley Springs
Arnold Rim Trail
Needs Analysis
Schools
School
Calaveras County has four school districts with 18 schools, and an additional
Table 3-4: Calaveras County Schools
Community
School District
Bret Hart Union High
School
Angels Camp
Bret Harte Union High School District
three alternative student programs offered by the Calaveras County Office of
Education (CCOE). Table 2-4 shows the schools in Calaveras County, as well as
Vallecito High School
Angels Camp
their locations and school districts.
John Vierra High School
Angels Camp
Calaveras High School
San Andreas
Calaveras Unified School District
Gold Strike High School
San Andreas
Jenny Lind Elementary
School
Valley Springs
Mokelumne Hill
Elementary School
Mokelumne Hill Calaveras Unified School District
Rail Road Flat Elementary
School
Rail Road Flat
San Andreas Elementary
School
San Andreas
Sierra Hills Education
Center
San Andreas
Toyon Middle School
Valley Springs
Transition/Community Day San Andreas
School
West Point
West Point Elementary
School
Copperopolis Elementary
School
Copperopolis
Mark Twain Union Elementary School
District
Mark Twain Union
Elementary School
Angels Camp
Mark Twain Union Elementary School
District
Albert Michelson
Elementary School
Murphys
Vallecito Union School District
Avery Middle School
Avery
Hazel Fischer Elementary
School
Arnold
Calaveras River Academy
San Andreas
CCOE Student Program
Mountain Oaks School
San Andreas
Oakendell Community
School
San Andreas
Needs Analysis
Shopping and Retail Centers
3.6 Current Commuting Patterns by Area
Downtown Murphys and the City of Angels Camp serve as major shopping
Census data provides local information on the number and percent of workers
centers in the region. Murphys has a variety of small shops, restaurants, and
commuting to work by bicycle and on foot, and can be used to compare trends
wineries. Copperopolis has a new town square that is a mixed use
and differences between jurisdictions. The most recent U.S. Census data
development with retail and shopping opportunities.
available is from the American Community Survey 5-year estimates (20082012). Table 3-6 reports the means of transportation in Calaveras County and
Top Employers
its individual cities and areas.
Table 3-6: Means of Transportation to Work
Access to major employment centers is important to commuter cyclists and
pedestrians. Table 3-5 displays the major employers in Calaveras County,
Community
Employer
County Office of
Education
Number
Category
Employed
946
County Government
380
Mark Twain St. Joseph’s
Hospital
248
Bret Harte High School
Caltrans (seasonal)
Forestry and Fire
Protection
-60
138-258
Education
Government
Medical
Various locations
throughout the County
San Andreas
San Andreas
0%
4%
0%
7%
Arnold
56%
1%
13%
1%
12%
Avery
58%
42%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Copperopolis
80%
15%
0%
2%
0%
2%
Dorrington
37%
63%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Forest Meadows
66%
13%
8%
0%
0%
13%
Mokelumne
83%
5%
0%
0%
0%
13%
Mountain Ranch
82%
2%
0%
0%
0%
16%
88%
8%
0%
0%
0%
4%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
88%
9%
0%
0%
0%
3%
San Andreas
68%
9%
0%
18%
1%
4%
Vallecito
66%
34%
0%
0%
0%
0%
72%
14%
0%
3%
0%
11%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
66%
6%
0%
21%*
0%
7%
79%
10%
1%
3%
0%
7%
Murphys
State
Calaveras County
Rail Road Flat
Government
San Andreas
Rancho Calaveras
Mountain Machining
Angels Camp
Ironestone Vineyards
--
Manufacturing
Murphys
Mark Twain
Convalescent Hospital
--
Medical
San Andreas
Sources: Calaveras Regional Transportation Plan (2012), Coordinated Human Service
Transportation Plan (2008), Short-Range Transit Plan (2009), California Employment
Development Department (2010), Calaveras County Chamber of Commerce
Other
7%
City of Angels
Manufacturing
Bicycle
17%
Education
--
Walk
83%
City of Angels
City/Community
Carpool Transit
alone
locations, and the number of employees where information was available.
Table 3-5: Major Employers
Drive
Valley Springs
Wallace
West Point
Calaveras County
Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2008-2012)
* Data is a sample and may not reflect whole population
Needs Analysis
Driving alone is the dominant form of transportation among commuters.
Walking to work is popular in San Andreas, Arnold, and West Point. Arnold and
San Andreas have the highest rate of commuter bicyclists, one percent each.
Table 3-7: County Mode Split Comparison
Geography
Walk
Bike
Transit
Carpool
Calaveras
3.4%
0.1%
0.9%
10.1%
Drive Alone
78.8%
San Joaquin
1.8%
0.5%
1.5%
15.4%
76.1%
Tuolumne
2.8%
0.4%
0.6%
12.9%
77.1%
Amador
3.2%
0.1%
0.8%
8.8%
81.4%
California
2.8%
1.0%
5.1%
11.5%
73.0%
Table 3-7 displays the mode splits in Calaveras County compared to Amador
County, San Joaquin County, and California. Of these jurisdictions, Calaveras
County has the highest percentage of residents who walk to work (3.4 percent).
Calaveras and Amador Counties have the lowest bicycling rates (0.1 percent
each) and the highest rates of commuters driving alone (78.8 percent and 81.4
percent respectively).
Copperopolis Town Square
Needs Analysis
3.7 Collision Analysis
Table 3-10 shows the number of collisions that occurred by community. Figure
3-15 to Figure 3-24 map the collisions by sections of the county and specific
3.7.1 Overview of Collision Data
communities. The figures and tables reflect only the areas that actually had
reported collisions, as many did not have any.
This section reviews reported collision data from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Report System (SWITRS) from 2008-2013 to identify where collisions
Table 3-10: Collisions by Community
frequently occurred and where roadway design improvements are needed in
Calaveras County. This analysis will inform the Plan’s recommendations.
Number of
Community Area
Table 3-8 and Table 3-9 show the bicycle and pedestrian collisions, injuries and
fatalities by year. The number of bicycle collisions has been the lowest in 2011
and 2012, and the lowest number of pedestrian collisions occurred in 2012. Of
the 18 bicycle collisions, 16 (89 percent) resulted in injuries, and there were no
fatalities. Of the 26 pedestrian collisions, 22 (85 percent) resulted in injuries,
and two fatalities occurred
Table 3-8: Bicycle-Related Collisions in Calaveras County, 2008-2013
Year
Bicycle Collisions
Bicyclists Injured
Bicyclists Killed
2008
4
4
0
2009
4
3
0
2010
6
5
0
2011
2
2
0
2012
2
2
0
Total
18
16
0
Table 3-9: Pedestrian-Related Collisions in Calaveras County, 2008-2013
Year
Ped. Collisions
Pedestrians Injured
Pedestrians Killed
Number of
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Collision
Collisions
Total
Angels Camp
6
2
8
Arnold
2
2
4
Burson
1
1
2
Campo Seco
0
1
1
Copperopolis
1
0
1
Dorrington
0
1
1
Douglas Flat
1
1
2
Mokelumne Hill
1
2
3
Murphys
0
1
1
San Andreas
5
3
8
Vallecito
2
1
3
Wallace
1
0
1
West Point
1
0
1
Jenny Lind
1
0
1
Valley Springs
4
2
6
Camp Connell
0
1
1
When compared to other counties with comparable populations and vehicle
2008
6
5
0
miles traveled, Calaveras County consistently ranks in the bottom ten for
2009
4
3
1
bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions—that is, Calaveras County has
2010
6
5
0
fewer collisions than comparable counties. This is likely due to the very low
2011
7
6
1
number of people walking and bicycling in the County.
2012
3
3
0
Total
26
22
2
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-15: Northeasterm Calaveras County Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-16: Central Calaveras County Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-17: South Central Calaveras County Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-18: South Calaveras County Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-19: City of Angels Camp Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-20: Copperopolis Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-21: Murphys Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-22: San Andreas Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-23: Valley Springs Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Figure 3-24: West Point Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Needs Analysis
Bicycle collisions most often occurred in June, August and September (three
Table 3-12 and Table 3-13 list the intersections in Calaveras County where
each), while zero occurred in October and December. The highest number of
bicycle and pedestrian collisions were reported. One collision occurred at each
pedestrian collisions occurred in January (four), and none occurred in the
of these intersections.
month of December. The number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions by month
is displayed in Table 3-11.
Intersection
Bicycle Collision
No. of Collisions
Baldwin Street and Goggin Street
1
Pedestrian
Campo Seco Road and Chili Camp Road
1
Collision
Main Street and Lewis Av
1
Rt 12 and Burson Road
1
Rt 26 and Campo Seco Road
1
Rt 26 and Heinemann Drive
1
Rt 26 and Main Street
1
Rt 4 and Monaghan Way
1
Table 3-11: Collisions per Month
Month
Table 3-12: Bicycle Collision Locations
January
1
4
February
1
1
March
1
3
April
2
2
May
1
2
June
3
2
2
3
Rt 4 and Oak Court
1
July
3
3
Rt 4 and Pine Drive
1
August
September
3
3
Rt 4 and Red Hill Road
1
October
0
1
Rt 4 and Rt 49
1
November
1
2
Rt 49 and High School Street
1
December
0
0
Rt 49 and Stanislaus Av
1
Rt 49 and Toyanza Street
1
S Main Street and Rt 4
1
Shady Grove Lane and Williams Street
1
Sierra Parkway and Boards Crossing Road
1
Needs Analysis
Table 3-13: Pedestrian Collision Locations
Intersection
SWITRS data reports the party at fault in the collision as well as the violation
No. of Collisions
Amador Avenue and Tuolumne Avenue
1
Angels Road and Poag Lane
1
Bald Mountain Road and Acorn Way
1
Camanche Parkway and Lake Camanche Lane
1
Camanche Parkway and Oliveira Court
1
Depot Road and Tryon Court
1
Finnegan Lane and Bush Street
1
Garner Place and Stabulis Road
1
Hartvickson Lane and Hoffman Drive
1
Main Street and Church Street
1
Milton Road and Scenic Valley Road
1
Mustang Road and Camanche Drive
1
Obyrnes Ferry Road and Spangler Lane
1
Parrots Ferry Road and Airolo Road
1
Pixley Avenue and Main Street
1
Route 26 and Hogan Dam Road
1
Route 26 and Route 12
1
Route 4 and Batten Road
1
Route 4 and Lakemont Drive
1
Route 49 and Calaveritas Bridge
1
Route 49 and Court Street
1
Route 49 and Gold Oak Road
1
Route 49 and South Main
1
Route 49 and Stanislaus Avenue
1
Route 49 and Vista Verde Drive
1
Stockton Road and Route 49
1
reported to cause the collision. The tables below show parties deemed
responsible and the violation. The data for reported bicycle related collisions
indicate education and awareness for bicyclists and drivers may improve
conditions.
Table 3-14: Bicycle-Related Collisions, Party at Fault
Violation
Driving/Biking under influence
Unsafe Speed
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Passing
Improper Turn
Auto ROW
Ped Violation
Traffic Signals & Signs
Other than driver (or ped)
Total
Party at Fault
Not Provided
Vehicle
Bicyclist
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
0
1
4
13
The most frequent violation for pedestrian related collisions was pedestrians
violating vehicle code. This may be due to lack of marked crossing facilities;
however, the data is not detailed enough to develop substantial conclusions.
Table 3-15: Pedestrian-Related Collisions, Party at Fault
Violation
Unsafe Speed
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Turn
Ped ROW
Ped Violation
Other than driver (or ped)
Unsafe Start or Backup
Total
Party at Fault
Not Provided
Vehicle
Pedestrian
1
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
15
0
0
6
4
16
Needs Analysis
3.7.2 Youth Collisions Near Schools
There were 14 collisions that involved youths under the age of 18 in Calaveras
County between 2008 and 2013. Of these 14 collisions, nine (64 percent)
involved pedestrians, and five (36 percent) involved bicycles.
Half of the youth-involved collisions occurred near schools. The City of Angels
Camp and San Andreas each had three (43 percent), and Vallecito had one (14
percent). In these collisions, six pedestrians and two bicyclists were injured.
Two pedestrians had severe injuries, but none of the bicyclists did.
3.8 Existing Transportation Network
There are nearly 700 miles of roadways in Calaveras County and many of those
are on rural, narrow and winding roads with little available public right-of way.
Additionally, the distances between communities can be miles. These factors
make it a challenge to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities without
significant funding and acquisition of additional right-of-way.
In the historic Calaveras communities, the roadways were built before the
invention of the car and are narrow and constrained. Inclusion of dedicated
bicycle or pedestrian space is a challenge for these rural small towns.
Highway 26 in West Point is a winding, narrow roadway with little available
right-of-way
Needs Analysis
3.9 Summary of Needs Findings
Data Indicates
Community Members Report

Health, exercise and recreation are the main reasons for both walking
and bicycling in Calaveras County, and trails are popular destinations
for doing so. These include the New Hogan Lake Park, the New
Melones Lake area, and Big Trees State Park.

More people would like to walk and bike for utilitarian purposes such
as shopping and errands, and commuting to work or school.

The current network lacks connectivity between cities/areas.
Highways 4, 49 and 26 are crucial connections that people would like
to see improved for bicycling and walking.

Many roads are too narrow for cars and bicycles to comfortably share
space, and also lack shoulders and continuous sidewalks make it
challenging to walk.

A need to complete the sidewalk network in downtowns.

A lack of facilities (bicycle paths/lanes/routes and sidewalks) and
driver behavior were the main issues that prevent people from
walking and biking. The hilly terrain was a factor noted in additional
comments.

Improved pedestrian crossings are a high priority.

Community members indicated a desire for more trails (workshop)
and Class III bike routes or bike boulevards (survey).

Survey respondents indicated that some of their favorite places to
walk and bike are also perceived as the most dangerous and in need
of improvements. Examples include: Highways 4 and 49, Downtown
San Andreas, Pope Street and Pool Station Road.

Most students live over two miles from school and arrive at/leave
from school in family vehicles. However, many use the school bus
(over 20%) or carpool (over 10%).

Most residents drive to work however a good number in San Andreas
and Arnold walk to work (American Community Survey).

