Amador County – The Upcountry Community Council reviewed a report recently on two transportation stakeholder groups.
Gary Reinoehl represents UCC on the two groups and delivered a “Transportation Report” dated March 2011, which said: “Updated maps with the most recent traffic count information were given to the group. The consultant, Amador County Transportation Commission staff and the stakeholders discussed the forecast deficiencies and the roadway classification.”
Reinoehl said stakeholders “are more familiar with the local roads, intersections and roadway conditions and were asked to provide information about roadway classification,” road or intersection deficiencies, “and identifying priority locations for detailed analysis.” They were also asked to look at “assumptions used in the Regional Transportation Plan and consider how these might be updated or reconsidered.”
UCC Chairwoman Lynn Morgan asked UCC members to read the report and “offer Gary what of the RTP assumptions must either change, or whether there are some different ones to consider since these were created many years ago.”
Reinoehl in the report said: “Please be prepared to share information about roadway and/or intersection deficiencies for the arterials and collector roadways.” He said: “Also, please review the assumptions; and consider what should be in the Regional Transportation Plan for current assumptions.”
Reinoehl said the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan assumes population, land use and fuel costs will continue as estimated and the “automobile will continue to be the primary choice for travel by residents,” with “recreation-oriented” travelers remaining major users of county state highways. It also assumes “transportation financing” will “continue to be disproportionate compared to employment and housing causing further increases in inter-regional commuting.”
Regarding the Highway 88 Pine Grove improvement project, led by ACTC, Reinoehl said the “Stakeholders Working Group was provided detailed maps” of two alternatives, including a “southern two way route following the alignment identified in alternate 9,” and the UCC’s “alternative 14,” for which cost projections are “higher than the expected” for the project.
Reinoehl said the Stakeholders “continued to provide local knowledge of areas that could be problems for both of these alternatives.” He said the “next step in the analysis will require information about the local terrain and facilities that might require additional width of right-of-way or additional expense because of existing environmental conditions and facilities.”
He said the “continuing engineering studies necessary for alternatives 1, 3 and 9 cover the same area that is required for the continued consideration of alternative 14.” Reinoehl said “Alternative 14 was not excluded at this point from consideration.”
Alternative 14, proposed by UCC member, would build one-way bypasses in loops north and south of Pine Grove, and preserve the Main Street atmosphere of Pine Grove.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
