November 20, 2002

3. Please incorporate the Planning Emphasis Areas listed on pages 15 and 16 into the applicable work elements of the Shasta OWP.

RESPONSE: The following list is a table of Tasks that are included in the OWP to address the Planning Emphasis Areas (PEA). Each Element purpose description was modified to clearly indicate that the PEA is being taken into consideration in the plan.

1. Safety and Security in the Transportation Planning Process:

a. Addressed in task 702.11, “Traffic and Safety Management Training Conference.”

b. Addressed in task 702.01, “Evaluate safety performance.”

c. Addressed in task 702.09, “Safety Management of the road network with officials.”

d. Addressed in task 703.01, “Review of system performance indicators.”

e. Addressed in task 704.03, “Bikeway safety review programs.”

2. Integrated Planning and Environmental Process:

a. Addressed in task 706.04, “Monitor project development.”

3. Consideration of Management and Operations within the Planning process:

a. Addressed in task 706.06, “Technical Training.”

b. Addressed in task 707.12, “RTPA & Agency Audits.” Performance audits for the Agency and RABA are a task in this OWP; this effort provides a focused review of Management and Operations.

c. Addressed in task 710.01, “Monitor Transportation Metrics/ITS…Review and documentation of performance measures.”

d. Addressed in task 701.02, “Development of a constrained financial element.”

4. Consultation with local officials and Tribal Governments:

a. Addressed in task 709.03, “…emphasis to search out all interested stakeholders, including Native Americans.”

5. Enhancing the Technical Capacity of Planning Process:

a. Addressed in task 701.09, “Training on Traffic Modeling.”

b. Addressed in task 702.10, “Traffic and Safety Management Training.”

c. Addressed in task 703.03, “Attend workshops/ conferences/training sessions.”

d. Addressed in task 706.06, “Technical RTIP/STIP/FTIP Training.”

e. Addressed in task 707.16, “Technical training for auditing/administration activities.”

4. There are two Federally recognized Tribal Governments within the SCRTPA, the Pit River Tribal Council and Redding Rancheria. SCRTPA clearly has increased its intergovernmental efforts, regarding Interagency coordination with Tribes, with the region’s transportation planning process. In work element 709.00 SCRTPA cites 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 450.316, which requires a proactive public involvement process, when the appropriate citation is 23 CFR 450.312(i). The primary difference between the two CFRs is that consultation with tribal governments is a Federally-defined policy that outlines the conduct of business with Tribal Governments, and pubic participation relates to inviting the public to participate in transportation planning decisions. Attachment A provides further aid in defining the difference between consultation and public participation.

RESPONSE: Thank you for the clarification of “consultation” used within the Draft OWP. We have edited the document to better define this important term. We have corrected the citation to 23 CFR 450.312(i). We have added, “consult with Tribal Governments” to the list of products we intend to complete on page 36. We have also provided you with a “draft” policy to consult with Tribal Governments. We would appreciate your comments on this draft, and plan to adopt this policy later this year.

5. Please note that lobbying is not an eligible activity or expenditure for State and Federal Planning (PL) funds.

RESPONSE: We have added this language to the OWP Discussion on page 19, OWP content.

6. Work element 702. Many of the tasks appear to be traffic operations; only those activities that support the RTP are eligible for reimbursement. Please identify the tasks in this work element that specifically support the development of the RTP.

RESPONSE: In order to complete the RTP in a cooperative, consistent and comprehensive manner, we depend upon our Agency partners (known as sub-recipients in this context) to provide key data sets and keep the staff of the Agency informed of the performance of the network. We feel strongly that the SCRTPA sub-recipient process funds tasks in support of the RTP and other important core planning functions. In our OWP process, we allocate a portion of the PL Funding based upon our policy 5-1, “Policy to Prioritize the Distribution of Federal Planning Funds” (see attached).

The following, by task discussion, is intended to demonstrate what is being delivered in support of the planning function and

RTP development at the Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency:

1. 702.01, “Road and accident surveillance…etc.” This work is in support of the RTP Streets and Highway (S&H) Objective O-2, “Identify anticipated street and road problems before they become critical, in order to program preventive measures.” This task is also consistent with S&H Objective O-5, “Develop safe, sustainable street and highway systems that can be maintained within the projected available funding and will meet automotive, truck and transit needs.” This task is also consistent with S&H RTP Policy P-4, “Continue to provide funding for implementation of a road system to identify existing and projected levels of deterioration, and to determine present and future road repair and maintenance needs.” S&H Policy P-8, “Develop plans and programs which emphasize reconstruction and improvement projects on existing roads that will enhance safety, circulation and traffic flow,” is also addressed in this task.