While there are no single locations with high numbers of reported
collisions, there are two corridors with clustered collisions including:

o
Rt 49/Main Street in Angels Camp
o
Rt 49/West Saint Charles in San Andreas
The majority of collisions were deemed the fault of the bicyclist or
pedestrian which may indicate a need for:
o
Education on biking and walking with traffic
o
Installation of facilities (wrong way riding, violating the
automobile right–of-way, and pedestrian right-of-way may
indicate a need for facilities)
Needs Analysis
Recommended Infrastructure Projects
Recommendations are organized as outlined below:
4 Recommended Infrastructure
Projects
4.1 Global Recommendations ............................................................... 4-2 4.1.1 Countywide Safe Routes to School Plan (Priority Project) .. 4-2 The following chapter presents recommended bicycle and pedestrian
4.1.2 Countywide Trails Plan (Priority Project) .................................. 4-2 infrastructure projects. These projects were identified through the 2007
4.1.3 Sidewalk Installation and Maintenance .................................... 4-3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan,
and input received from the community through the public workshops, a
4.1.4 Bicycle Parking ................................................................................... 4-4 community survey and those submitted through the Walk and Bike Calaveras
4.1.5 Bicycle Detection .............................................................................. 4-6 website.
One of the primary objectives of this Plan is the development of an adoptable
Plan that has agency and community consensus. The previous 2007 Bicycle
4.1.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Wayfinding Signage ........................... 4-6 4.1.7 Revisit Un-Adopted Community Plans (Priority Project) .... 4-7 and Pedestrian Master Plans were not adopted by Calaveras County because
4.2 Recommended Improvement Types .............................................. 4-8 of concerns regarding recommendations on private property and the lack of
4.3 City of Angels Camp Recommendations...................................... 4-10 California Environmental Quality Act review and documentation. In order to
ensure an adoptable Plan that has support from the community and the County,
4.4 Calaveras County Recommendations .......................................... 4-14 this Plan does not include recommendations on private right-of-way.
4.4.1 County Recommendations .......................................................... 4-15 The recommendations in this chapter set the foundation for improving safety
4.4.2 Arnold Recommendations ........................................................... 4-20 for those who bicycle and those who walk to key community destinations
such as schools or downtown, creating an inviting environment for bicycling
4.4.3 Avery Recommendations ............................................................. 4-23 and walking, and increasing quality of life for residents and visitors. New
4.4.4 Copperopolis Recommendations.............................................. 4-26 projects should evaluate opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian
4.4.5 Mountain Ranch Recommendations........................................ 4-31 improvements, as well as opportunities to include safety features.
4.4.6 Murphys Recommendations ....................................................... 4-33 4.4.7 San Andreas Recommendations................................................ 4-36 4.4.8 Valley Springs Recommendations............................................. 4-40 4.4.9 West Point Recommendations ................................................... 4-43 Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Plan | 4-1
4.1 Global Recommendations
4.1.1 Countywide Safe Routes to School Plan
(Priority Project)
Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plans bring together parents, school
administration, health officials, and local agencies to review challenges for
walking and bicycling to school and to identify opportunities to for
4.1.2 Countywide Trails Plan
(Priority Project)
Community members in Calaveras County expressed a strong desire for the
development of trails – including Class I Multi-Use Paths and Equestrian
Trails. The development of a comprehensive trail system can provide many
benefits to the Calaveras community including:

Increased opportunities for activity and improved health
safety for those students who are already walking or bicycling to school and

Increased access to and respect for open space
to encourage more families to consider walking and bicycling to school.

Economic development through tourism
The Calaveras County Council of Governments (CCOG) has initiated a Safe

Promotion of quality of life for business recruitment
improvement. Safe Routes to School programs are intended to improve
Routes to School effort in the County, in partnership with a number of other
Recommendation
agencies. Public Health Services in particular has made significant
contributions to the Safe Routes to School program through their outreach
and education efforts in Calaveras communities.
This Plan recommends Calaveras COG develop a Countywide Trails Plan that
addresses both Class I Multi-Use Paths and Equestrian Trails. The Plan should
include extensive outreach to stakeholders, identify opportunities for trails
Recommendation
on public lands and work with willing private property owners for
This Plan recommends the CCOG, Calaveras County, and the City of Angels
opportunities for trails on private lands.
Camp partner with Public Health Services in its Safe Routes to School efforts.
This Plan also recommends the CCOG develop a comprehensive Safe Routes
to School plan incorporating all five E’s: Engineering, Education,
Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation for all Calaveras County
schools.
4.1.3 Sidewalk Installation and Maintenance
This Plan recommends sidewalks in a number of areas where people who
walk are expected or encouraged such as near downtown retail areas and
near schools. Sidewalks are an important investment in improving safety and
encouraging more walking trips. Sidewalks are also a key component of
placemaking, particularly for the Calaveras communities’ downtowns.
When considering installation of sidewalks, the County, the City of Angels
In addition to the duty to maintain a sidewalk, many communities adopt
ordinances requiring adjacent property owners to remove snow and ice and
to do so within a specific time of snow. Example codes listed and linked
below.

South Lake Tahoe

Minneapolis Snow
Removal

Chicago Snow and Ice
Removal

Saint Paul Snow
Removal
Camp, and the respective property owners may consider maintenance needs.
The California Streets and Highways Code 5610-5618 provides that the
adjacent property owner has a duty to maintain a sidewalk in the public rightof-way, and is liable to the city or county if they are forced to repair or
maintain the sidewalk. A County or City may be liable for damages due to
property owner’s failure to maintain the facility and for hazards the City
creates.1
Recommendation
This Plan recommends Calaveras County and the City of Angels Camp
consider adopting ordinances that hold adjacent property owners liable to
the public for any damages arising from their negligence to maintain the
sidewalk.
Sidewalks can be an important part of economic vitality in Calaveras County
1.LegalfindingsfromWilliamsvFoster
1989 upheldaCityofSanJose
ordinancethatimposedliabilitytothegeneralpublicontheproperty
ownerifdamagesresultedfromafailuretomaintainsidewalks.An
appellatecourtclarifiedthatthisshiftinliabilitycouldonlystandifthe
ordinancespecificallyspelleditout,andSanJoseupdateditsordinance
accordingly.
4.1.4 Bicycle Parking
Table 4-1: Recommended Guidelines for Bicycle Parking Location and Quantities
Land Use or Location
Physical Location
Quantity
Parks
Adjacent to restrooms, picnic
areas, fields, and other
attractions
Near office and main entrance
with good visibility
8 bicycle parking
spaces per acre
Public Facilities
(libraries, community
centers)
Near main entrance with good
visibility
8 bicycle parking
spaces per location
Commercial, retail and
industrial developments
over 10,000 square feet
visibility
1 bicycle parking
space per 15
employees or 8
bicycles per 10,000
square feet
Shopping Centers over
10,000 square feet
visibility
8 bicycle parking
spaces per 10,000
square feet
Transit Stations
Near platform, security or
ticket booth
1 bicycle parking
space or locker per
30 automobile
parking spaces
Multi-Family Residential
visibility
1 short-term bicycle
parking space per
10 residential units
AND
1 long-term bicycle
parking space per 2
residential units
Bicycle parking can range from a simple bicycle rack to storage in a bicycle
locker or cage that protects against weather, vandalism and theft. The
majority of existing bicycle parking facilities are located in downtowns. Many
of these existing facilities do not meet current bicycle rack standards. Across
Schools
the county, bicyclists visiting community retail districts, places of
employment and schools do not have available bicycle parking and instead
many lock their bikes to street fixtures such as trees, telephone poles, and
sign poles.
Bicycle parking is an essential element of any bikeway network and this
section presents recommended types of bicycle parking and general
requirements for bicycle parking.
Recommended Types of Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking can be categorized into short-term and long-term parking.
Bicycle racks are the preferred device for short-term bike parking. These racks
serve people who leave their bicycles for relatively short periods of time,
typically for shopping or errands, eating or recreation. Bicycle racks provide a
high level of convenience and moderate level of security. Long-term bike
parking includes bike lockers and bike rooms and serve people who intend to
leave their bicycles for longer periods of time and are typically found in
multifamily residential buildings and commercial buildings. These facilities
provide a high level of security but are less convenient than bicycle racks.
Recommendations
This Plan recommends the City and County require all new major
development to provide bicycle parking the rates specified in Table 4-1.
8 bicycle parking
spaces per 40
students
This Plan also recommends the City, County, and private developers only
Community
Location
install bicycle parking that meets the following criteria. The racks shown in
Murphys
Library
1
2
Figure 4-1 are the recommended standard rack types. Long-term bike
Murphys
3
6
parking should provide some weather protection and greater security than
Rail Road Flat
Near S Algiers St
Railroad Flat Rd at Ridge
Bus stop
Rd
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
bicycle racks. Long-term parking should be a secure room or locker.
Rancho
Calaveras
San Andreas
San Andreas
Government Center
San Andreas
Library
1
2
San Andreas
Post Office
Bus stop
St Charles St at Snyder
Ct
St Charles St at Treat Ave
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Valley Springs
Turner Park
Baldwin St at Hart
Bus stop
Vickson Ln
Daphne St near Laurel St Bus stop
1
2
Valley Springs
Library
1
2
Valley Springs
SR 26 at Garner Pl
Bus stop
1
2
Bus stop
1
2
San Andreas
U-Rack
Post and Loop
San Andreas
Horseshoe
Lightning Bolt™
or Varsity Rack™
Figure 4-1: Types of Bicycle Racks
Table 4-2 presents the recommended locations for installation of short-term
San Andreas
bicycle parking.
San Andreas
Table 4-2: Short-Term Bicycle Parking Locations and Number of Racks
San Andreas
Location
Angels Camp
Library
1
2
Angels Camp
2
4
On Street at red curb
3
6
On Street at red curb
3
6
Valley Springs
SR 26 at Shell Gas
Arnold
Post Office
S Main St at midblock
crosswalk
S Main St at Raspberry
Ln
Hwy 4 at Dunbar Rd
2
4
Valley Springs
Vista Del Lago
Bus stop
1
2
Arnold
Library
1
2
West Point
Community Hall
Bus stop
1
2
Arnold
2
4
West Point
Library
1
2
Bus stop
1
2
West Point
Post Office
1
2
1
2
West Point
Youth Center
3
64
Copperopolis
Post Office
Copper Cove Dr at Little
John Rd
Library
Post Office
Bus stop
1
2
47
94
Glencoe
Mokelumne Hill
Library
1
2
Additionally, short term bicycle parking should be installed at schools and
Mokelumne Hill
SR 26 at SR 49
1
2
retail centers.
Angels Camp
Copperopolis
Bus stop
Racks Spaces
Bus stop
Community
Angels Camp
Notes
Bus stop
Racks Spaces
St Charles St at
Broadway St
St Charles St at Church
Hill Rd
St Charles St (near 415 E
St Charles St)
Court house
San Andreas
Baldwin St at Garner Pl
Notes
Valley Springs
Totals
4.1.5 Bicycle Detection
Detection of bicyclists at actuated (not timed) traffic signals is important for
safety of bicyclists and motorists. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CA MUTCD) requires all new and modified traffics signals be
able to detect bicyclists with passive detection (rather than having to push a
button). Details regarding detection are provided in Appendix A. Bicycle
Design Guidelines.
Recommendation
Angels Pedestrian Wayfinding
This Plan recommends implementing agencies in Calaveras County adhere to
this requirement by ensuring passive bicycle detection at all new and
Recommendations
modified traffic signals.
Pedestrian Wayfinding
4.1.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Wayfinding Signage
This Plan recommends the unincorporated communities within Calaveras
County consider the development of a pedestrian wayfinding program.
A good walking and bicycling environment not only includes sidewalks or
bike lanes but also includes an easily navigable network. Pedestrian
Bicycle Wayfinding
community wayfinding assists tourists and visitors to find key community
This Plan recommends consideration of installation of CAMUTCD wayfinding
destinations. Bicycle wayfinding directs bicyclists along the bicycle network
signs at decision points and confirmation signs that display destinations and
and to community destinations. Both types of signs may also include
mileage. Wayfinding signs mark the junction of two or more bikeways.
“distance to” information, which displays mileage to community destinations.
Decision signs are comprised of a Bicycle Route Guide Sign (D11-1) and a
The City of Angels Camp completed a plan for wayfinding and gateway
Destination Supplemental Sign (D1-1b). Signs are located on the near-side of
treatments in 2011. The proposed monuments, kiosks, and pedestrian-scaled
intersections. They include destinations and their associated directional
signs honor the historic character of the community by incorporating the
arrows, but not distances.
trademark jumping frog, while providing helpful guidance to key
Wayfinding signs may follow CAMUTCD standards, which use additional
destinations including the visitor’s center, civic services, and popular
plaques that display destinations and mileage. The City or County would
recreation opportunities in the surrounding areas.
mount these plaques under existing bike route and lane signs. Alternatively,
the City or County may decide to design guide signs that exhibit a unique
symbol of the county.
4.1.7 Revisit Un-Adopted Community Plans
(Priority Project)
The Plans listed below were completed but were not adopted by the County:

San Andreas Rural Mobility Plan, CCOG, 2009

Valley Springs Community Plan, 2010

Arnold Rural Livable Community-Based Mobility Plan, CCOG, 2008
The projects in these Plans are important to each of the respective
communities.
Recommendations
This Plan recommends that CCOG work with the jurisdictions and the County
to revisit these planning efforts to reach consensus on final revisions and to
bring those planning documents to adoption. As part of this effort, it is
recommended that consideration be given for off street vehicular parking as
part of staging access to communities and projects recommended in this
plan to help foster economic development.
4.2 Recommended Improvement Types
The recommendations on following pages include a number of treatments which are described below in
greater detail.
Class I Shared Use Paths
A Class I Bicycle or Shared Use Path provides for bicycle and pedestrian travel on a paved right-of-way
completely separated from streets or highways. These recommended facilities can be popular for
recreational bicycling as well as for commuting. Pedestrians also use Class I Shared Use Paths for
commute and recreational travel.
Class I bikeways are separated from the roadway.
Class II Bike Lanes
Class II Bike lanes provide a signed, striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on both sides of a
roadway. Class II bike lanes are often used by commuters, bicycle enthusiasts and casual riders. Bicycle
lanes are often recommended on roadways where traffic volumes and speeds are too high for comfortably
sharing the travel lane.
Class III Bike Routes
Class III Bike Routes provide for shared travel lane use and are generally only identified with signs. Bike
Class II bike lanes provide a striped travel lane on
roadways for bicyclists.
Routes may have a wide travel lane or shoulder that allow for parallel travel with automobiles. They also
may be on low volume, low speed streets.
Class III bicycle routes are signed roadways indicating
a preferred bicycle route.
Figure 4-2: Caltrans Bikeway Classifications
Sidewalks
Sidewalks form the backbone of the pedestrian transportation network. Good street and sidewalk design
can foster healthier communities by improving public safety, enhancing mobility, reducing environmental
impacts, and building community character.
Sidewalks consist of one or several zones. The zones are named for the primary activity that occurs in the
zone. The frontage zone in retail and commercial areas may feature seating for cafés and restaurants, or
extensions of other retail establishments, like florists shops. The furnishings zone may feature seating, as
Sidewalks are an important safety and
placemaking component.
well as newspaper racks, water fountains, utility boxes, lampposts, street trees and other landscaping. The
medium to high-density pedestrian zone should provide an interesting and inviting environment for
walking as well as window shopping.
Crosswalks
Crosswalk markings guide pedestrians across roadways by defining and delineating the path of travel.
Crosswalk markings also alert motorists and bicyclists of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not
controlled by highway traffic signals or STOP signs. There are a several types of crosswalk markings,
including standard (or transverse) markings. Crosswalks may be placed at intersections and at mid-block
Crosswalks
locations. Careful consideration must be made when considering crosswalk locations, including: traffic
control, distance between controlled locations, average daily traffic, traffic speeds and other factors.
Gateway Treatments
Gateways provide a number of benefits to a community. Gateway treatments communicate to visitors a
sense of entering a community place and can encourage slower vehicle travel. This Plan recommends a
number of locations for gateway treatments. Specific gateway designs can and should be done with
community input
Intersection Improvement Studies
Gateway Treatments
(Image from Caltrans Gateway Monument Demonstration program
Report)
Figure 4-3: Pedestrian Facilities Overview
There are a number of intersections where pedestrian related improvements are needed but the exact
nature of improvement requires additional study. Generally, there is a need for an enhanced or marked
crossing but additional data collection is needed to determine the appropriate improvement.
4.3 City of Angels Camp Recommendations
Location
Start
End
The City of Angels Camp is the only incorporated city in Calaveras County. It is
South Reach Preferred
Alignment S1.1
Finnegan Ln
Main St
I
0.53
Alignment S1.2
Finnegan Ln
Centennial Ln
I
0.26
Alignment S1.3
City of Angels
boundary
N/A
I
1.93
Alignment S1.4
Finnegan Ln
I
0.91
are a number of standard transverse crosswalks throughout the City.
Gardner Ln
Holly St
II
0.11
This Plan recommends 17.16 miles of Class I Shared-Use Paths, Class II Bike
Hwy 49
Dogtown Rd
II
0.79
Hwy 49
Gold Country Inn
Angels Camp
II
0.36
4-4). Proposed pedestrian improvements include gateways, yield lines, and
Stanislaus Ave
Hwy 49
Greenhorn Creek
Rd
Murphys Grade Rd
(Bret Harte Union
High School)
Mark Twain Rd
Bret Harte Dr
(southern
intersection)
San Joaquin Ave
II
0.12
high-visibility crosswalks, shown in Table 4-4.
Dogtown Rd
Gardner Ln
Hwy 49
III
0.35
Gold Cliff Rd
Stanislaus Ave
Finnegan Ln
III
0.8
Greenhorn Creek Rd
Hwy 4
Smithflat Rd
III
1.4
Hwy 4
Hwy 49
West City Limits
III
0.73
home to the Jumping Frog and is the Base Camp for Mountain Sports in the
Sierras. The City includes an historic ‘gold rush’ downtown with local and
tourist serving retail and a number of recreational destinations within an near
the city including Utica Park, the Greenhorn Creek Golf Resort, the Calaveras
County Fairgrounds, and New Melones Reservoir.
The historic downtown and sections of Highway 49/4 have sidewalks and there
Lanes, Class III Bicycle Routes, and Share the Road (STR) signage projects in
Angels Camp. Bikeway recommendations are listed in Table 4-3 and Figure
Table 4-3: City of Angels Camp Bikeway Recommendations
Location
Angels Creek Path
Start
Hwy 49
End
Finnegan Ln
Class
Length
(miles)
0.56
Hwy 49
Bret Harte Rd
South City Limits
III
1.06
Stanislaus Ave
Gold Cliff Rd
III
0.22
Vallecito Rd
Hwy 49
III
0.76
Hwy 49
San Joaquin Ave
North Community
Boundary
Brunner Hill Dr
Dogtown Rd
STR
0.76
Murphys Grade Rd
Rolleri Bypass Rd
Hwy 49
STR
0.95
Vallecito Rd
Vallecito Rd
I
0.12
Central Reach Preferred
Alignment C1
Rolleri Bypass Rd
Finnegan Ln
I
0.92
Stockton Rd
Big Horn Mobile
Home Park
I
0.18
Gold Cliff Rd
I
0.19
Vallecito Rd
I
0.61
Mccauley Ranch Rd
North Reach Alternate
Alignment N2
Greenhorn Creek
Rd
Hwy 4 bypass
bridge
North Reach Preferred
Alignment N1
Bret Harte HS
Rolleri Bypass Rd
I
1.45
Sierra Drive
Angels Oaks Rd
Tuolumne Ave
I
0.21
South Reach Alternate
Alignment S.2
Preferred South
Reach Alignment
Preferred South
Reach Alignment
I
0.88
Length
(miles)
I
Central Reach Alternate
Alignment C2
Demarest St
Class
Total
17.16
Table 4-4: City of Angels Camp Sidewalk Recommendations
Location
Start
End
Length (ft)
Hardscrabble
Main St
Mark Twain Rd
S Main St/Hwy 49
Lee Ln
Bragg St
S Main St/Hwy 49
Stanislaus Ave
Mark Twain Rd
400
S Main St/Hwy 49
Demarest St
Stanislaus Ave
1370
S Main St/Hwy 49
Dogtown Rd
Demarest St
1960
S Main St/Hwy 49
Sultana Ln
Mark Twain Rd
S Main St/Hwy 49
Dogtown Rd
Demarest St
S Main St/Hwy 49
Bret Harte Rd (N)
Bret Harte Rd (S)
350
S Main St/Hwy 49
Stork Rd
Bret Harte Rd (N)
590
S Main St/Hwy 49
Stork Rd
Pine St
1730
Vallecito Rd
Depot Rd
Birds Way
1250
490
2100
780
2150
Table 4-5: City of Angels Camp Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
Location
Improvement
Unit
Hwy 4 & Main St
Crosswalk- White High Visibility
1
Lee Ln & Main St
Yield Lines
2
Main St
Gateway Treatment
1
Main St
1
Main St & Birds Way
1
Main St & Bret Harte Rd
1
Main St & Finnegan Lane
1
Main St & Hwy 4
Gateway Treatment
1
Main St & Monte Verde St
1
Main St & Murphys Grade Rd
Crosswalk - Yellow High Visibility
1
Main St & Pine St
1
Main St, north of Bragg St
1
Raspberry Ln & Main St
1
Stanislaus Ave & Main St
2
Yield Lines
2
Stanislaus Ave & Oneida St
1
Yield Lines
1
Stanislaus Ave & San Joaquin
Pedestrian Crossing Signs
2
Figure 4-4: City of Angels Camp Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-5: City of Angels Camp Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendation
4.4 Calaveras County Recommendations
This section describes the recommendations for Calaveras County. The
recommendations for unincorporated Calaveras County are organized by area.
Section 4.4.1 describes recommendations for the communities of:

Burson

Camp Connell

Dorrington

Douglas Flat

Glencoe

Hathaway Pines

Jenny Lind

Milton

Mokelumne Hill

Rancho Calaveras

Tamarack

Vallecito

Wallace
The communities of Arnold, Avery, Copperopolis, Mountain Ranch, Murphys,
San Andreas, Valley Springs, and West Point are described in Sections 4.4.24.4.9.2
2ThisPlandoesnotrecommendanyfacilitiesinthecommunitiesof
CampoSeco,RailRoadFlat,SheepRanch,orWilseyville.
The Countywide bikeway recommendations totals nearly 240 miles of facilities.
Table 4-6: Calaveras Countywide Bikeway Recommendations
Class
Length (miles)
I
0.87
II
14.02
III
154.54
STR
67.67
Total
237.10
4.4.1 County Recommendations
Location
Start
End
As described in Chapter 2, currently there are not many existing facilities
Hwy 4
North
Community
Boundary
East
Community
Boundary
Hwy 26
South
Community
Boundary
South
Community
Boundary
Milton Rd
III
Jenny Lind
Rd
Mann St
outside the developed areas of Calaveras County.
The bikeway recommendations for the region are located in Table 4-7 and
Hwy 4
Figure 4-6 to Figure 4-9.This includes 62.4 miles of Class III Bike Routes and 10.5
miles of Share the Road (STR) signage projects.
Jenny Lind
Rd
Pedestrian facilities are only recommended in the more populated
Milton Rd
communities and there are none to describe in this section.
Table 4-7: Calaveras County Bikeway Recommendations
Location
Start
End
Burson Rd
Sheri Pl
III
6.20 Burson
Burson Rd
Comanche
Parkway
South
Sheri Pl
Hwy 26
III
0.54 Jenny Lind
Camanche
Parkway
South
Burson North Hwy 12
Community
Boundary
III
8.41 Burson/Wallace
Hwy 26
Hwy 49
Jesus Maria Rd
III
1.70 Mokelumne Hill
Hwy 26
Jenny Lind
Rd
West
Community
Boundary
III
4.56 Rancho
Calaveras/Jenny
Lind
Hwy 4
North
Community
Boundary
North
Community
Boundary
North
Community
Boundary
North
Community
Boundary
East
Community
Boundary
South
Community
Boundary
Vallecito Rd
III
3.94 Dorrington
III
1.25 Douglas Flat
III
4.49 Vallecito
Crescent Cove
(Southern
Intersection)
III
1.62 Hathaway Pines
Hwy 4
Hwy 4
Hwy 4
Class
Length
(miles)
Milton Rd
Community
Vallecito Rd
North
Community
Boundary
Hwy 4
Hwy 12
Evans Rd
Hwy 12
East
Community
Boundary
North
Community
Boundary
Milton Rd
Hwy 49
Total
Class
Length
(miles)
Community
10.81 Camp Connell
III
7.41 Tamarack
III
1.67 Jenny Lind
Hwy 26
III
2.24 Jenny Lind
South
Community
Boundary
South
Community
Boundary
West
Community
Boundary
West
Community
Boundary
West
Community
Boundary
Hwy 26
III
1.65 Jenny Lind
III
5.53 Milton
III
0.38 Vallecito
STR
2.96 Burson
STR
4.31 Wallace
STR
3.24 Mokelumne Hill
72.93
Figure 4-6: Central Calaveras Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-7: Northeast Calaveras Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-8: South Central Calaveras Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-9: South Calaveras Bikeway Recommendations
Table 4-10: Arnold Pedestrian Facilities Recommendations
4.4.2 Arnold Recommendations
Location
Improvement
Located on Highway 4 near the eastern end of the county, the greater Arnold
B St & Blagen Rd
area encompasses White Pines and many outdoor recreation opportunities for
Blagen Rd & C St
Yield Lines
bicycling and walking. The area has a number of important local destinations
Blagen Rd & C St
Blagen Rd & D St
Yield Lines
Blagen Rd & Dunbar
Dunbar Rd & Blagen Rd
Yield Lines
E St & Main St
Hwy 4 & Arnold Byway
Gateway Treatment
This Plan recommends 4.68 miles of Class III Bicycle Routes in Arnold, shown in
Hwy 4 & Cedar Lane
Gateway Treatment
Table 4-8 and Figure 4-10. A pedestrian pathway is recommended on Highway
Manuel Rd & Hwy 4
Pedestrian Improvement Intersection
Study
such as Hazel Fischer School, the Big Trees Market and many other businesses
along Highway 4 in downtown and the library/post office area. Arnold is a
major destination for visitors from outside the county, with many seasonal and
vacation homes in the area.
4 from Manuel Road to Henry Street. Intersection improvements include
gateways, and yellow high-visibility crosswalks. The proposed pedestrian
improvements are listed in Table 4-10 and shown in Figure 4-11.
Table 4-8: Arnold Bikeway Recommendations
Location
Start
End
Class
Length
(miles)
Henry St
Blagen Rd
Hwy 4
III
0.06
Hwy 4
East Community
Boundary
South Community
Boundary
III
4.62
4.68
Total
Table 4-9: Arnold Sidewalk Recommendation
Location
Start
End
Hwy 4
Manuel Rd
Henry St
Length (ft)
1032
Figure 4-10: Arnold Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-11: Arnold Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations:
4.4.3 Avery Recommendations
Avery is located on State Route 4 between Murphys, Arnold and the Calaveras
Big Trees State Park. The Historic Avery Hotel and Saloon is the focal point of
the community. Built in 1853, it is the oldest continually operating hotel in
Calaveras.
This Plan recommends 2.11 miles of bikeways in Avery along Highway 4, Moran
Road, and Avery Hotel Road (Table 4-11 and Figure 4-12). Pedestrian
infrastructure recommendations include a pedestrian intersection
improvement study, high visibility crosswalks, and yield lines near the town
center (Table 4-12 and Figure 4-13).
Table 4-11: Avery Bikeway
Location
Start
End
Class
Length
(miles)
Avery Hotel Rd
Hwy 4
Moran Rd
III
0.13
Hwy 4
Rancho
Paradiso
III
1.87
Moran Rd
Segale Rd
Southern
Community
Boundary
Avery Hotel Rd
III
0.11
2.11
Total
Table 4-12: Avery Pedestrian Facilities Recommendations
Location
Improvement
Hwy 4 &Avery Hotel Rd
Pedestrian Improvement Intersection Study
Avery Hotel Rd & Hwy 4
Avery Hotel Rd & Moran Rd
Hwy 4 & Avery Hotel Rd
Yield Lines
Moran Rd & Sanders Ln
Figure 4-12: Avery Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-13: Avery Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations:
Table 4-14: Copperopolis Sidewalk Recommendation
4.4.4 Copperopolis Recommendations
Location
Start
End
Located south of the intersection of Highway 4 and O’Byrnes Ferry Road, this
Main St
School St
Reeds Turnpike
area is one of the most quickly developing communities in Calaveras County.
O'Byrnes Ferry Rd
Spangler Ln
Cosmic Ct
Length (ft)
1580
Historic Copperopolis has several destinations such as the Copperopolis
Elementary School. New development is focused outside the area of historic
Table 4-15: Copperopolis Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
Copperopolis and is occurring near the intersection of O’Byrnes Ferry Road and
Location
Improvement
Copper Cove Drive, among other areas, including a number of shopping center
Main St & Mineral St
Yield Lines
destinations.
This Plan recommends 28.86 miles of Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bicycle Routes,
Obyrnes Ferry Rd & Spangler Ln
School St & Main St
Yield Lines
School St & Main St
Spangler Ln & Obyrnes Ferry Rd
and Share the Road (STR) signage projects in Historic and South Copperopolis
(Table 4-13, Figure 4-14 and Figure 4-15). Pedestrian improvements include a
paved shoulder sidewalk on Main Street, high visibility crosswalks and yield
lines (Table 4-15, Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17).
Table 4-13: Copperopolis Bikeway Recommendations
Location
Start
End
Little John Rd
Oxyoke Lane
Quiver St
II
2.59
Hwy 4
Pool Station Rd
West County
Boundary
III
12.90
Copper Cove Dr
O’Byrnes Ferry Rd
Little John Rd
STR
2.51
Little John Rd
Hwy 4
Oxyoke Ln
STR
0.44
Little John Rd
Quiver St
Kiva Pl
STR
2.57
O’Byrnes Ferry Rd
Hwy 4
O’Byrnes Ferry
Bridge
STR
7.85
Total
Class
Length
(miles)
28.86
380
Figure 4-14: Copperopolis South Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-15: Historic Copperopolis Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-16: Copperopolis Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations
Figure 4-17: Historic Copperopolis Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations
4.4.5 Mountain Ranch Recommendations
The Mountain Ranch community is located in central Calaveras, registered as a
California Historical Landmark. The community has a small town center, around
which most of the population resides.
This Plan has no bikeway recommendations in the Mountain Ranch area.
Pedestrian crossing improvements are shown in Table 4-16 and Figure 4-18.
Table 4-16: Mountain Ranch Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
Location
Improvement
Mountain Ranch Rd & Blacksmith Ave
Yield Lines
Mountain Ranch Rd & Blacksmith Ave
Whiskey Slide Rd & Mountain Ranch Rd
Figure 4-18: Mountain Ranch Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations
Table 4-18: Murphys Sidewalk Recommendation
4.4.6 Murphys Recommendations
Location
Start
End
Located between Arnold and Angels Camp on Highway 4 at the intersection
Big Trees Rd
Creekview Dr
Bret Harte Dr
with Murphy’s Grade Road, Murphys is an important crossroads for countywide
Big Trees Rd
Jones St
Hwy 4
1370
bicycle travel. The historic downtown Main Street has numerous businesses
Hwy 4 (east side)
Tom Bell
2280
Hwy 4 (west side)
Tom Bell
Main St
Jones St
Albert Michelson
El Schl/Penn Gulch
Rd
Pennsylvania
Gulch
Scott St
Main St
Scott St
Jones St
and restaurants. Adjacent to Highway 4 is the Albert Michelson Elementary
School as well as a large residential area. Nearby Ironstone Vineyards is an
important destination for locals as well as visitors from outside the community
and the county.
Length (ft)
430
1890
710
960
This Plan recommends 15.88 miles of Class III Bicycle Routes and Share the
Road (STR) signage projects in Murphys, shown in Table 4-17 and Figure 4-19.
Sidewalk infill is recommended for Highway 4, Main Street and Big Trees Road,
Table 4-19: Murphys Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
as well as intersection improvements along numerous streets, shown in Table
4-19 and Figure 4-20.
The projects identified in Murphys are consistent with the Murphys Circulation,
Location
Improvement
Hwy 4 & Pennsylvania Gulch Rd
Yield Lines
Pedestrian, Bicycling and Parking Study (2002) and do not supersede the Study.
Hwy 4 & Tom Bell Rd
Table 4-17: Murphys Bikeway Recommendations
Main St & Algiers St
Main St & Scott St
Pennsylvania Gulch Rd & Watkins St
Yield Lines
Location
Start
End
Pennsylvania
Gulch Rd
Hwy 4
Vineyard Terrace
Hwy 4
Crescent Cove
Tom Bell Dr
III
5.71
Six Mile Rd
Algiers St
Vallecito Bluffs Rd
III
1.87
Algiers St
Sheep Ranch Rd
Scott St
STR
0.88
Scott St
Main St
Six Mile Rd
STR
0.27
Hwy 4
Tom Bell Rd
STR
1.35
Main St
Murphys Grade
Rd
French Gulch Rd
South Community
Boundary
Hwy 4
STR
0.71
East Community
Boundary
STR
3.64
Murphys Grade
Rd
Total
Class
Length
(miles)
III
1.45
15.89
Figure 4-19: Murphys Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-20: Murphys Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations
4.4.7 San Andreas Recommendations
Table 4-20: San Andreas Bikeway Recommendations
Located along Highway 49 (Main Street), San Andreas is home to the Calaveras
Length
(miles)
Location
Start
End
Lewis Ave/ Pope St/
Mountain Ranch Rd
California St
Mountain Ranch Rd
I
0.70
San Andreas
Elementary Path
Gold Hunter
Rd
East end of Existing
Path
I
0.03
and the Human Resources Council office. Other destinations include San
Andreas Elementary School and Calaveras High School as well as businesses
Hwy 49
Pool Station
Rd
Mountain
Ranch Rd
Angels Rd
II
1.59
Government Center
Rd
II
0.14
South Community
Boundary
Nielsen Park
III
5.64
III
0.15
County government offices. Four of Calaveras’ top 14 major employment
locations are in San Andreas including the Calaveras County Government
offices, Mark Twain Medical Center, the California Department of Forestry office
located in the commercial and retail areas along Highway 49. San Andreas is
Class
one of two towns whose “Main Street” segment of Highway 49 is the focus of
Government Center
Dr
commercial activity for the community.
Calaveritas Rd
This Plan recommends 31.75 miles of bikeways in the San Andreas community,
California St
Government
Center
Lewis Ave
shown in Table 4-20 and Figure 4-21. Pedestrian improvements include
Hwy 49
Hwy 26
Hwy 12
III
7.09
sidewalks along Highway 49 and Mountain Ranch Road, and intersection
Main St
Hwy 12
Nielsen Park
III
0.09
Mountain Ranch Rd
Pope St
Hwy 49
III
0.41
Nielsen Park
Main St
California St
III
0.07
Pool Station Rd
Hwy 49
III
5.43
Pope St
California St
South Community
Boundary
Lewis Ave
Hwy 12
West
Community
Boundary
Angels Rd
improvements near the downtown area.
Hwy 49
Total
III
0.38
Pool Station Rd
STR
4.16
South Community
Boundary
STR
6.01
32.04
Table 4-21: San Andres Sidewalk Recommendation
Location
Start
End
Length (ft)
East side St. Charles St/Hwy 49
Pool Station Rd
Angels Rd
8410
West side –
St. Charles St/Hwy 49
High School St
Court St
1070
West side –
St. Charles St/Hwy 49
SE Gold Oak Rd
Russell Rd
Mountain Ranch Rd
Hwy 49
Government Center Dr
Government
Center Rd
Government
Center Dr
Mountain Ranch
Rd
160
2973
326
Table 4-22: San Andreas Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
Location
Improvement
Angels Rd & Hwy 49
Gateway Treatment
California St & St Charles
Yield Lines
Church Hill Rd & St Charles
Yield Lines
Garabaldi Ranch Rd & St Charles
Gateway Treatment
Gatewood Ave & St Charles
Yield Lines
Russell Rd & St Charles
Yield Lines
Snyder Ct & St Charles
Yield Lines
Treat Ave & St Charles
Figure 4-21: San Andreas Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-22: San Andreas Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations
4.4.8 Valley Springs Recommendations
Location
Start
End
Located at the intersection of Highways 12 and 26, Valley Springs has a small
Hwy 12
Lime Creek Rd
Hwy 12
Class
Length (miles)
Recreation Area
STR
3.95
STR
2.47
Hwy 26
West
Community
Boundary
Hogan Dam Rd
East
Community
Boundary
Pine St
Baldwin St
STR
3.85
shown in Table 4-23 and Figure 4-23.
Paloma Rd
Hwy 26
Rose St
STR
7.73
The primary walking area in Valley Springs is the small commercial district at
Vista Del Lago Dr
Hwy 26
Hogan Dam Rd
STR
1.40
the intersection of Highways 12 and 26. Currently there are sidewalks along
Total
commercial/residential district including the Mar Val Grocery and Valley
Springs Elementary School. The greater Valley Springs area includes quickly
developing areas of housing, such as those around Rancho Calaveras.
This Plan recommends 34 miles of bikeways throughout the community,
34.12
Highway 12 on the north side of the street with crosswalks on all legs of the
intersection except the southern approach. The sidewalks become
Table 4-24: Valley Springs Sidewalk Recommendation
discontinuous as they go into the adjacent residential and commercial areas. In
addition, there is an existing mid-block crosswalk southwest of this
intersection. All crosswalks are striped with standard configuration. Table 4-25
Location
Start
End
Daphne St
Chestnut St
Pine St
1150
Driver Rd/Hwy 26
Baldwin St
2500
Hwy 26
Jenny Lind
Elementary
Hwy 12
Jean St
640
Hwy 26
Hwy 12
Jean St
620
Pine St
Sequoia Ave
Daphne St
290
Sequoia St
Laurel St
Pine St
760
lists the sidewalk and intersection improvements proposed in this Plan, also
illustrated in Figure 4-24.
Table 4-23: Valley Springs Bikeway Recommendations
Location
Start
End
Baldwin St
Hwy 26
Milton Rd
II
4.44
Garner Pl
Hwy 26
Baldwin St
II
1.19
Hartvickson Ln
Baldwin St
II
2.89
Hwy 12
Vista Del Lago
Dr
Pine St
Lime Creek Rd
II
0.65
Hwy 26
Hwy 12
Hogan Dam Rd
II
Hwy 26
Garner Pl
Jenny Lind Rd
Hwy 26
Baldwin St
Garner Pl
Silver Rapids Rd
Hartvickson Ln
Hogan Dam Rd
Hogan Dam Rd
Hwy 26
Hogan
Reservoir
Class
Length (ft)
Length (miles)
Table 4-25: Valley Springs Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
Location
Improvement
Cedar & Daphne
Cedar & Hwy 26
Yield Lines
0.51
Cedar & Hwy 26
III
0.57
Cedar & Sequoia
III
0.94
III
1.05
STR
2.49
Figure 4-23: Valley Springs Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-24: Valley Springs Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations
Table 4-27: West Point Sidewalk Recommendation
4.4.9 West Point Recommendations
Located along Highway 26 in the northeast section of the County is scenic,
Location
Start
End
Bald Mtn Rd/Pine St
Main St
West Point
Elementary School
coniferous West Point. Downtown West Point serves as host to most of the
Length (ft)
1150
community and is the site of West Point Elementary School, the Community
Town Hall, Library, Veterans Hall, and County Clinic. Two forks of the
Table 4-28: West Point Pedestrian Facility Recommendations
Mokelumne River are also located very near to West Point, the north and
Location
Improvement
middle. Most walking takes the form of hiking on the abundance of trails and
Bouvard St & Pine St
logging roads that are used by those who live in the area. Few of these routes
Hwy 26 & Main St
School Speed Limit Signs
are formal, maintained facilities. Most utilitarian walking activity takes place in
Hwy 26 & Pine St
School Crossing Stencils
the roadway or on what narrow shoulders do exist.
Hwy 26 & Pine St
Spink Rd & Main St
Crosswalk - White Transverse
This Plan recommends 8.97 miles of Class III Bicycle Routes along Main Street
and Highway 26, shown in Table 4-26 and Figure 4-25. Recommended
pedestrian facilities include sidewalk infill along Bald Mountain Road and two
crosswalks, shown in Table 4-28 and Figure 4-26.
Table 4-26: West Point Bikeway Recommendations
Start
End
Hwy 26
North Community
Boundary
III
8.14
Main St
Pine St
South
Community
Boundary
Hwy 26
III
0.40
Main St/Pine St
West Point Pioneer Rd
Hwy 26
III
0.43
Total
Class
Length
(miles)
Location
8.97
Figure 4-25: West Point Bikeway Recommendations
Figure 4-26: West Point Pedestrian Infrastructure Recommendations
Programs
5 Recommended Programs
Pedestrian, bicycle, and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs, such as
education and enforcement programs, are essential in increasing the
desirability and safety of walking and biking. Programs support a pedestrian
and bicycle friendly culture, and encourage more people to walk or bike. Many
programs can be categorized according to the “Four E’s”:

Education programs are designed to improve safety and awareness.
They can include in-classroom or after school programs that teach
students how to safely cross the street or bicycle in the road. They
may also include brochures, posters, or other information that targets
pedestrians, bicyclists, or drivers.

Encouragement programs provide incentives and support to help
people leave their car at home and try walking or bicycling instead.
Bicycle encouragement programs, in particular, target “interested but
concerned” bicyclists who would like to ride a bike but who may not
be confident in their skills or in their interactions with motorists.

Enforcement programs enforce legal and respectful walking,
bicycling, and driving. They include a variety of tactics, ranging from
police enforcement to neighborhood signage campaigns.

Evaluation programs are an important component of any
investment. They help measure project success at meeting the goals
of this plan and to identify adjustments that may be necessary.
This chapter presents a number of recommendations aimed to improve the
walking and bicycling environment and encourage more community members
to try walking and bicycling.
Programs
5.1
Education
Education programs are important for teaching safety rules and laws as well as
increasing awareness regarding walking and bicycling opportunities and
existing facilities. Education programs may need to be designed to reach
groups at varying levels of knowledge and there may be many different
audiences: pre-school age children, elementary school students, teenage and
college students, workers and commuters, families, retirees, the elderly, new
5.1.2
Student Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Safety
Education Classes (Priority Program)
Student education programs are an essential component of a Safe Routes to
School effort. Students are taught traffic safety skills that help them understand
basic traffic laws and safety rules. Potential pedestrian education curriculum
elements include traffic sign identification and how to use a crosswalk.
immigrants, and non-English speakers. Education plays a key role for all these
groups in reducing risk and the number of crashes.
5.1.1 Adult Bicycling Skills Classes
Adult bicycling skills classes enable community members to learn safe
bicycling skills. The most common program is the League of American
Bicyclists courses, taught by League Certified Instructors. Courses cover bicycle
safety checks, fixing a flat, on-bike skills, crash avoidance techniques, and traffic
negotiation.1
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City, County and CCOG support other agency or
organization efforts to provide adult bicycling skills classes.
Education programs can occur inside the classroom or in an assembly with
transportation experts
1
Informationaboutthisprogramisavailablehere:
http://bikeleague.org/content/take-class
Programs
Typical school-based bicycle education programs educate students about the
5.1.3
Student Bike Rodeos
rules of the road, proper use of bicycle equipment, biking skills, street crossing
skills, and the benefits of biking. Education programs can be part of a Safe
Bike rodeos often include a bicycle safety check, helmet giveaway and fit
Routes to School program. These types of education programs are usually
check, and hands-on instruction for pulling out of driveways, bicycling in
sponsored by a joint City/County/School District committee that includes
traffic, safe turning, and identifying and managing hazardous situations.
appointed parents, teachers, student representatives, administrators, police,
Recommendation
active bicyclists and engineering department staff.
This Plan recommends the implementation of a youth bicycle rodeo program.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the community pursue a comprehensive Safe Routes to
School Program that includes annual youth pedestrian and bicycle safety
education classes.
Sample programs:

California Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Curriculum for Grades 4 and 5:
http://www.californiahealthykids.org/product/9718

Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Curriculum:
http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/curriculum.html

Alameda County Walk and Roll K-5 Educator Guide:
http://www.alamedacountysr2s.org/programs/education-safety/
Student bicycle education classes teach bicycle traffic safety and rules of the road
Programs
5.2 Encouragement
5.2.1
Street Smarts - Share the Road Outreach
(Priority Program)
Street Smarts and Share the Road outreach campaigns are a way for the city
and county to communicate with road users to safely share the road.
A marketing campaign that highlights driver, bicyclist, and pedestrian safety is
an important part of encouraging safer behavior and encouraging bicycling
and walking. This type of high-profile campaign is an effective way to reach the
public, highlight bicycling and walking as viable forms of transportation, and
reinforce safety for all road users.
A well-produced safety campaign will be memorable and effective. One good
example is the Sonoma County Transit “You’ve got a friend who bikes!”
campaign. It combines compelling ads with an easy-to-use website focused at
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
The City of Davis hosts a student traffic safety poster contest. Elementary
students draw posters with traffic safety messages and the project culminates
with an art show and ceremony. The winning posters are then produced and
mounted throughout the city on bus shelters and street poles.
This type of campaign is particularly effective when kicked off in conjunction
with other bicycling/walking events or back to school in the fall. The safety and
awareness messages could be displayed near high-traffic corridors (e.g., on
banners), printed in local publications, and broadcast as radio and/or television
ads.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the city, county and COG seek funding to implement a
Street Smarts-Share the Road outreach campaign.
Davis, CA Street Smarts Campaign Posters
Programs
5.2.2 Walk and Bike to Work Days
Walking and biking to work has many benefits, including reducing the stress
associated with driving in rush-hour traffic, reducing health costs by improving
worker health, and helping businesses market their environmental
sustainability. Many communities participate in Bike to Work Day (May) and
Walk to Work Day (April).
5.2.3 Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
Walking school buses and bike trains are organized groups of children walking
or biking to school with an adult. They address parental concerns about
children walking or biking to school alone. In addition, shifting parents away
from driving to school may reduce congestion, improve air quality, and
encourage active communities.
http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/walking_school_bus/index.cfm
Recommendation
This sort of program is appropriate for families who live within a mile of school
This Plan recommends the School Districts and Public Health consider
and where there are parent champions who are willing to lead the walking
organizing Walk/Bike to Work Days. Local businesses and organizations can
school bus.
host events like energizer stations, education efforts about the benefits of
walking and bicycling, and host bicycle education classes.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the School Districts and Public Health consider the
development of walking school buses and bike trains.
5.2.4 Walk and Bike to School Days
Walk and Bike to School Day is a special event encouraging students to try
walking or bicycle to school. Walk and Bike to School Day can be held yearly,
monthly, or even weekly— depending on the level of support and
participation from students, parents, and school and local officials. Some
schools organize more frequent days—such as Walk and Roll Fridays—to give
people an opportunity to enjoy the event on a regular basis. Parents and other
volunteers accompany the students and staging areas can be designated along
the route to school where groups can gather and walk or bike together. These
events can be promoted through press releases, articles in school newsletters,
and posters and flyers for students to take home and circulate around the
Bike to Work event hosted by a local business
community.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the School Districts and Public Health consider the
development of monthly walk and bike to school days.
Programs
5.2.5 Tourism Integration (Priority Program)
Calaveras County already enjoys many tourist attractions such as the Arnold
Rim Trail, the City of Angels Camp, and the community of Murphys.
Additionally, many recreational sport bicycling tours come through Calaveras
County.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends bicycling and walking related resources be
incorporated into tourism information in order to attract tourists to the region
and boost the region’s economy. The www.walkandbikecalaveras.org website
could include a map of trails, calendar and description of events specific to
bicycling and walking, group rides, locations of bicycle rental and repair shops.
This could also include information on scenic areas and activities that are
accessible by walking or biking.
The Walk and Bike Calaveras website could integrate visitor opportunities
Programs
5.3 Enforcement
5.3.1 Targeted Enforcement
Targeted enforcement is focused efforts of police officers. For example, the
Sheriff Department conducts pedestrian stings at locations where pedestrians
and motorists conflict and do not comply with traffic signals. Similar strategies
may be applied to areas with bicycle traffic.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City and County coordinate with the Sheriff’s
Department to conduct targeted enforcement stings at locations known for
noncompliance with traffic laws and at high conflict or high bicycle or
pedestrian related collision areas.
5.3.2 Speed Feedback Signs and Trailers (Priority
Program)
Speed feedback signs and trailers can be used to reduce speeds and enforce
speed limit violations in known speeding problem areas. Both the signs and
trailers displays the speed of approaching motorists along with a speed limit
sign.
These can be used as both an educational and enforcement tool. By itself, it
serves as effective education to motorists about their current speed compared
to the speed limit. Because speed feedback trailers can be easily removed, they
are often deployed on streets where local residents have reported speeding
Speed Feedback signs can be an education and enforcement tool
(Photo not from Calaveras County)
problems.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City and County consider speed feedback signs and
trailers in areas with reported speeding challenges.
Programs
5.4 Evaluation
5.4.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts
5.4.2 Student Hand Tallies and Parent Surveys
Student hand tallies and parent surveys are part of any comprehensive Safe
Routes to School effort. While distributing and collecting parent surveys is very
Pedestrian and bicycle counts and community surveys act as methods to
time- and labor-intensive, hand tally data are relatively easy to collect and can
evaluate not only the effectiveness of specific pedestrian and bicycle
be analyzed quickly. The National Center for Safe Routes to School provides
improvement projects but can also function as way to measure progress
Student Hand Tally and Parent Survey forms and will enter the data from those
towards the region’s goals. Communities should consider having pedestrian
forms. This can be a cost effective way to understand how families get to and
and bicycle counts conducted as a condition of new development and should
from school and the reasons for their mode choice.
expand their traffic counting efforts by:

Conducting before and after pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle counts
on all roadway projects.

