CALTRANS district 3

Page 2

STATE ROUTE 191 transportation concept report

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Transportation Concept Report ............................................................................... 4

TCR Purpose………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5

Stakeholder Participation .......................................................................................................... 5

State and Local Responsibility .................................................................................................. 5

Strategic Management and Performance……………………………………………………………………………..5

State Route 191 Corridor Summary .......................................................................................... 6

State Route 191 Segmentation Map ......................................................................................... 7

Key Corridor Issues .................................................................................................................... 8

Economic Drivers and Traffic Generators .................................................................................. 8

System Characteristics, Concept Facility and Corridor Performance……………………………………10

State Route 191 Segment ........................................................................................................ 12

State Route 191 Segment 1 Summary………………………………………………………………………………….13

State Route 191 Segment 2 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………14

CALTRANS district 3

Page 4

ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION CONCEPT REPORT

System Planning is the long-range transportation planning process for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The System Planning process fulfills Caltrans’ statutory responsibility as owner/operator of the State Highway System (SHS) (Gov. Code §65086) by evaluating conditions and proposing enhancements to the SHS. Through System Planning, Caltrans focuses on developing an integrated multimodal transportation system that meets Caltrans’ goals of Safety and Health, Stewardship and Efficiency, Sustainability, Livability and Economy, System Performance and Organizational Excellence.

The System Planning process is primarily composed of four parts: the District System Management and Development Plan (DSMDP), the Transportation Concept Report (TCR), the Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP), and the DSMDP Project List. The district-wide DSMDP is a strategic policy and planning document that focuses on maintaining, operating, managing, and developing the transportation system. The TCR is a planning document that identifies the existing and future route conditions as well as future needs for each route on the SHS. The CSMP is a complex, multi-functional, multi-jurisdictional planning document that identifies future needs within corridors experiencing or expected to experience high levels of congestion. The CSMP serves as a TCR for segments covered by the CSMP. The District System Management Plan (DSMP) Project List is a list of partially programmed, planned and conceptual transportation projects used to recommend projects for funding.

District 3 System Planning continues its efforts to streamline and expedite short-range to long-range project needs by creating focused documents such as:

The District 3 State Highway Bicycle Facility Plan (SHBFP) is a comprehensive plan that identifies a vision and framework for bicycle facility improvements on the SHS in District 3. It provides information regarding bicycling on the SHS along with recommended changes to improve connectivity and convenience.

The Intelligent Transportation Systems and Operations Plan (ITS/Ops Plan) provides critical guidance to optimize the State Highway System within the District by identifying and managing ITS and other operational strategies that yield a high return on investment. The ITS/Ops Plan identifies an inventory of prioritized projects and a process for continuously updating the inventory.

The District 3 Goods Movement Study is a district-wide gap analysis of the district goods movement network, proposing methodologies to identify and prioritize freight projects. Findings and recommendations from this study will inform local, regional, and statewide planning efforts.

District 3 Complete Streets Plan assesses existing conditions and opportunities to identify, and implement complete streets enhancements to be included in transportation improvement projects on the SHS corridors.

These System Planning products are also intended as resources for stakeholders, regional, local and partner agencies, and the public. This TCR includes projects identified in the previously discussed focused documents. For more information and to access all System Planning products, please visit:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/planning/systemplanning.htm.

STATE ROUTE 191 transportation concept report

Page 5

TCR PURPOSE

California’s State Highway System needs long range planning documents to guide the logical development of transportation systems as required by CA Gov. Code §65086 and as necessitated by the public, stakeholders, and system users. The purpose of the TCR is to evaluate current and projected conditions along the route and communicate the vision for the development of each route in each Caltrans District during a 20-year planning horizon. The TCR is developed with the goals of increasing Safety and Health; Stewardship and Efficiency; Sustainability, Livability and Economy; System Performance and Organizational Excellence, and meeting community and environmental needs along the corridor through integrated management of the transportation network, including the highway, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, freight, operational improvements and travel demand management components of the corridor.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