2. 702.02, “Traffic volumes study.” This work supports the RTP (S&H) O-2 (defined above). In addition, the data is used as checks for inputs to HPMS studies, and ongoing calibration/validation of the Traffic Model. RTP (S&H) P-1, “Use the SCRTPA Traffic Model as a tool to monitor circulation and determine improvement needs on key road segments” and RTP (S&H) P-8, “Develop plans and programs which emphasize reconstruction and improvement projects on
existing roads that will enhance safety, circulation and traffic flow,” are both supported with this task.

3. 702.03, “Inventory and Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices.” Defective and improper controls are identified in this task for the region. The database is used to schedule maintenance efficiently and effectively. This activity is in support of the RTP Short Range Objective (S&H) O-1, “Develop cost effective methods to maintain the existing road network.” This task is also consistent with S&H Objective O-5, “Develop safe, sustainable street and highway systems that can be maintained within the projected available funding, and will meet automotive, truck and transit needs.” S&H Policy P-8, “Develop plans and programs which emphasize reconstruction and improvement projects on existing roads that will enhance safety, circulation and traffic flow” is also addressed in this task.

4. 702.04, “Vehicle speed zone studies.” The output of this data is used to verify traffic model projections, which support the RTP performance measures and project prioritization processes. Objectives O-1 and O-5 utilize this information to develop the RTP.

5. 702.05, “Develop Annual HPMS Inputs.” MPO’s are required to provide this data.

6. 702.06, “Traffic Model Calibration.” The model needs to be continuously updated with network changes, software changes, etc. This task supports the RTP and Air Quality analysis in support of Federal and State Clean Air Act transportation related air quality planning activities.

7. 702.08, “Deficiency and Needs Study.” The increased trips on local streets are documented and monitored in this task to identify increases and develop alternatives. The data provides a local streets perspective to the regional analysis and allows for early identification of deficiencies in order to begin planning studies. This work is consistent with S&H O-1, O-2, and Policy P-7, “Conduct special studies for selected road segments and key locations, as needed, to evaluate project alternatives, estimate costs, and assign priorities.”

8. 702.09, “Safety Management of the Road Networks with Officials.” This task’s funding provides for a weekly meeting with Redding Police Traffic Unit, CHP, Caltrans and others on accident and traffic problems. This request supports RTP S&H O-2, RTP (Goods and Movements) O-3, “Minimize conflicts between trucks and other vehicles,” and RTP S&H O-5 “Develop safe, sustainable street and highway systems that can be maintained within the projected available funding and will meet automobile, truck and transit needs.”

9. 702.10, “Traffic and Safety Management Training and Conferences.” Not only is this consistent with PEA # 1, it also supports RTP S&H O-2 and O-5.

7. Work element 702.09. Please provide a brief description as to what “Safety management of the road network officials” encompasses.

RESPONSE: See Item 8 above

8. Work element 702.11. The use of PL funds to purchase vehicles is not an appropriate use of those funds.

RESPONSE: We respectfully disagree. The surveillance trailer is considered to be an ITS tool. It will be used for inter-modal reviews and appears to be cost effective as it operates without constant staff involvement. This device is solar powered and trailer mounted; it can do 24-hour assessments of traffic conditions/congestion. This in turn will provide key data in support of safe and cost-effective network planning. It is consistent with RTP S&H O-1 and O-5.

The dedicated traffic vehicle is also in support of full-time data collection on the greater than 1200 miles of road network that the County is responsible for. The provisioning of this vehicle to the County Traffic Department would save costs in data acquisition. This “probe” is needed to support HPMS, accident field investigations, sign speeds and curve warnings on the network. It will be fully dedicated to the Traffic Department and will be provisioned with specialty equipment such as “Electronic Ball Banking.” It, therefore, supports RTP S&H O-1 and O-5.

9. Work element 703. Many of the tasks appear to be transit system management related and may not be planning related. Please include a brief description of the tasks that support development of the RTP and / or short and long-range transit plans to ensure the uses are consistent with the FTA 5303 program.

RESPONSE:

1. 703.01, “Conduct ridership data collection, review system performance indicators.” This task is consistent with the RTP Transit Short Range Objective O-2, “Obtain maximum transit and paratransit system efficiency by continuously monitoring transit needs, performance, funding and capital requirements.” The RTP Transit Policy P-2, “Monitor the farebox ratio for transit operations,” is also supported.