Exploring the possibility of using automatic counters to collect data
on key pedestrian and bicycle corridors. Automatic count
technologies can be useful for bicycle count efforts. In-pavement loop
detectors accurately count bicycle activity on-street and infrared
counters can count pedestrian and bicycle activities on paths.2
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City and County conduct bicycle and pedestrian
counts along with all vehicle counts on roadway projects.
2TheNationalBicycleandPedestrianDocumentationProjectprovidesa
methodologyforconductingcounts.ResourcesfromNationalBicycleand
PedestrianDocumentationProject:www.bikepeddocumentation.org
Recommendation
This Plan recommends conducting student hand tallies and parent surveys
with all Safe Routes to School projects.
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/data-central/data-collection-forms
Implementation
6 Implementation
This Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School Plan recommends
projects and programs intended to improve conditions for those who walk or
bicycle in Calaveras County; however, implementation of the projects and
programs will take a significant amount of funding and time to implement.
This Chapter lays out the strategy for implementing the projects and programs
and is organized into the following sections:
Project evaluation strategy is intended to measure how well a project meets
this Plan’s goals and policies.
Cost estimates presents the unit costs used to determine the overall project
cost.
Priority projects presents the projects and programs intended for near-term
implementation.
Project evaluation summary presents the projects, priority and cost by tier
and jurisdiction.
Project list presents each project, its tier, evaluation score and cost estimate.
Implementation
6.1
Project Evaluation Strategy
Table 6-1: Project Evaluation Criteria
Criteria
Description
Max
Score
Community
Support
Was the project or area identified for improvement
during the community input phase?
The intent of an evaluation strategy is to identify achievable, priority projects
for near-term implementation as well as projects for mid- and longer-term
implementation. In order to do so, evaluation criteria were developed to
measure how strongly a project meets this Plan’s goals and policies as well how
Score or No Score
well it as adheres to best practices.
Economic
Development
Connects to a retail district or recreation activity site.
The criteria, explained in Table 6-1, are intended to give weight to those
Feasibility
The ease of implementing the project within the two
year timeframe, taking into consideration the difficulty
of acquiring additional right of way and construction
costs.
projects that best support the Plan’s goals and will therefore receive higher
priority.
Maintenance
Costs
for near-term project implementation within one to five years as
funding becomes available.
Score or No Score
the highest potential for addressing this Plan’s goals and are intended

50-74 points (50-69 points for pedestrian projects): Tier 2 projects are
Proximity to
Activity
Generator
Proximity to
School:
intended for development within 6 to 10 years.

The ongoing costs for upkeep, resurfacing, irrigation,
etc.
Pedestrian projects within half a mile and bicycle
projects within three miles of a park, library, civic
building, employment center, retail cluster, or other
area of significant trip generation
75 points or greater (70 for pedestrian projects): Tier 1 projects have
<50 points: Tier 3 projects are not currently ready for implementation
but are included as long-term potential bicycle-specific projects over
the next 11 to 20 years.
Pedestrian projects within half a mile and bicycle
projects within two miles of a school campus
time as a result of changing walking patterns, land use patterns,
implementation constraints and opportunities and the development of other
transportation improvements.
Table 6-11: Bikeway Project List and Table 6-13: Pedestrian Project List at the
end of this Chapter present each project scored by the above criteria.
10
15
15
Score or No Score
Safety
Addresses a location with a history of bicycle- and
pedestrian-involved collisions
20
Score or No Score
Total Possible Score
The priority project list, and perhaps the overall project list, may change over
15
Score or No Score
Projects were then placed into three phasing groups: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3.