Stakeholder participation was sought during the development of the TCR for State Route 191. Outreach efforts involved internal and external stakeholders, and regional and local agencies. During the initial information resource gathering for the TCR, stakeholders were contacted for initial input related to their particular specializations, and to verify data sources used and data accuracy. As the document was finalized, stakeholders were asked to review the document for comments, edits, and for consistency with the intent of existing plans, policies, and procedures. Written comments were received and incorporated into the final document. The process of including and working closely with stakeholders adds value to the TCR, allows for outside input, provides an opportunity for ideas to be reflected in the document, increases credibility, and helps strengthen public support and trust.

STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Improvements to the SHS are the responsibility of both Caltrans and local agencies. Developments that cumulativly impacts this route and the regional SHS may necessitate that local jurisdictions provide nexus based, proportional fair-share funding for future multi-modal transportation improvements. Developments or local circulation changes that will have significant traffic impacts to the mobility should provide improvements to mitigate those impacts.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE

The Department’s Strategic Management Plan is the road map of Caltrans’ role, expectations, and activities; and includes performance measures to bring about transparency, accountability, sustainability, and innovation. The Plan highlights the Department goals which are: Safety and Health, Stewardship and Efficiency, Sustainability, Livability and Economy, System Performance, and Organizational Excellence.

CALTRANS district 3

Page 6

STATE ROUTE 191 CORRIDOR SUMMARY

State Route (SR) 191, also called “Clark Road,” is a south to north undivided 2-lane highway in Butte County.

SR 191 is 11.39 miles in length, and connects SR 70 (PM 0.0) to its northern terminus at the Pearson Road

intersection in the Town of Paradise, where it then becomes a local road (PM 11.39). The route is divided

into two segments: Segment 1, SR 70 /SR 191 intersection to the Town of Paradise city limits and Segment 2,

Town of Paradise city limits to the Pearson Road intersection. According to Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) approved California Road System (CRS) maps, Segment 1 is a rural minor arterial while Segment 2 is

an urban principal arterial. SR 191 is the main road in the Towns of Paradise and Magalia. Residents depend

on SR 191 to access the City of Oroville to the south, as well as the Cities of Marysville, Yuba City, and

Sacramento further south.

The Town of Paradise is approximately 12 miles east of the City of Chico and 80 miles north of Sacramento.

The Town of Paradise is currently developing a “Southeast Paradise Specific Plan,” which proposes

approximately 200 new homes and some commercial development between SR 191 and south east of the city

limits, which may affect operation and circulation patterns.

District 3 has established concept level of service (LOS) standards for the State Highway System within district

boundaries - LOS D for route segments in rural areas and LOS E for route segments in urban areas. SR 191 will

meet these thresholds over the next 20 years based on currently adopted plans. If new plans allowing growth

and development are adopted that propose more development near the route, such as the “Southeast

Paradise Specific Plan,” then forecasted performance data will need to be reevaluated.

SR 191 is primarily used for local trips within the Town of Paradise and regional trips, rather than for

interregional travel. SR 191 is considered by Caltrans as a route eligible for relinquishment. Currently, there

are no discussions to relinquish SR 191 to the Town of Paradise and the County of Butte, but the option

remains available to these agencies to acquire SR 191 if they wish to own, operate, and maintain the route at

some point in the future.

STATE ROUTE 191 transportation concept report

Page 7

ROUTE SEGMENTATION MAP

CALTRANS district 3

Page 8

KEY CORRIDOR ISSUES

There is currently no formal bicycle facility classification on SR 191, and bicyclists are permitted to use it.

Shoulder widths are generally sufficient for bicyclists; however, in the mountainous portions of SR 191

there is limited right of way, and shoulders are narrow or they are non-existent, which requires bicyclists

and vehicles to share the road. A Class II bike lane on SR 191 is planned between Durham Pentz Rd. and

SR 70.

