Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
Caltrans rejected roundabout alternative two in the Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement project, a plan with three lanes, sidewalks and seasonal on-street parking.
In a letter addressed to Placer County Supervisor Bruce Kranz, Caltrans officials said of the four alternatives they favored alternative three, which features four-lanes and traffic lights for Kings Beach's impending face lift.
The letter was sent Oct. 2 in response to a telephone conversation between Supervisor Kranz and Caltrans District Director Jody Jones.
"My letter to Supervisor Kranz was in response to his request asking for Caltrans' technical opinion about the traffic impacts of the alternatives," Jones said. "I am coming at this strictly from a traffic perspective."
The three-lane alternative would create traffic congestion coming through downtown Kings Beach on Highway 28, Jones said.
The gridlock would encourage drivers to find other ways to travel through the town's backstreets, which are frequented by pedestrians, she added.
"The situation is just exacerbated when you have parking," Jones said.
Even though alternative two plans no on-street parking during the peak summer months, Jones said she was doubtful the county would be able to enforce such a rule.
"I don't think that parking is a problem only in the summertime," Jones said, noting peak holiday ski weekends. "It isn't as simple as saying we can block off the parking in the summer and then let people park there in the winter. That's why it's a problem."
Caltrans said it preferred the four-lane alternative because it "minimizes congestion and delays during peak periods and improves pedestrian safety," according to the letter.
Caltrans is willing to accept alternative four, which also offers roundabouts, two travel lanes and a center turning lane, because it does not feature on-highway parking.
The roundabouts and three lanes in alternative four, however, are barely acceptable when it comes to their impacts on traffic congestion, Jones said.
"These impacts, including substantial traffic delays during peak periods and increased 'cut through' traffic on the residential streets, will ultimately be the county's responsibility to address," Jones wrote.
Caltrans still has not finished reviewing 750-pages of public response it received from the county's department of Public Works July 31. Jones said she expected the review to be complete by mid-November.
Supervisor Kranz said he spoke with Caltrans for insight on where the state agency stood with respect to the project.
"Our public works people wanted to get some information from Caltrans so that they could finish off their proposal," Kranz said. "This thing's taken forever and we need to have some information on it."
Public Works Director Ken Grehm said he will be looking into the reasoning behind Caltrans' decision.
"(The letter) did beg a couple of questions as to their thought process," Grehm said. "We kind of thought (Alternatives) 2 and 4 were equal as far as traffic impacts."
Caltrans partnered on the core improvement project with lead agency Placer County, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Federal Highway Administration. All four agencies must sign off on the same alternative to approve the project.
Jones said she will not sign off on alternative two.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is still reviewing public comment as well, said agency spokesman Jeff Cowen. He said TRPA had no response to Caltrans' letter.
"We're still reviewing for our issues," Cowen said. "Once we're done with that, we'll coordinate with everybody."
In a letter addressed to Placer County Supervisor Bruce Kranz, Caltrans officials said of the four alternatives they favored alternative three, which features four-lanes and traffic lights for Kings Beach's impending face lift.
The letter was sent Oct. 2 in response to a telephone conversation between Supervisor Kranz and Caltrans District Director Jody Jones.
"My letter to Supervisor Kranz was in response to his request asking for Caltrans' technical opinion about the traffic impacts of the alternatives," Jones said. "I am coming at this strictly from a traffic perspective."
The three-lane alternative would create traffic congestion coming through downtown Kings Beach on Highway 28, Jones said.
The gridlock would encourage drivers to find other ways to travel through the town's backstreets, which are frequented by pedestrians, she added.
"The situation is just exacerbated when you have parking," Jones said.
Even though alternative two plans no on-street parking during the peak summer months, Jones said she was doubtful the county would be able to enforce such a rule.
"I don't think that parking is a problem only in the summertime," Jones said, noting peak holiday ski weekends. "It isn't as simple as saying we can block off the parking in the summer and then let people park there in the winter. That's why it's a problem."
Caltrans said it preferred the four-lane alternative because it "minimizes congestion and delays during peak periods and improves pedestrian safety," according to the letter.
Caltrans is willing to accept alternative four, which also offers roundabouts, two travel lanes and a center turning lane, because it does not feature on-highway parking.
The roundabouts and three lanes in alternative four, however, are barely acceptable when it comes to their impacts on traffic congestion, Jones said.
"These impacts, including substantial traffic delays during peak periods and increased 'cut through' traffic on the residential streets, will ultimately be the county's responsibility to address," Jones wrote.
Caltrans still has not finished reviewing 750-pages of public response it received from the county's department of Public Works July 31. Jones said she expected the review to be complete by mid-November.
Supervisor Kranz said he spoke with Caltrans for insight on where the state agency stood with respect to the project.
"Our public works people wanted to get some information from Caltrans so that they could finish off their proposal," Kranz said. "This thing's taken forever and we need to have some information on it."
Public Works Director Ken Grehm said he will be looking into the reasoning behind Caltrans' decision.
"(The letter) did beg a couple of questions as to their thought process," Grehm said. "We kind of thought (Alternatives) 2 and 4 were equal as far as traffic impacts."
Caltrans partnered on the core improvement project with lead agency Placer County, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Federal Highway Administration. All four agencies must sign off on the same alternative to approve the project.
Jones said she will not sign off on alternative two.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is still reviewing public comment as well, said agency spokesman Jeff Cowen. He said TRPA had no response to Caltrans' letter.
"We're still reviewing for our issues," Cowen said. "Once we're done with that, we'll coordinate with everybody."