15
Score or No Score
Score or No Score
The maximum potential score for each project is the sum of the maximum
potential scores of all project criteria (100).
10
100
Implementation
6.2 Cost Estimates: Unit Cost Assumptions
6.3 Priority Plans, Programs, and Projects
Table 6-2 presents the planning level cost assumptions used to determine
6.3.1 Priority Plans and Programs
project cost estimates. Unit costs are typical or average costs informed by Alta
Planning + Design’s experience working with California communities. While
they reflect typical costs, unit costs do not consider project-specific factors
such as intensive grading, landscaping, or other location-specific factors that
may increase actual costs. For some segments, project costs may be
significantly greater.
Table 6-2: Unit Cost Assumptions
Item
Unit
Cost Assumption
Class I Multi-Use Path
Mile
$642,720
Class II Bike Lane
Mile
$42,600
Class III Bike Route or Share the Road signage
Mile
$3,000
Crosswalk
Each
$1,725
Gateway Treatment
Each
$350,000
Paved Shoulder Walkway
Linear foot
Pedestrian Intersection Improvement Study
Each
Sidewalk
Linear foot
$125
Signs
Each
$300
Stencils
Each
$800
Yield Lines
Each
$300
$125
The following Plans and Programs are high priority based on community
identified need.
Table 6-3: Priority Plans and Programs
Plan or Program
Cost Estimate
Countywide Safe Routes to School Plan
$150,000
Countywide Trails Plan
$125,000
Revisit Un-Adopted Community Plans
$75,000
Student Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Safety
Education Classes
$75,000
Street Smarts – Share the Road Outreach
$40,000
Tourism Integration
Bicycle Parking
Speed Feedback Signs and Trailers
TBD
$5,000
$20,000
$10,000
6.3.2 Priority Projects
The following projects listed in Table 6-4 and Table 6-6 are high priority based
on the combined project score and had an overall score of 75 or higher (bike)
or 70 or higher (pedestrian). These projects are intended for near term
implementation within 1-5 years as funding becomes available.
Implementation
Table 6-4: Priority Bikeway Projects
Jurisdiction
Community
Location
Start
End
Class
Miles
Total
Total Cost
Score
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Hwy 49
Dogtown Rd
Mark Twain Rd
II
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Stanislaus Ave
Hwy 49
San Joaquin Ave
II
0.12
100
$4,900
County
Arnold
Hwy 4
East Community Boundary
South Community Boundary
III
4.62
100
$13,900
County
Copperopolis
O'Byrnes Ferry Rd
Hwy 4
O'Byrnes Ferry Bridge
STR
7.85
100
$23,600
County
Murphys
Hwy 4
Tom Bell Rd
STR
1.35
100
$4,000
County
San Andreas
California St
Lewis Ave
Neilson Park
III
0.15
100
$400
County
San Andreas
Hwy 49
Pool Station Rd
Angels Rd
II
1.59
100
$67,900
County
San Andreas
Main St
Hwy 12
Nielson Park
III
0.09
100
$300
County
San Andreas
Mountain Ranch Rd
Pope St
Hwy 49
III
0.41
100
$1,200
County
San Andreas
Nielson Park
Main St
California St
III
0.07
100
$200
County
San Andreas
Pope St
California St
Lewis Ave
III
0.38
100
$1,100
County
Valley Springs
Hwy 12
Lime Creek Rd
STR
3.95
100
$11,800
County
Valley Springs
Hwy 26
Hogan Dam Rd
Baldwin St
STR
3.85
100
$11,500
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Hwy 49
Bret Harte Rd
South City Limits
III
1.06
90
$3,200
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Murphys Grade Rd
Rolleri Bypass Rd
Hwy 49
STR
0.95
85
$2,800
County
Angels Camp
Murphys Grade Rd
Rolleri Bypass Rd
STR
1.84
85
$5,500
County
San Andreas
Hwy 49
Angels Rd
STR
6.01
85
$18,000
County
Valley Springs
Hwy 12
West Community Boundary
Pine St
STR
2.47
85
$7,400
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Hwy 49
Gold Country Inn Angels
Camp
Bret Harte Dr (South
Intersection)
II
0.36
80
$15,400
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Stanislaus Ave
San Joaquin Ave
Gold Cliff Rd
III
0.22
80
$700
County
Murphys
Algiers St
Sheep Ranch Rd
Scott St
STR
0.88
80
$2,600
County
Murphys
Hwy 4
Crescent Cove
Tom Bell Dr
III
5.71
80
$17,100
County
Murphys
Main St
Murphys Grade Rd
Hwy 4
STR
0.71
80
$2,100
County
Murphys
Pennsylvania Gulch Rd
Hwy 4
Vineyard Terrace
III
1.45
80
$4,400
0.79
100
$33,700
Implementation
Jurisdiction
Community
Location
Start
End
Class
Miles
Total
Total Cost
Score
STR
0.27
80
$800
Vallecito Bluffs Rd
III
1.87
80
$5,600
North Community Boundary
III
8.14
80
$24,400
Main St/Pine St
West Point Pioneer Rd
Hwy 26
III
0.43
80
$1,300
City of Angels
Vallecito Rd
Hwy 49
III
0.76
75
$2,300
County
Angels Camp
Hwy 49
City of Angels City Limit
South County Boundary
III
5.09
75
$15,300
County
Dorrington
Hwy 4
III
3.94
75
$11,800
County
Douglas Flat
Hwy 4
III
1.25
75
$3,800
County
Mokelumne Hill
Hwy 26
Hwy 49
Jesus Maria Rd
III
1.70
75
$5,100
County
Mokelumne Hill
Hwy 49
Hwy 26
STR
3.24
75
$9,700
County
San Andreas
Lewis Ave/Pope St/San
Andreas Elementary Path
California St
Mountain Ranch Rd
I
0.84
75
$541,100
County
San
Andreas/Mokelu
mne Hill
Hwy 49
Hwy 26
Hwy 12
III
7.09
75
$21,300
County
Vallecito
Hwy 4
Vallecito Rd
III
4.49
75
$13,500
County
Valley Springs
Baldwin St
Hwy 26
Milton Rd
II
4.44
75
$189,100
County
Valley Springs
Garner Pl
Hwy 26
Baldwin St
II
1.19
75
$50,700
County
Valley Springs
Hartvickson Ln
Vista Del Lago Dr
Baldwin St
II
2.89
75
$123,000
County
Murphys
Scott St
Main St
Six Mile Rd
County
Murphys
Six Mile Rd
Algiers St
County
West Point
Hwy 26
County
West Point
Angels Camp
Implementation
Table 6-5: Priority Sidewalks Projects
Jurisdiction Community Location Start End Length (ft.) Total score County
San Andreas
E St. Charles St/Hwy 49
Pool Station Rd
Angels Rd
8410
75
Cost $2,521,500
County
San Andreas
W St. Charles St/Hwy 49
High School St
Court St
1070
75
$321,700
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
S Main St/Hwy 49
Lee Ln
Bragg St
2100
75
$630,900
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
S Main St/Hwy 49
Stanislaus Ave
Mark Twain Rd
400
75
$120,900
Table 6-6: Priority Pedestrian Projects
Jurisdiction Community Location Improvement Total Score County
San Andreas
Yield Lines
100
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
90
$3,444
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
Yield Lines
90
$600
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
85
$1,725
County
San Andreas
Yield Lines
80
$300
County
Valley Springs
Cedar & Sequoia
80
$1,725
County
San Andreas
Yield Lines
80
$300
County
San Andreas
80
$1,725
County
San Andreas
Yield Lines
80
$300
County
Murphys
Yield Lines
80
$600
County
Murphys
80
$1,725
County
Murphys
Hwy 4 & Tom Bell Rd
80
$1,725
County
Valley Springs
Laurel St & Hwy 26
80
$1,725
County
Murphys
Main St & Scott St
80
$1,725
County
Murphys
Yield Lines
80
$600
County
Murphys
80
$1,725
County
San Andreas
80
$1,725
Cost $600
Implementation
Jurisdiction Community Location Improvement Total Score Cost County
San Andreas
Yield Lines
80
$300
County
San Andreas
80
$1,725
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
80
$1,725
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
Yield Lines
80
$300
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
80
$600
County
San Andreas
80
$1,725
County
West Point
70
$1,725
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
Bret Harte Rd & Main St
70
$1,725
County
Valley Springs
Cedar & Daphne
70
$1,725
County
Valley Springs
Cedar & Hwy 26
Yield Lines
70
$600
County
Valley Springs
Cedar St & Hwy 26
70
$1,725
County
San Andreas
Gateway Treatment
70
$350,000
County
West Point
Hwy 26 & Main St
70
$800
County
West Point
Hwy 26 & Pine St
70
$1,600
County
West Point
Hwy 26 & Pine St
70
$800
County
Arnold
Gateway Treatment
70
$350,000
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
Lee Ln & Main St
Yield Lines
70
$600
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
Main St & Hwy 4
Gateway Treatment
70
$350,000
Angels Camp
Angels Camp
70
$1,725
County
Arnold
Manuel Rd & Hwy 4
70
$10,000
County
West Point
Spink Rd & Main St
70
$1,725
Implementation
6.3.3 Priority Project Summary
6.4 Project Evaluation Summary
Table 6-7 presents the summary costs for priority, Tier 1 projects.
The following tables present a cost summary by tier and jurisdiction (see
Table 6-7: Priority Project Cost Summary
Priority Category
Priority Plans and Programs
Summary Cost
$490,000
Bikeways
$1,272,500
Sidewalks
$3,595,085
Pedestrian Facilities
$1,103,394
Total
$6,460,979
Appendix F for past investments and expenditures). The Angels Camp trail
projects, identified in the Trails Master Plan, include both the preferred and
alternate alignments. Cost estimates are only included for the preferred
alignments.
Table 6-8: Bikeway Project Summary
Tier/ Jurisdiction/ Bikeway
Tier 1 Total
County
Total Cost
$1,272,500
I
II
III
STR
$541,100
$430,700
$140,700
$97,000
II
III
STR
$54,000
$6,200
$2,800
$1,967,000
Angels Camp
Tier 2 Total
County
II
III
STR
Angels Camp
I
II
III
STR
Tier 3 Total
$166,400
$176,900
$73,400
$1,533,500
$4,700
$9,800
$2,300
$3,252,200
County
I
III
STR
Angels Camp
I
$3,053,300
Grand Total
$6,491,700
$20,700
$145,900
$32,300
Implementation
Table 6-9: Sidewalk Project Summary
Tier/ Jurisdiction
Tier 1 Total
County
Angels Camp
Total Cost
$3,595,00
$2,843,200
$751,800
$4,290,300
$3,059,000
$1,231,300
$4,709,775
$2,739,975
$1,969,800
Grand Total
$12,595,075
County
Angels Camp
Tier 2 Total
County
Angels Camp
Tier 3 Total
Table 6-10: Pedestrian Project Summary
Tier/ Jurisdiction/ Pedestrian Facility Type
Tier 1 Total
County
Gateway Treatment
Yield Lines
Angels Camp
Gateway Treatment
Yield Lines
Tier 2 Total
County
Gateway Treatment
Yield Lines
Angels Camp
Gateway Treatment
Tier 3 Total
County
Yield Lines
Angels Camp
Total Cost
$1,103,394
Grand Total
$2,210,669
$1,725
$10,350
$12,075
$700,000
$10,000
$1,600
$1,600
$3,600
$3,450
$6,894
$350,000
$600
$1,500
$1,078,350
$8,625
$3,450
$700,000
$1,200
$3,000
$12,075
$350,000
$28,925
$5,175
$1,725
$20,000
$300
$1,725
Implementation
6.5 Project List
The following tables present the complete list of recommended bikeway, sidewalk and pedestrian projects organized by project total score and tier. The Angels
Camp trail projects, identified in the Trails Master Plan, include both the preferred and alternate alignments. Cost estimates are only included for the preferred
alignments.
Community Support
0.79
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$33,700 1
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Stanislaus Ave
Hwy 49
San Joaquin Ave
II
0.12
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$4,900 1
County
Arnold
Hwy 4
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$13,900 1
Copperopolis
O'Byrnes Ferry Rd
South Community
III
Boundary
O'Byrnes Ferry Bridge STR
4.62
County
East Community
Boundary
Hwy 4
7.85
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$23,600 1
County
Murphys
Hwy 4
Tom Bell Rd
STR
1.35
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$4,000 1
County
San Andreas
California St
Lewis Ave
South Community
Boundary
Neilson Park
III
0.15
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$400 1
County
San Andreas
Hwy 49
Pool Station Rd
Angels Rd
II
1.59
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$67,900 1
County
San Andreas
Main St
Hwy 12
Nielson Park
III
0.09
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$300 1
County
San Andreas
Mountain Ranch Rd
Pope St
Hwy 49
III
0.41
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$1,200 1
County
San Andreas
Nielson Park
Main St
California St
III
0.07
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$200 1
County
San Andreas
Pope St
California St
Lewis Ave
III
0.38
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$1,100 1
County
Valley Springs
Hwy 12
Lime Creek Rd
STR
3.95
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$11,800 1
County
Valley Springs
Hwy 26
Hogan Dam Rd
East Community
Boundary
Baldwin St
STR
3.85
10 15 15 10 15 15 20
100
$11,500 1
0 15 15 10 15 15 20
Total Cost
Tier
Miles
II
Total Score
Class
Mark Twain Rd
Safety
End
Dogtown Rd
School
Start
Hwy 49
Activity Generator
Location
City of Angels
Maintenance
Community
Angels Camp
Feasibility
Jurisdiction
Economic Development
Table 6-11: Bikeway Project List
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Hwy 49
Bret Harte Rd
South City Limits
III
1.06
90
$3,200 1
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Murphys Grade Rd
Rolleri Bypass Rd
Hwy 49
STR
0.95
10
0 15 10 15 15 20
85
$2,800 1
County
Angels Camp
Murphys Grade Rd
East Community
Boundary
Rolleri Bypass Rd
STR
1.84
10
0 15 10 15 15 20
85
$5,500 1
0.36
10 15 15 10 15 15
III
0.22
Sheep Ranch Rd
Scott St
STR
Hwy 4
Crescent Cove
Tom Bell Dr
Murphys
Main St
Murphys Grade Rd
County
Murphys
County
Murphys
Pennsylvania Gulch
Rd
Scott St
County
Murphys
County
City of Angels
Hwy 49
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Stanislaus Ave
County
Murphys
Algiers St
County
Murphys
County
Tier
II
Angels Camp
West Community
Boundary
Gold Country Inn
Angels Camp
San Joaquin Ave
Total Cost
Bret Harte Dr (South
Intersection)
Gold Cliff Rd
Hwy 12
85
$18,000 1
85
$7,400 1
0
80
$15,400 1
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$700 1
0.88
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$2,600 1
III
5.71
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$17,100 1
Hwy 4
STR
0.71
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$2,100 1
Hwy 4
Vineyard Terrace
III
1.45
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$4,400 1
Main St
Six Mile Rd
STR
0.27
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$800 1
Six Mile Rd
Algiers St
Vallecito Bluffs Rd
III
1.87
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$5,600 1
West Point
Hwy 26
III
8.14
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$24,400 1
County
West Point
Main St/Pine St
North Community
South Community
Boundary
Boundary
West Point Pioneer Rd Hwy 26
III
0.43
10 15 15 10 15 15
0
80
$1,300 1
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Vallecito Rd
Hwy 49
III
0.76
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$2,300 1
County
Angels Camp
Hwy 49
5.09
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$15,300 1
Dorrington
Hwy 4
III
3.94
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$11,800 1
County
Douglas Flat
Hwy 4
III
1.25
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$3,800 1
County
Mokelumne Hill
Hwy 26
South County
Boundary
East Community
Boundary
South Community
Boundary
Jesus Maria Rd
III
County
North Community
Boundary
City of Angels City
Limit
North Community
Boundary
North Community
Boundary
Hwy 49
III
1.70
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$5,100 1
County
Mokelumne Hill
Hwy 49
Hwy 26
STR
3.24
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$9,700 1
North Community
Boundary
0 15 10 15 15 20
Total Score
10 15 15 10 15
Valley Springs
Safety
2.47
County
School
Community Support
STR
Hwy 49
Activity Generator
Miles
10
San Andreas
Maintenance
Class
6.01
County
Feasibility
End
STR
Location
South Community
Boundary
Pine St
Community
Angels Rd
Jurisdiction
Start
Implementation
0 20
Hwy 4
Vallecito Rd
III
Baldwin St
North Community
Boundary
Hwy 26
Milton Rd
Valley Springs
Garner Pl
Hwy 26
County
Valley Springs
Hartvickson Ln
Angels Camp
City of Angels
County
County
County
Valley Springs
County
Tier
7.09
Total Cost
III
Total Score
Hwy 12
San
Andreas/Mokelumne
Hill
Vallecito
Safety
Hwy 26
County
0 15 15 20
75
$541,100 1
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$21,300 1
4.49
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$13,500 1
II
4.44
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$189,100 1
Baldwin St
II
1.19
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$50,700 1
Vista Del Lago Dr
Baldwin St
II
2.89
0
0 15 10 15 15 20
75
$123,000 1
Gold Cliff Rd
Stanislaus Ave
Finnegan Lane
III
0.80
0 15 15 10 15 15
0
70
$2,400 2
West Point
Main St
Pine St
Hwy 26
III
0.40
0 15 15 10 15 15
0
70
$1,200 2
County
Arnold
Henry St
Blagen Rd
Hwy 4
III
0.06
10
0 15 10 15 15
0
65
$200 2
County
Avery
Avery Hotel Rd
Hwy 4
Moran Rd
III
0.13
10
0 15 10 15 15
0
65
$400 2
County
Avery
Hwy 4
Rancho Paradiso
III
1.87
10
0 15 10 15 15
0
65
$5,600 2
County
Avery
Moran Rd
Segale Rd
South Community
Boundary
Avery Hotel Rd
III
0.11
10
0 15 10 15 15
0
65
$300 2
County
Murphys
Murphys Grade Road
French Gulch Rd
STR
3.64
10
0 15 10 15 15
0
65
$10,900 2
County
San Andreas
Calaveritas Rd
Government Center
III
5.64
10
0 15 10 15 15
0
65
$16,900 2
County
San Andreas
Mountain Ranch Rd
II
0.14
10
0 15 10 15 15
0
65
$6,100 2
County
San Andreas
Government Center
Dr
Pool Station Rd
III
5.43
10
0 15 10 15 15
0
65
$16,300 2
County
Valley Springs
Hwy 12
Pine St
East Community
Boundary
South Community
Boundary
Government Center
Rd
South Community
Boundary
Lime Creek Rd
II
0.65
10 15 15 10 15
0
0
65
$27,900 2
County
Valley Springs
Hwy 26
Hwy 12
Hogan Dam Rd
II
0.51
10 15 15 10 15
0
0
65
$21,900 2
Hwy 49
0
School
Community Support
10 15
Activity Generator
Miles
0.84
Maintenance
Class
I
San Andreas
Feasibility
End
Mountain Ranch Rd
County
Location
California St
Community
Lewis Ave/Pope
St/San Andreas
Elementary Path
Hwy 49
Jurisdiction
Start
Implementation
Valley Springs
Silver Rapids Rd
Hartvickson Ln
III
1.05
0
0 15 10 15
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Dogtown Rd
Gardner Ln
Hwy 49
III
0.35
0
0 15 10 15 15
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Gardner Ln
Holly St
II
0.11
0
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Greenhorn Creek Rd
Hwy 4
Murphys Grade Rd
(Bret Harte Union
High Schl)
Smithflat Rd
III
1.40
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Hwy 4
Hwy 49
West City Limits
III
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Hwy 49
Brunner Hill Dr
Dog Town Rd
County
Angels Camp
Dogtown Rd
County
Angels Camp
Hwy 4
County
Angels Camp
Hwy 49
County
Angels Camp
Rolleri Bypass Rd
North Community
Boundary
City of Angels City
Limit
North Community
Boundary
Murphys Grade Rd
County
Burson
Burson Rd
County
Copperopolis
Hwy 4
Comanche Parkway
South
Pool Station Rd
County
Copperopolis
Little John Rd
County
Copperopolis
County
County
Tier
0 15 10 15
Total Cost
0
0 15 15 20
Total Score
2.96
Safety
STR
County
West Community
Boundary
Hogan Dam Rd
0
School
Community Support
Evans Rd
County
0
Activity Generator
Miles
10
Maintenance
Class
0.92
City of Angels
Feasibility
End
I
Angels Camp
Location
Finnegan Lane
Community
Rolleri Bypass Rd
Burson
Central Reach
Preferred Alignment
C1
Hwy 12
Jurisdiction
Start
Implementation
60
$591,300 2
0 20
60
$8,900 2
0 20
60
$3,100 2
0
55
$1,000 2
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$4,700 2
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$4,200 2
0.73
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$2,200 2
STR
0.76
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$2,300 2
Gardner Ln
III
8.95
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$26,900 2
West Community
Boundary
Brunner Hill Dr
III
5.64
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$16,900 2
STR
3.04
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$9,100 2
Vallecito Rd
III
0.87
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$2,600 2
Sheri Pl
III
6.20
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$18,600 2
III
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$38,700 2
II
12.9
0
2.59
0
Oxyoke Lane
West County
Boundary
Quiver St
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$110,500 2
Little John Rd
Hwy 4
Oxyoke Ln
STR
0.44
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$1,300 2
Hathaway Pines
Hwy 4
North Community
Boundary
III
1.62
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$4,900 2