Incomplete sidewalks are common in downtown Paradise, which will be addressed when the SR 191

widening project is implemented.

Economic Drivers and Traffic Generators

Butte Regional Transit provides transit serviceson SR 191 between Paradise and Oroville. The route

provides a morning and evening trip for commuters from Paradise to Oroville and back.

There are limited rail options in the region. The only operational rail line is the Coast Starlight, operated

by Amtrak, which travels through the City of Chico.

Nearby airports include the Paradise Skypark Airport, Chico Municipal Airport to the west, and Oroville Municipal Airport to the south.

STATE ROUTE 191 transportation concept report

Page 9

CALTRANS district 3

Page 10

SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS, CONCEPT FACILITY, AND CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE

CONCEPT FACILITY, AND CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE

1. 20-Year LOS (No Build)–The LOS that would be expected at 20 years with no improvements. 2. 20-Year Concept LOS-The minimum acceptable LOS over the next 20 years. 3. Facility Type Codes-C = Conventional Highway; E = Expressway; F = Freeway; HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle

lanes; Aux = Auxiliary lanes. 4. Operational Improvements are included in future facilities for all segments. Examples of operational

improvements include Traffic Operations Systems improvements and Auxiliary Lanes. 5. Concept Facility-The future roadway with improvements needed in the next 20 years. If LOS “F”, no further

degradation of service from existing “F” is acceptable, as indicated by delay performance measurement. 6. Ultimate Facility-The future roadway with improvements needed beyond a 20 year timeframe. 7. Peak Directional Split-The percentage of total traffic in the heaviest traveled direction during the peak hour. 8. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)-The average number of vehicles per day in both directions. 9. Volume over Capacity (V/C)-The volume of traffic in the Peak Hour compared to the capacity of the

roadway.

System Characteristics for Two-Lane Highways Level of Service

Note: For Class I highways, LOS is determined by the worse of ATS-based LOS and PTSF-based LOS. From: HCM 6th Edition Exhibit 15-3

Class II Class III

Class I Highways Highways Highways

LOS ATS (mi/h) PTSF (%) PTSF (%) PFFS (%)

A >55 ≤35 ≤40 >91.7

B >50-55 >35-50 >40-55 >83.3-91.7

C >45-50 >50-65 >55-70 >75.0-83.3

D >40-45 >65-80 >70-85 >66.7-75.0

E ≤40 >80 >85 ≤66.7

F Demand exceeds capacity

Seg-ment

County

Existing Facility (BY)* Concept Facility- Build Facility (HY)

Post Miles (Begin/End)

Facility Type

General Purpose

Lanes

Lane Miles

Centerline Miles

Designated Lane

Facility Type

General Purpose

Lanes

Lane Miles

Centerline Miles

1 BUT

0.0/10.08 C 2 20.16 10.08 - C 2 20.16 10.08

2 10.08/11.386 C 2 2.612 1.306 - C 2 2.612 1.306

PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DATA

Seg-ment

County Post Miles

(Begin/End)

Volume Directional Split Volume/Capacity (V/C)

BY No Build

(HY) Build (HY)

BY No Build (HY) Build (HY)

BY No Build

(HY) Build (HY)

1

BUT

0.0/10.08 650 1138 1138 60% 60% 60% 0.26 0.45 0.45

2 10.08/11.386 920 1242 1242 58% 58% 58% 0.36 0.48 0.48

STATE ROUTE 191 transportation concept report

Page 11

Build Facility (HY) Concept Facility Ultimate

Facility- (HY)* Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Level of Service (LOS) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Centerline

Designated Lane

General Purpose Lane/Facility Type (project to achieve LOS-

ultimate concept)

Base Year (BY)

No Build Horizon

Year (HY)

Build (HY)

BY No Build

(HY) Build (HY)

Ultimate Concept

BY No Build

(HY) Build (HY)