2. 703.02, “Conduct Development Plans to ensure on-site internal circulation for buses where appropriate.” This data is key to planning public transit access to new development. It is consistent with RTP Transit Objective O-2 and RTP S&H O-5. RTP Transit Policy P-7, “Continuously monitor and evaluate transit needs and allocate funding to extend transit service to areas where unmet needs have been identified that are reasonable to meet” and Transit Policy

P-1, “Periodically review and update transit development plans” are supported with this task’s deliverables.

3. 703.03, “Attend workshops/conference/training.” This effort ties directly to PEA # 5, “Development of Staff.”

4. 703.04, “Attend RTPA workshops, TAC meetings, Board meetings.” The subject matter experts closest to the operations need to be involved in our planning activities in order to review and comment on RTPA-generated items.

5. 703.05, “Submit reports and grant applications as required for federal funding.” This task is consistent with RTP Transit Policy P-3, “Provide adequate funding to maintain the existing transit fleet, and for fleet expansions as necessary, consistent with TDA regulations,” P-12, “Consider all available sources of funding as sources for meeting transit for both capital and operation needs,” as well as P-13, “Seek funding programs for rural transit providers as provided for in the guidelines for AB 437.” RTP Financial Element O-2, “Obtain funding to expand non- motorized transportation opportunities” and Financial Element O-4, “Identify a stable long-term source of funding for construction and maintenance of a multi-modal transportation system” are addressed with this task.

6. 703.06, “Meet with funding sources to develop Phase II of the Inter-modal Passenger Transfer Facility.” This task supports the RTP objectives mentioned in #5 above. It is funded as a task to provide information regarding opportunities to construct a facility to allow relocation of other transportation providers such as Greyhound and Amtrak Rail Service. It will produce data needed for generation of a proposal for funding of development. It further supports RTP Passenger Rail O-2 to “Maintain feeder bus service to connect with rail service.”

10. Work element 703.06. Please provide a description of the work defined as “obtain funding for development of Phase II of the Inter Modal Passenger Transfer Facility” and clarify what planning activities will be accomplished with this task.

Response: See #6 above; this task is consistent with the development of the RTP.

11. Work element 704. Many of the tasks appear to be project implementation and not planning related. Only those tasks that specifically support the RTP or Bike Plan development are eligible uses of PL funds.

Response:

1. 704.01, the intent of this task is to monitor implementation of non-motorized elements of the RTP. This task is in support of RTP Non-Motorized Policy P-1, “Encourage each City and the County to maintain an updated bikeway plan.”

2. 704.02, “Non-Motorized/TEA project evaluations.” This comports with RTP Financial Element O-2, “Obtain funding to expand non-motorized transportation opportunities.” RTP Non-Motorized Policies P-11, “Use the TEA funds available within Shasta County for development of non-motorized projects,” and P-6, “Encourage the inclusion of bike lanes and pedestrian facilities in road construction and improvement projects where appropriate.” This task is also consistent with the RTP Non-motorized Objective O-2, “Integrate non-motorized transportation into development throughout the region.”

3. 704.03, “Continue sidewalk and bikeway safety review program.” This task is in support of PEA # 1, and supports RTP Non-Motorized O-1, “Strive to eliminate barriers to bicycle/pedestrian traffic,” and O-3, “Keep bicycle/ pedestrian lanes in a usable condition through a continued maintenance program.”

4. 704.04, “Member Agencies Bikeway and Non-Motorized Development Plan.” This task specifically supports a Bike Plan for both the City of Redding and City of Anderson. The task is consistent with RTP non-motorized Policy P-1.

12. Work element 705.00 Aviation. The aviation issues are adequately addressed in this element of the OWP. We would like to address some particular areas of concern to the California Aviation System. The number one threat to airports is incompatible land uses near airports. The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is a compatibility-planning guide that is available on the Internet at http://www.dot.ca.gov/aeronatuics/htmlfile/forms.html for SCRTPA’s reference.

The Division has recently closed the fourth publicly accessible airport indefinitely due to inadequate maintenance of safety areas. However, the other three airports are maintained to an acceptable safety level. Staff is aware of and supports Shasta County’s current activity of performing an environmental impact report (EIR) for the future runway expansion to extend the safety approaches at the county owned Fall River Mills Airport. Also, the Aeronautic Division’s technical, planning and safety staff is involved with reviewing the Airport Master Plan updates for the Redding City owned Redding Municipal Airport and Benton Airport.

With respect to Redding Municipal Airport improvements, Government Code 65081.1 requires RTPAs with Commercial Service-Primary airports within the planning area to “include an airport ground access improvement program.” Shasta County long-range plans should consider ground access to and from the facility. The plan should address mass transit for airport access improvement projects in the program.