Jenny Lind
Jenny Lind Rd
Hwy 26
Crescent Cove
(Southern
Intersection)
Milton Rd
III
1.67
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$5,000 2
Angels Camp
Valley
Springs/Paloma
City of Angels
Angels Camp
City of Angels
County
Total Cost
County
Total Score
Valley Springs
Safety
County
School
Hwy 26
Activity Generator
Valley Springs
Maintenance
County
Feasibility
Vallecito Rd
Vallecito
Community Support
County
West community
boundary
Hwy 4
Jenny Lind Rd
West Community
Boundary
Pool Station Rd
III
4.56
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$13,700 2
STR
4.16
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$12,500 2
III
0.38
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$1,100 2
Baldwin St
West Community
Boundary
Garner Pl
III
0.94
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$2,800 2
Hwy 26
Garner Pl
Jenny Lind Rd
III
0.57
0
0 15 10 15 15
0
55
$1,700 2
Paloma Rd
Hwy 26
Rose St
STR
7.73
0 15 15 10 15
0
55
$23,200 2
Angels Creek Path
Hwy 49
Finnegan Lane
I
0.56
0
0
0
0 15 15 20
50
$357,300 2
Finnegan Ln
Greenhorn Creek Rd
I
0.91
0
0
0
0 15 15 20
50
$584,900 2
Valley Springs
South Reach
Preferred Alignment
S1.4
Hogan Dam Rd
Hwy 26
STR
2.49
10
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Demarest St
Stockton Rd
I
0.18
0 15
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Mccauley Ranch Rd
Greenhorn Creek Rd
Hogan Reservoir
Recreation Area
Big Horn Mobile
Home Park
Gold Cliff Rd
I
0.19
0 15
County
Burson/Wallace
8.41
0
0 15 10
Jenny Lind
Burson North
Hwy 12
Community Boundary
Jenny Lind Rd
Hwy 26
III
County
Camanche Parkway
South
Milton Rd
III
2.24
0
0 15 10
Angels Camp
City of Angels
County
0 15 10 15
0
0
50
$7,500 2
0
0 15 15
0
45
$112,500 3
0
0 15 15
0
45
$123,600 3
0
0 20
45
$25,200 3
0
0 20
45
$6,700 3
0
40
$931,900 3
Rolleri Bypass Rd
I
1.45
10
Angels Camp
North Reach Preferred Bret Harte High
Alignment N1
School
Whittle Rd
Hwy 49
Campground
III
5.09
0
0 15 10 15
0
0
40
$15,300 3
County
Copperopolis
Copper Cove Dr
O'Byrnes Ferry Rd
Little John Rd
STR
2.51
0
0 15 10 15
0
0
40
$7,500 3
County
Copperopolis
LIttle John Rd
Quiver St
Kiva Pl
STR
2.57
0
0 15 10 15
0
0
40
$7,700 3
County
Valley Springs
Vista Del Lago Dr
Hwy 26
Hogan Dam Rd
STR
1.40
0
0 15 10 15
0
0
40
$4,200 3
0
0
Tier
Miles
Hwy 12
Class
Location
Hwy 26
County
Rancho
Calaveras/Jenny Lind
San Andreas
End
Community
County
Start
Jurisdiction
Implementation
0
0 15 15
Vallecito Rd
I
0.12
0
0
0
0 15 15
0
30
$- 3
Vallecito Rd
I
0.61
0
0
0
0 15 15
0
30
$-
3
Tuolumne Ave
I
0.21
0
0
0
0 15 15
0
30
$137,200
3
Preferred South
Reach Alignment
Preferred South
Reach Alignment
I
0.88
0
0
0
0 15 15
0
30
$-
3
Finnegan Ln
Main St
I
0.53
0
0
0
0 15 15
0
30
$340,600
3
Finnegan Ln
Centennial Ln
I
0.26
0
0
0
0 15 15
0
30
$167,100
3
City of Angels City
Limit
N/A
I
1.93
0
0
0
0 15 15
0
30
Gold Hunter Rd
E End Existing Path
I
0.03
0
0
South Community
Boundary
South Community
Boundary
Hwy 26
III
6.97
0
0 15 10
0
III
0
0 15 10
III
10.8
1
0.54
0
South Community
Boundary
South Community
Boundary
South Community
Boundary
West Community
Boundary
III
1.65
III
Central Reach
Vallecito Rd
Alternate Alignment
C2
North Reach Alternate Hwy 4 Bypass Bridge
Alignment N2
Sierra Drive
Angels Oaks Rd
County
San Andreas
County
Angels Camp
South Reach
Alternate Alignment
S2
South Reach
Preferred Alignment
S1.1
South Reach
Preferred Alignment
S1.2
South Reach
Preferred Alignment
S1.3
San Andreas
Elementary Path
Pool Station Rd
County
Camp Connell
Hwy 4
County
Jenny Lind
Burson Rd
North Community
Boundary
North Communtiy
Boundary
Sheri Pl
County
Jenny Lind
Milton Rd
Mann St
County
Milton
Milton Rd
County
Tamarack
Hwy 4
County
Wallace
Hwy 12
North Community
Boundary
East Community
Boundary
East Community
Boundary
Tier
City of Angels
Total Cost
Angels Camp
Total Score
City of Angels
Safety
Angels Camp
School
City of Angels
Activity Generator
Angels Camp
Maintenance
City of Angels
Feasibility
Angels Camp
City of Angels
Community Support
Angels Camp
Miles
City of Angels
Class
Angels Camp
End
City of Angels
Start
Community
Angels Camp
Location
Jurisdiction
Implementation
3
$1,240,400
0
0 15 15
0
30
$20,700
3
0
0
25
$20,900
3
0
0
0
25
$32,400
3
0 15 10
0
0
0
25
$1,600
3
0
0 15 10
0
0
0
25
$5,000
3
5.53
0
0 15 10
0
0
0
25
$16,600
3
III
7.41
0
0 15 10
0
0
0
25
$22,200
3
STR
4.31
0
0 15 10
0
0
0
25
$12,900
3
Implementation
1070 10 15
0
0 15 15 20
75
$321,700 1
Pool Station Rd
Angels Rd
8410 10 15
0
0 15 15 20
75
$2,521,500 1
Angels Camp S Main St/Hwy 49
Demarest St
Stanislaus Ave
1370
0
0 15 15 20
65
$410,800 2
Angels Camp
Dogtown Rd
Demarest St
1960 10
0
0
0 15 15 20
60
$586,600 2
Angels Camp
Sultana Ln
Mark Twain Rd
780 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$233,900 2
County
Murphys
Big Trees Rd
Creekview Dr
Bret Harte Dr
430 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$127,600 2
County
Murphys
Big Trees Rd
Jones St
Hwy 4
1370 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$411,200 2
County
Murphys
Main St
Jones St
Scott St
710 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$211,700 2
County
Murphys
Main St
Scott St
Jones St
960 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$288,000 2
County
Murphys
Hwy 4
Tom Bell
10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
County
Murphys
Hwy 4
Tom Bell
Albert Michelson El
Schl/Penn Gulch Rd
Pennsylvania Gulch
1890 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$567,200 2
County
San Andreas
W St. Charles St/Hwy 49 SE Gold Oak Rd
160 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$48,700 2
County
Valley Springs Daphne St
Chestnut St
Pine St
1150 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$343,800 2
County
Valley Springs Hwy 26
Hwy 12
Jean St
640 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$191,300 2
County
Valley Springs Hwy 26
Hwy 12
Jean St
620 10 15
0
0 15 15
0
55
$185,600 2
Angels Camp
Angels Camp Vallecito Rd
Depot Rd
Birds Way
1250
0 15
0
0 15
0 20
50
$374,500 3
Angels Camp
Dogtown Rd
Demarest St
2150
0
0
0
0 15 15 20
50
$645,100 3
Angels Camp
Bret Harte Rd (N)
Bret Harte Rd (S)
350
0 15
0
0 15 15
0
45
$106,100 3
Angels Camp
Stork Rd
Bret Harte Rd (N)
590
0 15
0
0 15 15
0
45
$178,000 3
Angels Camp
Stork Rd
Pine St
1730
0 15
0
0 15 15
0
45
$519,500 3
San Andreas
W St. Charles St/Hwy 49 High School St
County
San Andreas
E St. Charles St/Hwy 49
Angels Camp
Russell Rd
Length (ft.)
County
Location
Mark Twain Rd
2280
0 15
Tier
Court St
Stanislaus Ave
Total Cost
$120,900 1
Total Score
75
Angels Camp
Safety
0 15 15 20
Bragg St
School
0
Lee Ln
Activity Generator
400 10 15
Maintenance
Feasibility
$630,900 1
Angels Camp
Community Support
75
End
0 15 15 20
Start
0
Community
2100 10 15
Jurisdiction
Table 6-12: Sidewalk Project List
$683,900 2
Safety
Total Score
0
45
0 15
0
0 15 15
0
45
760 10 15
0
0 15
0
0
40
$228,500 3
Daphne St
290 10 15
0
0 15
0
0
40
$88,300 3
Main St
Mark Twain Rd
490
0 15
0
0 15
0
0
30
$146,600 3
Copperopolis Main St
School St
Reeds Turnpike
1580
0 15
0
0
0 15
0
30
$475,000 3
County
Copperopolis O'Byrnes Ferry Rd
Spangler Ln
Cosmic Ct
380 10
0
0
0 15
0
0
25
$113,500 3
County
San Andreas
Government Center Dr
Government Center Rd
Mountain Ranch Rd
326 10
0
0
0 15
0
0
25
$40,750 3
County
San Andreas
Mountain Ranch Rd
Hwy 49
10
0
0
0 15
0
0
25
County
Valley Springs Driver Rd/Hwy 26
Government Center
Dr
Baldwin St
0
0
0
0
0 15
0
15
Feasibility
Maintenance
Activity Center
School Proximity
Safety
Location
Start
End
Henry St
1032
County
West Point
Bald Mtn Rd/Pine St
Main St
1150
County
Valley Springs Sequoia St
Laurel St
West Point
Elementary School
Pine St
County
Valley Springs Pine St
Sequoia Ave
Angels Camp
Angels Camp Hardscrabble
County
Jenny Lind Elementary
2973
2500
Tier
Community
Manuel Rd
Length (ft.)
Jurisdiction
Hwy 4
Total Cost
School
0 15 15
Arnold
Activity Generator
0
County
Maintenance
Feasibility
0 15
Community Support
Implementation
$129,000 3
$344,400 3
$371,625 3
$751,000 3
Improvement
Unit
Community Support
Yield Lines
2
10 15 15 10 15 15 20 100
Tier
Location
San Andreas
Cost
Community
County
Total score
Jurisdiction
Table 6-13: Pedestrian Project List
$600 1
Angels Camp Angels Camp
2
0
15 15 10 15 15 20 90
$3,444 1
Yield Lines
2
0
15 15 10 15 15 20 90
$600 1
1
10 0
15 10 15 15 20 85
$1,725 1
$300 1
County
Valley Springs
Cedar & Sequoia
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
San Andreas
Yield Lines
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$300 1
County
San Andreas
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
San Andreas
Yield Lines
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$300 1
County
Murphys
Yield Lines
2
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$600 1
County
Murphys
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
Murphys
Hwy 4 & Tom Bell Rd
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
Valley Springs
Laurel St & Hwy 26
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
Murphys
Main St & Scott St
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
Murphys
Yield Lines
2
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$600 1
County
Murphys
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
San Andreas
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
San Andreas
Yield Lines
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$300 1
County
San Andreas
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
Yield Lines
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$300 1
2
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$600 1
County
San Andreas
1
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
80
$1,725 1
County
West Point
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$1,725 1
Bret Harte Rd & Main St
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$1,725 1
County
Valley Springs
Cedar & Daphne
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$1,725 1
County
Valley Springs
Cedar & Hwy 26
Yield Lines
2
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$600 1
County
Valley Springs
Cedar St & Hwy 26
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$1,725 1
County
San Andreas
Gateway Treatment
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$350,000 1
Tier
80
Cost
10 15 15 10 15 15 0
Total score
Community Support
1
Safety
Unit
Yield Lines
School Proximity
Improvement
Activity Center
Location
San Andreas
Maintenance
Community
County
Feasibility
Jurisdiction
Implementation
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$800 1
County
West Point
Hwy 26 & Pine St
2
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$1,600 1
County
West Point
Hwy 26 & Pine St
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$800 1
County
Arnold
Gateway Treatment
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$350,000 1
Lee Ln & Main St
Yield Lines
2
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$600 1
Main St & Hwy 4
Gateway Treatment
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$350,000 1
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$1,725 1
County
Arnold
Manuel Rd & Hwy 4
Pedestrian Improvement Intersection Study 1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$10,000 1
County
West Point
Spink Rd & Main St
1
0
15 15 10 15 15 0
70
$1,725 1
County
San Andreas
Angels Rd & Hwy 49
Gateway Treatment
1
10 15 15 10 15 0
0
65
$350,000 2
County
Arnold
Hwy 4 & Cedar Lane
Gateway Treatment
1
10 15 15 10 15 0
0
65
$350,000 2
County
Murphys
Tier
Cost
0
Total score
Community Support
1
Safety
Unit
School Proximity
Improvement
Hwy 26 & Main St
Activity Center
Location
West Point
Maintenance
Community
County
Feasibility
Jurisdiction
Implementation
Main St & Algiers St
1
10 15 15 10 15 0
0
65
$1,725 2
Main St
Gateway Treatment
1
0
0
15 10 15 0
20 60
$350,000 2
Main St & Birds Way
1
0
0
15 10 15 0
20 60
$1,725 2
Main St & Finnegan Lane
1
0
0
15 10 15 0
20 60
$1,725 2
County
Arnold
B St & Blagen Rd
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Arnold
Blagen Rd & C St
Yield Lines
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Arnold
Blagen Rd & C St
Yield Lines
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Arnold
Blagen Rd & C St
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$1,725 2
County
Arnold
Blagen Rd & D St
Yield Lines
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Arnold
Blagen Rd & Dunbar
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$1,725 2
County
Arnold
Blagen Rd & Dunbar
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$1,725 2
County
Arnold
Dunbar Rd & Blagen Rd
Yield Lines
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Arnold
E St & Main St
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Arnold
E St & Main St
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Copperopolis
Yield Lines
1
0
15 15 10 0
County
Copperopolis
Yield Lines
1
0
County
Copperopolis
1
Main St & Bret Harte Rd
Main St & Monte Verde St
Main St & Pine St
Jurisdiction
Tier
15 10 15 15 0
Cost
0
Total score
Feasibility
0
Safety
1
School Proximity
Community Support
Activity Center
Unit
Hwy 4 & Main St
Maintenance
Improvement
Community
Location
Implementation
55
$1,725 2
15 0
55
$300 2
15 15 10 0
15 0
55
$300 2
0
15 15 10 0
15 0
55
$1,725 2
1
0
15 15 10 15 0
0
55
$1,725 2
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$1,725 2
1
0
15 15 10 15 0
0
55
$1,725 2
County
Mountain Ranch Mountain Ranch Rd & Blacksmith Ave
Yield Lines
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Yield Lines
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$1,725 2
0
55
$1,725 2
$300 2
Raspberry Ln & Main St
1
0
15 15 10 15 0
County
Copperopolis
School St & Main St
Yield Lines
1
0
15 15 10 0
15 0
55
County
Copperopolis
School St & Main St
Yield Lines
1
0
15 15 10 0
15 0
55
$300 2
County
Copperopolis
School St & Main St
1
0
15 15 10 0
15 0
55
$1,725 2
County
Mountain Ranch Whiskey Slide Rd & Mountain Ranch Rd Pedestrian Crossing Signs
1
0
0
15 10 15 15 0
55
$300 2
County
Avery
Avery Hotel Rd & Hwy 4
1
10 0
15 10 0
15 0
50
$1,725 3
County
Avery
Avery Hotel Rd & Moran Rd
1
10 0
15 10 0
15 0
50
$1,725 3
County
Avery
Hwy 4 & Avery Hotel Rd
Yield Lines
1
10 0
15 10 0
15 0
50
$300 3
County
Avery
Moran Rd & Sanders Ln
1
10 0
15 10 0
15 0
50
$1,725 3
County
Copperopolis
O’Byrnes Ferry Rd & Spangler Ln
10 0
15 10 15 0
0
50
$10,000 3
County
Copperopolis
Spangler Ln & O’Byrnes Ferry Rd
10 0
15 10 15 0
0
50
$1,725 3
County
Avery
Hwy 4 &Avery Hotel Rd
0
0
15 10 0
15 0
40
$10,000 3
Main St
0
0
15 10 15 0
40
$1,725 3
1
1
0
Implementation
6.6 Maintenance
In addition to the sidewalk maintenance policy recommended for consideration in Chapter 4, the following maintenance for bikeways is recommended.
Bikeways require regular maintenance and repair. On-street bikeways are maintained as part of the normal roadway maintenance program, and extra emphasis
should be placed on keeping bike lanes and roadway shoulders clear of debris and keeping vegetation overgrowth from blocking visibility. The high cost of
maintaining Class I facilities may be shared among various agencies or departments. Typical costs for bikeway networks are shown in Table 6-14.
Table 6-14: Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs
Facility Type
Unit Cost (per mile)
Notes
Class I
$8,750
Class II
Class III Bicycle Route
Class III Bicycle Boulevard
$2,000
$1,000
$1,250
Pavement repair or resurfacing, lighting, and removal of debris
and vegetation overgrowth
Repainting lane stripes and stencils, sign replacement as needed
Sign replacement as needed
Sign and sharrow stencil replacement as needed
Implementation
Funding
7 Funding
This chapter describes various sources of funding available to plan and
construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including those related to school
7.1
Federal Sources
7.1.1
Moving Ahead for Progress in the TwentyFirst Century (MAP-21)
access and area improvement, as well as sources to provide education or
The largest source of federal funding for bicyclists and pedestrians is the US
encouragement programs.
DOT’s Federal-Aid Highway Program, which Congress has reauthorized roughly
Projects such as those described in this Plan can be funded through multiple
every six years since the passage of the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916. The latest
sources, and not all sources apply to all projects. Many sources require a local
act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the Twenty-First Century (MAP-21) was
funding match and most are competitive based on project merit and
enacted in July 2012 as Public Law 112-141. The Act replaces the Safe,
adherence to grant criteria.
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users
This chapter covers federal, state, regional, local sources of funding, as well as
some non-traditional funding sources that have been used by local agencies to
fund bicycle, pedestrian, and safe routes to school infrastructure and programs.
(SAFETEA-LU), which was valid from August 2005 - June 2012. SAFETEA-LU
contained dedicated programs including Transportation Enhancements, Safe
Routes to School, and Recreational Trails, which were all commonly tapped
sources of funding to make non-motorized improvements nationwide. MAP-21
combines these programs into a single source called ‘Transportation
Alternatives’ programs (TAP). More information on TAP, including eligible
activities, can be found below and at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm
MAP-21 authorizes funding for federal surface transportation programs
including highways and transit for the 27 month period between July 2012 and
September 2014. It is not possible to guarantee the continued availability of
any listed MAP-21 programs, or to predict their future funding levels or policy
guidance. Nevertheless, many of these programs have been included in some
form since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) in 1991, and thus may continue to provide capital for active
transportation projects and programs.
Funding
Infrastructure projects and systems that provide “Safe Routes for NonDrivers” is a new eligible activity.
In California (see Section 7.2.1 Active Transportation Program), federal monies
are administered through the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Most, but not all,
For the complete list of eligible activities, visit:
of these programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_enhancements/l
an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections.
egislation/map21.cfm
Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education
programs, and projects must relate to the surface transportation system.
There are a number of programs identified within MAP-21 that are applicable
to bicycle and pedestrian projects. These programs are discussed below.
More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm
7.1.1.1
Transportation Alternatives
Transportation Alternatives (TA) is a new funding source under MAP-21 that
consolidates three formerly separate programs under SAFETEA-LU:
2.
Recreational Trails. TA funds may be used to develop and maintain
recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both active and
motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking,
bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other active and
motorized uses. These funds are available for both paved and
unpaved trails, but may not be used to improve roads for general
passenger vehicle use or to provide shoulders or sidewalks along
roads.
Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:
Transportation Enhancements (TE), Safe Routes to School (SR2S), and the