- 2C 6,100 10,675 10,675 D E E D 57,213 100,122 100,122

- 2C 9,500 12,825 12,825 E E E D 8,522 11,505 11,505

TRUCK TRAFFIC DATA

VMT

Build (HY) BY No Build (HY) Build (HY)

Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic

(AADTT) (BY)

Total Trucks (% of

AADT) (BY)

5+ Axle AADTT

(BY)

5+ Axle Total

Truck (% of AADT)

(BY)

6,470 11,323 11,323 423 4.50% 103 1.10%

813 1,098 1,098 423 4.50% 103 1.10%

Three service measures are used to determine vehicle LOS depending on the highway class: ATS – Average Travel Speed. Reflects mobility. The highway segment length divided by the average travel time for vehicles to traverse it during the analysis period. PTSF – Percent Time Spent Following. The average percentage of time that vehicles must travel in platoons behind slower vehicles due to the inability to pass. PFFS – Percent of Free-Flow Speed. The ability of vehicles to travel at or near the posted speed limit. Two-Lane Highway Class Types: Class I – Speed and delay due to passing restriction are both important to motorists. LOS is defined by ATS and PTSF. Class II – Travel speed not a significant issue to drivers. LOS is defined by PTSF only. Class III – Passing restrictions and high speeds are not a major concern. Drivers travel at or near the speed limit. LOS is defined by PFFS.

Two other characteristics that have a significant impact on actual operations and driver perceptions of service: Passing Capacity – The ability to pass is limited by the opposing flow rate and distribution of gaps in that flow. Passing Demand – As platooning and PTSF increase in a given direction, the demand for passing maneuvers increases.

LOS A – Motorists experience high operating speeds, little difficulty passing, and platoons of three or more vehicles are rare for Class I highways. Class II highways have a small amount of platooning and speeds are controlled by roadway conditions. For Class III, drivers are able to maintain close to free flow speed (FFS).

LOS B – Passing demand and passing capacity are balanced. Some platooning on Class I and II. Some speed reductions on Class I. Class III it is difficult to maintain FFS, but speed reduction is small.

LOS C – Most vehicles are traveling in platoons. Noticeable drop in speeds for all three Classes.

LOS D – Significant increase in platooning. Passing demand is high for Class I and II. For Class III the drop in FFS speed is significant.

LOS E – Demand is approaching capacity. For Class I and II passing is virtually impossible, PTSF is more than 80%, and there is an extreme drop in FFS. For Class III speed is less than two-thirds of the FFS.

LOS F – Demand flow in one or both directions exceeds the capacity of the segment. Operating conditions are unstable, and heavy congestion exists on all classes of the two-lane highway.

Definitions summarized from- HCM 6th Edition

CALTRANS district 3

Page 12

STATE ROUTE 191 SEGMENT

The following pages includes a map and summary of State Route 191 segment.

Segment summaries provide a segment overview including route designations, traffic analysis data, existing Transportation Management System (TMS) elements, bicycle and pedestrian access, and freight and airport facilities. Information that covers more than three segments is described in the corridor summary. Needed improvement projects for each segment is also discussed and listed in one of three categories—Planned, Programmed, or Conceptual.

A Conceptual improvement or action is a project that is needed to maintain mobility or serve multimodal

users, but is not currently included in a fiscally constrained plan and is not currently programmed.

Conceptual projects are all fiscally unconstrained projects derived from documents such as local and

regional General Plans, and Caltrans System Planning Documents.

A Planned improvement or action is a project in a long-term fiscally constrained plan such as an approved Regional Transportation or Metropolitan Transportation Plan (RTP or MTP), Capital Improvement Plan, or measure.

A Programmed improvement or action is a project listed in a near-term programming document identifying funding amounts by year, such as the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP).

The segment map will provide information on the segment location and locations of improvement projects (planned, programmed, and conceptual). The called-out project identification numbers corresponds to the Project Table under the Segment Summary Information section.