Long Range planning should identify the County’s aviation related priority issues (e.g. Economic Benefits of Airports, Incompatible Land Use and Safety, which are three Division of Aeronautics priority issues) regarding the publicly accessible airports.

Economic Benefits of Airports

Airports support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency and by enhancing the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes for people and freight. The OWP addresses the “airfreight potential at the Redding Municipal Airport,” and also addresses the plans to develop compatible industrial land use around the airport, which is a statewide priority to preserve and enhance publicly accessible airports.

Staff supports SCRTPA’s continued goals to ensure long-range ground access to preserve the planned enhancements that will optimize the vitality of Redding Municipal Airport improvement projects. These mutually inclusive activities also promote the goal to increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight.

Preserving safety approaches to publicly accessible airports is of a statewide importance. The SCRTPA should encourage the City of Redding to review general plan changes for consistency with improvements identified in the airport master plans, and to support development of the airport master plan goals to provide policies to avoid intrusions into the airport airspace (e.g. the growth of trees, road development, and location of structures near the airport).

The potential economic benefit of rural airports is a statewide issue of importance, and should be preserved and developed at the county airports. The Division of Aeronautics is completing an economic study called Aviation in California – Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life. The Division web site provides ongoing updates and will include the final report by this summer for public consumption. The information is located at the following site:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/impact.html

RESPONSE: The Aviation element has been revised to incorporate the above information where appropriate.

13. Work element 707. Since the Community, Regional and Commercial Service/Primary airports serving the Shasta County community (i.e. Benton, Fall River Mills and Redding Airports, respectively) provide access to medical and emergency services, including airlifts to medical centers for the more remote and aging communities, it is suggested that consideration be given to current access and potential for access to medical care in the Comprehensive Access Plan.

RESPONSE: Current access and potential access will be considered in the next ACIP cycle.

14. Work element 707.05. Please provide information on the type of planning work being undertaken with this task.

RESPONSE: This TDA supported function is using funds classified as “Administrative” dollars. The task accounts for a review of RABA budgets, staff reports, and metrics on system performance.

15. If Shasta has Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects in the region it is required that a regional ITS

Architecture be developed by April 8, 2005. Please provide information on the progress to date for regional ITS Architecture plan development.

RESPONSE: ITS is an important component of the RTP. The lessons being learned are that the problems are complex, and that there is never one solution to a complex problem. Discussion and applied applications for Shasta County were largely controlled by the Rural COATS Project (California-Oregon Advanced Transportation System).

The general goal of the COATS project is to develop a regional strategic plan that "improves rural traveler safety, convenience and mobility."

A Strategic Deployment Plan (SDP) has been made available to the project stakeholders, this document is the regional ITS architecture plan. The COATS group meets quarterly to discuss and prioritize needed projects for the region.

16. Work Element 709, Purpose. a) It is suggested that the term “public involvement program” be changed to “public participation” so the term is consistent through out the work element. b) It is also suggested that a brief statement be provided explaining the continuous public participation consistency with TEA 21, and special efforts that the RTPA undertakes to reach and engage the community, including minority, low-income, and community based organizations, beyond public hearings and workshops. The last suggestion for this section is to provide a brief description of how concerns and ideas from traditional and non-traditional stakeholders, such as the Pit River Tribal Council and Redding Rancheria Tribal Government, will be integrated into plans, policies, and projects.

RESPONSE: We would prefer instead to change the term from “Public Participation” to “Public Involvement” to be consistent with our standard practice. The suggested additional language could be developed but we would prefer to work our “Public Involvement Procedures for Transportation Planning” which also details these sub tasks. The suggestion for integration of concerns and ideas from Tribal Governments is a good one, our position is that we need to present and gain approval by the Board of our draft policy before we integrate. Next years OWP would be more appropriate for this comment.

17. Work Element 709, Tasks. a) Shasta RTPA may wish to add a task to place articles in nonprofit newsletters, send fliers home with school children, direct mailings to target groups, local radio and newspaper announcements, and make announcements at community centers and churches regarding public meetings and events sponsored by the RTPA. b) Shasta RTPA may want to consider adding a task to conduct outreach to non-English speaking, disabled, or transit dependent groups.

RESPONSE: Our standard practice details these strategies. We would consider being more detailed in the future if required.

Very truly yours,

Daniel J. Kovacich, Executive Officer

Shasta County Regional Transportation

Planning Agency (MPO)

DJK/TLH/jac

RESPONSE: The suggested language has been added to the final.

RESPONSE: The date has been changed from December to September.

Economic Benefits of Airports

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/impact.html

RESPONSE: Current access and potential access will be considered in the next ACIP cycle.