Maintenance and restoration of existing trails
Recreational Trails Program (RTP). These funds may be used for a variety of

Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance
equipment
pedestrian, bicycle, and streetscape projects including sidewalks, bikeways,
multi-use paths, and rail-trails. TA funds may also be used for selected

Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails
education and encouragement programming such as Safe Routes to School,

Acquisition or easements of property for trails
despite the fact that TA does not provide a guaranteed set-aside for this

State administrative costs related to this program (limited to
activity as SAFETEA-LU did. MAP-21 provides $85 million nationally for the RTP.
Complete eligibilities for TA include:
1.
Transportation Alternatives as defined by Section 1103 (a)(29). This
category includes the construction, planning, and design of a range of
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including “on–road and off–road
trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active forms of
transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian
and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other
safety–related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.”

seven percent of a state’s funds)
Operation of educational programs to promote safety and
environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent
of a state’s funds)
Under MAP-21, dedicated funding for the RTP continues at FY 2009
levels – roughly $85 million annually. California will receive
$5,756,189 in RTP funds per year through FY2014.
More info:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/funding/app
ortionments_obligations/recfunds_2009.cfm
Funding
3.
Safe Routes to School. There are two separate Safe Routes to School
Programs administered by Caltrans. There is the Federal program
referred to as SRTS, and the state-legislated program referred to as
SR2S. Both programs are intended to achieve the same basic goal of
increasing the number of children walking and bicycling to school by
making it safer for them to do so. All projects must be within two
miles of primary or middle schools (K-8).
The Safe Routes to School Program funds non-motorized facilities in
conjunction with improving access to schools through the Caltrans
Safe Routes to School Coordinator.
More info:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/saferoutes.htm

Enforcement Efforts. These programs aim to ensure that traffic
laws near schools are obeyed. Law enforcement activities apply
to cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles alike. Projects may
include development of a crossing guard program, enforcement
equipment, photo enforcement, and pedestrian sting operations.
4.
Planning, designing, or constructing roadways within the rightof-way of former Interstate routes or divided highways. At the
time of writing, detailed guidance from the Federal Highway
Administration on this new eligible activity was not available.
Average annual funds available through TA over the life of MAP-21 equal $814
Eligible projects may include:
million nationally, which is based on a 2% set-aside of total MAP-21

authorizations. Projected MAP-21 apportionments for California total
Engineering improvements. These physical improvements are
designed to reduce potential bicycle and pedestrian conflicts
with motor vehicles. Physical improvements may also reduce
motor vehicle traffic volumes around schools, establish safer and
more accessible crossings, or construct walkways, trails or
bikeways.
Eligible
improvements
include
sidewalk
$3,546,492,430 for FY 2013 and $3,576,886,247 for FY 2014
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/MAP21/funding.cfm). The 2% set-aside for TA funds
in California will be about $71,000,000 for the next two fiscal cycles. State DOTs
may elect to transfer up to 50% of TA funds to other highway programs, so the
amount listed above represents the maximum potential funding.
improvements, traffic calming/speed reduction, pedestrian and
TA funds are typically allocated through MPOs and require a 20 percent local
bicycle crossing improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-
match.
street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and secure bicycle parking

facilities.
7.1.1.2
Education and Encouragement Efforts. These programs are
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides states with flexible funds
designed to teach children safe bicycling and walking skills while
which may be used for a variety of highway, road, bridge, and transit projects.
educating them about the health benefits, and environmental
A wide variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements are eligible, including
impacts.
on-street bicycle facilities, off-street trails, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and
Projects
and
programs
may
include
creation,
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
distribution and implementation of educational materials; safety
pedestrian signals, parking, and other ancillary facilities. Modification of
based field trips; interactive bicycle/pedestrian safety video
sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
games; and promotional events and activities (e.g., assemblies,
Act (ADA) is also an eligible activity. Unlike most highway projects, STP-funded
bicycle rodeos, walking school buses).
bicycle and pedestrian facilities may be located on local and collector roads
which are not part of the Federal-aid Highway System. Fifty percent of each
Funding
state’s STP funds are suballocated geographically by population. These funds
are funneled through Caltrans to the MPOs in the state. The remaining 50%
may be spent in any area of the state.
7.1.2
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ)
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
7.1.1.3
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
provides funding for projects and programs in air quality nonattainment and
MAP-21 doubles the amount of funding available through the Highway Safety
maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter which
Improvement Program (HSIP) relative to SAFETEA-LU. HSIP provides $2.4
reduce transportation related emissions. These federal dollars can be used to
billion nationally for projects and programs that help communities achieve
build bicycle and pedestrian facilities that reduce travel by automobile. Purely
significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads,
recreational facilities generally are not eligible.
bikeways, and walkways. MAP-21 preserves the Railway-Highway Crossings
To be funded under this program, projects and programs must come from a
Program within HSIP but discontinues the High-Risk Rural roads set-aside
transportation plan (or State (STIP) or Regional (RTIP) Transportation
unless safety statistics demonstrate that fatalities are increasing on these roads
Improvement Program) that conforms to the SIP and must be consistent with
HSIP is a data-driven funding program and eligible projects must be identified
the conformity provisions of Section 176 of the Clean Air Act.
through analysis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other
similar metrics. Infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects are eligible for
CMAQ funding is administered throughCalaveras County on the local level.
HSIP funds. Bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, enforcement
Within Calaveras County, these funds are eligible for transportation projects
activities, traffic calming projects, and crossing treatments for active
that contribute to the attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air
transportation users in school zones are examples of eligible projects. All HSIP
Quality Standards in non-attainment or air-quality maintenance areas.
projects must be consistent with the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
Examples of eligible projects include enhancements to existing transit services,
rideshare and vanpool programs, projects that encourage bicycle and
Last updated in 2006, the California SHSP is located here:
pedestrian transportation options, traffic light synchronization projects that
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/SHSP/SHSP_Final_Draft_Print_Version.
improve air quality, grade separation projects, and construction of high-
pdf
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.
7.1.1.4
Pilot Transit-Oriented Development Planning
MAP-21 establishes a new pilot program to promote planning for TransitOriented Development. At the time of writing the details of this program are
not fully clear, although the bill text states that the Secretary of Transportation
may make grants available for the planning of projects that seek to “facilitate
multimodal connectivity and accessibility,” and “increase access to transit hubs
for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.”
Funding
7.1.3
Partnership for Sustainable Communities
and bike parking near major bus stops. To date, no projects to provide
bikeways for quicker, safer or easier access to transit stations have been
Founded in 2009, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities is a joint project
requested or funded.
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation
7.1.5
Community Transformation Grants
(USDOT). The partnership aims to “improve access to affordable housing, more
transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the
environment in communities nationwide.” The Partnership is based on five
Livability Principles, one of which explicitly addresses the need for bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure (“Provide more transportation choices: Develop safe,
reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household
transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve
air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health”).
Community Transformation Grants administered through the Center for
Disease Control support community–level efforts to reduce chronic diseases
such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes. Active transportation
infrastructure and programs that promote healthy lifestyles are a good fit for
this program, particularly if the benefits of such improvements accrue to
population groups experiencing the greatest burden of chronic disease.
More info: http://www.cdc.gov/communitytransformation/
The Partnership is not a formal agency with a regular annual grant program.
Nevertheless, it is an important effort that has already led to some new grant
opportunities (including the TIGER grants). Calaveras County should track
Partnership communications and be prepared to respond proactively to
announcements of new grant programs.
More info: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/
7.1.4
Federal Transit Act
Section 25 of the 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act states that: “For the
purposes of this Act a project to provide access for bicycles to mass
transportation facilities, to provide shelters and parking facilities for bicycles in
and around mass transportation facilities, or to install racks or other equipment
for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles shall be deemed to
be a construction project eligible for assistance under sections 3, 9 and 18 of
this Act.” The Federal share for such projects is 90 percent and the remaining
10 percent must come from sources other than Federal funds or fare box
revenues. Typical funded projects have included bike lockers at transit stations
Funding
7.2 State Sources
category is on pilot and start-up projects that can demonstrate
funding for ongoing efforts.
7.2.1
Active Transportation Program (ATP)

Infrastructure projects with non-infrastructure components
In 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation creating the Active Transportation
The minimum request for non-SRTS projects is $250,000. There is no minimum
Program (ATP). This program is a consolidation of the Federal Transportation
for SRTS projects.
Alternatives Program (TAP), California’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA),
and Federal and California Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs.
The local match requirement for non-SRTS projects is 11.47%. There is no local
match requirement for projects benefiting a disadvantage community, stand
The ATP program is administered by Caltrans Division of Local Assistance,
along non-infrastructure projects and SRTS projects.
Office of Active Transportation and Special Programs.
Annual funds will be approximately $130 million for fiscal year 2013-2014. In
The ATP program goals include:
the initial program, a minimum of $24 million per year is available for SRTS

Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking,
projects, with at least $7.2 million for non-infrastructure grants.

Increase safety and mobility for nonmotorized users,
More info: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/

Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to
achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals,

Enhance public health,

Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of
the program, and

Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active
transportation users.
7.2.2
State Highway Account
Section 157.4 of the Streets and Highways Code requires Caltrans to set aside
$360,000 for the construction of non-motorized facilities that will be used in
conjunction with the State highway system. The Office of Bicycle Facilities also
administers the State Highway Account fund. Funding is divided into different
project categories. Minor B projects (less than $42,000) are funded by a lump
As of this Plan (April 2015), the second call for projects is underway. The
sum allocation by the CTC and are used at the discretion of each Caltrans
California Transportation Commission ATP Guidelines are available here:
District office. Minor A projects (estimated to cost between $42,000 and
http://www.catc.ca.gov/
$300,000) must be approved by the CTC. Major projects (more than $300,000)
Eligible bicycle, pedestrian and Safe Routes to School projects include:

Infrastructure Projects: Capital improvements that will further
program goals. This category typically includes planning, design, and
construction.

Non-Infrastructure Projects: Education, encouragement, enforcement,
and planning activities that further program goals. The focus of this
must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program and
approved by the CTC. Funded projects have included fencing and bicycle
warning signs related to rail corridors.
Funding
7.2.3
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
Office of Traffic Safety Grants are supported by Federal funding under the
National Highway Safety Act and SAFETEA-LU. In California, the grants are
administered by the Office of Traffic Safety.
Grants are used to establish new traffic safety programs, expand ongoing
programs or address deficiencies in current programs. Bicycle safety is included
in the list of traffic safety priority areas. Eligible grantees are governmental
agencies, state colleges, state universities, local city and county government
agencies, school districts, fire departments, and public emergency services
providers. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor
can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research,
rehabilitation, or construction. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and
priority is given to agencies with the greatest need. Evaluation criteria to assess
need include potential traffic safety impact, collision statistics and rankings,
seriousness of problems, and performance on previous OTS grants.
for the particular project and its local area. Legal challenges to these types of
fees have resulted in the requirement to illustrate a clear nexus between the
particular project and the mandated improvement and cost.
7.3.2
New Construction
Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing on
street bicycle facilities. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide
bike lanes where needed, it is important that the review process includes input
pertaining to consistency with the proposed system. In addition, California’s
2008 Complete Streets Act and Caltrans’s Deputy Directive 64 require that the
needs of all roadway users be considered during “all phases of state highway
projects, from planning to construction to maintenance and repair.”
More info: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets.html
7.3.3
Restoration
The California application deadline is January of each year. There is no
Cable TV and telephone companies sometimes need new cable routes within
maximum cap to the amount requested, but all items in the proposal must be
public rights of way. Recently, this has most commonly occurred during
justified to meet the objectives of the proposal.
expansion of fiber optic networks. Since these projects require a significant
amount of advance planning and disruption of curb lanes, it may be possible to
More info: http://www.ots.ca.gov/
7.3
7.3.1
Regional & Local Sources
Developer Impact Fees
request reimbursement for affected bicycle facilities to mitigate construction
impacts. In cases where cable routes cross undeveloped areas, it may be
possible to provide for new bikeway facilities following completion of the cable
trenching, such as sharing the use of maintenance roads.
As a condition for development approval, municipalities can require
developers to provide certain infrastructure improvements, which can include
bikeway projects. These projects have commonly provided Class 2 facilities for
portions of on street, previously planned routes. They can also be used to
provide bicycle parking or shower and locker facilities. The type of facility that
should be required to be built by developers should reflect the greatest need
Funding
7.4 Private Sources
Private funding sources can be acquired by applying through the advocacy
groups such as the League of American Bicyclists and the Bikes Belong
Coalition. Most of the private funding comes from foundations wanting to
enhance and improve bicycle facilities and advocacy. Grant applications will
typically be through the advocacy groups as they leverage funding from
federal, state and private sources. Below are several examples of private
7.4.2
Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc.
The Bank of America Charitable Foundation is one of the largest in the nation.
The primary grants program is called Neighborhood Excellence, which seeks to
identify critical issues in local communities. Another program that applies to
greenways is the Community Development Programs, and specifically the
Program Related Investments. This program targets low and moderate income
communities and serves to encourage entrepreneurial business development.
funding opportunities available.
More info: http://www.bankofamerica.com/foundation
7.4.1
Bikes Belong Grant Program
7.4.3
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The Bikes Belong Coalition of bicycle suppliers and retailers has awarded $1.2
million and leveraged an additional $470 million since its inception in 1999.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was established as a national
The program funds corridor improvements, mountain bike trails, BMX parks,
philanthropy in 1972 and today it is the largest U.S. foundation devoted to
trails, and park access. It is funded by the Bikes Belong Employee Pro Purchase
improving the health and health care of all Americans. Grant making is
Program.
concentrated in four areas:
More info: http://www.bikesbelong.org/grants/

To assure that all Americans have access to basic health care at a
reasonable cost

To improve care and support for people with chronic health
conditions

To promote healthy communities and lifestyles

To reduce the personal, social and economic harm caused by
substance abuse: tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs
More info: http://www.rwjf.org/applications/
Funding
7.4.5 Community Action for a Renewed Environment
(CARE)
7.5
Other Sources
Local sales taxes, fees and permits may be implemented as new funding
CARE is a competitive grant program that offers an innovative way for a
sources for bicycle projects. However, any of these potential sources would
community to organize and take action to re-duce toxic pollution in its local
require a local election. Volunteer programs may be developed to substantially
environment. Through CARE, a community creates a partnership that
reduce the cost of implementing some routes, particularly multi use paths. For
implements solutions to reduce releases of toxic pollutants and minimize
example, a local college design class may use such a multi-use route as a
people’s exposure to them. By providing financial and technical assistance, EPA
student project, working with a local landscape architectural or engineering
helps CARE communities get on the path to a renewed environment.
firm. Work parties could be formed to help clear the right of way for the route.
Transportation and “smart-growth” types of projects are eligible. Grants range
A local construction company may donate or discount services beyond what
between $90,000 and $275,000.
the volunteers can do. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be
More information: http://www.epa.gov/care/
a good source of local funding, in which the businesses can “adopt” a route or
segment of one to help construct and maintain it.
7.4.6
Corporate Donations
Corporate donations are often received in the form of liquid investments (i.e.
cash, stock, bonds) and in the form of land. Employers recognize that creating
places to bike and walk is one way to build community and attract a quality
work force. Bicycling and outdoor recreation businesses often support local
projects and programs. Municipalities typically create funds to facilitate and
simplify a transaction from a corporation’s donation to the given municipality.
Donations are mainly received when a widely supported capital improvement
program is implemented. Such donations can improve capital budgets and/or
projects.
Funding

Calaveras County Regional Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to

Transcription

Similar documents

Super Bowl 50 Pedestrian Map and Bike Detours

Camp Gilmont

Erin Mills Port Credit

2_Bike Ped Presentation_Nov-10

1444232486Nuechter_Olson - 12735 Cece Ln., Nathrop

Bicycle Culture by Design

property overview 6.49± acres on us hwy. 278 bluffton

PDF

McAleer`s Office Furniture

Did You Know ? - Eagleson Funeral Home