STATE ROUTE 191 transportation concept report

Page 13

Segment 1 (P.M. 0.00/10.08) begins at SR 191/SR70 intersection to Easy Street. It is a 2-lane rural minor arterial, with no plans for expansion. The segment serves Butte College, the region’s community college, and Paradise Skypark Airport, a private airport popular for skydiving.

This segment is currently operating at LOS D, and projected to decline to LOS E by 2035.

The project listed below on Table 2 is currently in construction. Once completed, this project will improve traffic operations for motorists. It will update the roadway to current standards by increasing the curve radii, widening the shoulders to 8 feet, and improve the vertical profile grade. Additionally, the project will improve the clear recovery zone by removing obstacles and flattening slopes close to the travelled way.

State Route 191 Segment 1 Summary

TABLE 1: SR 191 SEGMENT 1 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS

Freeway & Expressway

National Highway System

Strategic Highway Network

Scenic Highway

Interregional Road System

High Emphasis

Focus Route

Federal Functional

Classification

Highway Freight

Network

Truck Designation

Bicycle and Pedestrian Access

No Yes No No No No No Major Arterial No Terminal Access

Highway open-shoulder varies

Segment 1 Map (P.M. 0.00/10.08) SR

191/ SR 70 intersection to Easy Street

TABLE 2: SR 191 SEGMENT 1 Projects

Project #

Strategies (Description) PM Location Lead Agen-

cy Source*

Objective (Purpose)

Total Cost Estimate* (x

$1,000)

Proposed Completion

Year*

Project Cate-gory

1 Realign curves and widen shoulders

BUT 191, 6.8/8.6

Near Paradise from 1.9 miles north of Clear Creek Bridge to Airport Road.

CT 2015 10-year

SHOPP System Man-

agement $30,200 2018 Programmed

CALTRANS district 3

Page 14

State Route 191 Segment 2 Summary

Segment 2 (P.M. 10.08/11.386) begins at the Town of Paradise city limits, where it becomes an urban principal arterial.

This segment operates at LOS E, and projected to remain LOS E by 2035.

There are conceptual projects along this segment, which include a class II Bike Lane and intersection modification at SR 191 and Buschmann Rd intersection between Paradise town limits and Pearson Rd.

TABLE 3: SR 191 SEGMENT 2 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS

Freeway & Expressway

National Highway System

Strategic Highway Network

Scenic Highway

Interregional Road System

High Emphasis

Focus Route

Federal Functional

Classification

Highway Freight

Network

Truck Designation

Bicycle and Pedestrian Access

No Yes No No No No No Major Arterial No Terminal Access

Highway open-shoulder varies

Segment 2 Map (PM 10.08/11.386) Easy Street to Para-

dise Pearson Road

TABLE 4: SR 191 SEGMENT 2 Projects

Project #

Strategies (Description) PM Location Lead Agen-

cy Source*

Objective (Purpose)

Total Cost Estimate* (x

$1,000)

Proposed Completion

Year*

Project Cate-gory

3 Construct Class II Bike Lane

BUT 191, 9.49/11.39

SR 191 in Paradise Town limits to Pearson Rd.

CT 2011 SHBFP Complete

Streets $960 2035 Conceptual

4 Intersection modification BUT 191,

11.14/11.14 SR 191 in Paradise at Buschmann Rd.

CT BCAG 2012 MTP/SCS

System Man-agement

$2,000 2035 Conceptual

STATE ROUTE 191 transportation concept report

Page 15

DISTRICT 3

California Department of Transportation

Prepared by: Sukhi Johal

For questions and concerns about this Transportation Concept Report, please contact:

Caltrans District 3 Division of Planning and Local Assistance Office of System Planning Analysis, Modeling and Forecasting Branch 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901 Email: susan.zanchi@dot.ca.gov

Phone: (530) 741-4199For further Transportation Concept Report information, please visit:

Caltrans District 3 Website:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/planning

(Select System Planning, then Transportation Concept Reports)