HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 05 - Transportation and CirculationChapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
1
CHAPTER 5: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................3
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM............................................................................3
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS AND ROAD SYSTEM ...........................................................................................................3
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS OF ROADWAYS .................................................................5
URBAN ROADWAY CLASSES......................................................................................................................................5
Urban Local Roadways........................................................................................................................................5
Urban Collector Roadways..................................................................................................................................5
Urban Arterial Roadways....................................................................................................................................5
RURAL ROADWAY CLASSES ......................................................................................................................................5
Rural Local Roads ...............................................................................................................................................5
Rural Collector Roads .........................................................................................................................................6
Rural Arterial Roadways .....................................................................................................................................6
REGIONAL HIGHWAYS ...............................................................................................................................................6
FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS .................................................................................................................................6
MAJOR ROADWAYS IN BUTTE COUNTY .....................................................................................................................6
Freeways..............................................................................................................................................................6
Regional Highways..............................................................................................................................................7
Other Significant Roadways.................................................................................................................................7
Accident Summary Information............................................................................................................................8
5.3 PLANNED/ PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.................10
5.4 BCAG TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL.................................................................................13
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) .......................................................................................................................................14
TDF MODEL RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................15
5.5 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES.....................................................21
FIXED ROUTE PUBLIC TRANSIT ...............................................................................................................................21
DEMAND RESPONSIVE TRANSPORTATION ...............................................................................................................22
Paradise Express................................................................................................................................................22
Oroville Express.................................................................................................................................................22
Chico Clipper.....................................................................................................................................................22
Gridley Golden Feather Flyer ...........................................................................................................................22
Social Service Transportation............................................................................................................................22
PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS .......................................................................................................................................23
5.6 EXISTING AND PLANNED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES...............................................23
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ..........................................................................................................................................23
BICYCLE FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................................24
5.7 PASSENGER AND FREIGHT RAIL LANES, FACILITIES AND SERVICES..........................................25
5.8 AIR TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................................................26
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT....................................................................................................................................27
OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT..............................................................................................................................29
PARADISE SKYPARK AIRPORT .................................................................................................................................29
RANCHAERO AIRPORT .............................................................................................................................................30
5.9 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS........................................................30
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
2
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 5-1 MAINTAINED ROAD MILEAGE IN BUTTE COUNTY, 2000..............................................................................3
TABLE 5-2 STATE HIGHWAYS IN BUTTE COUNTY ..........................................................................................................7
TABLE 5-3 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY AREA......................................................................................................................................................7
TABLE 5-4 FATAL AND INJURY COLLISIONS IN BUTTE COUNTY, 1991-2000.................................................................8
TABLE 5-5 FATAL AND INJURY COLLISIONS BY ROAD CLASSIFICATION, 2000.............................................................9
TABLE 5-6 STREETS WITH HIGHEST ACCIDENT RECORDS IN UNINCORPORATED BUTTE COUNTY, 1992 TO 2002.........9
TABLE 5-7 COLLISION FACTORS FOR ACCIDENTS LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED BUTTE COUNTY,...........................10
1992 TO 2002...............................................................................................................................................................10
TABLE 5-8 BUTTE COUNTY REGIONAL PROJECT PRIORITIES .......................................................................................12
TABLE 5-9 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTIONS...............................................................................14
TABLE 5-10 BCAG TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS.............15
TABLE 5-11 BCAG 2025 TRAFFIC MODEL ASSUMED REGIONAL CAPACITY-INCREASING PROJECTS .........................16
TABLE 5-12 BCAG TRAFFIC FORECAST BUTTE COUNTY ROADWAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
(LOS) 2000 & 2025 ...........................................................................................................................................18
TABLE 5-13 CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS 1992 TO 2018 (PROJECTED)...................................................29
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 5-1: EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ........................................................................................................4
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
3
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A community is both defined and constrained by the network of highways, roads, streets,
waterways, and railways that move its residents and goods through and in and out of the area.
This chapter discusses the various elements of Butte County’s transportation network. It draws
from the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by the Butte County Association of
Governments (BCAG.) As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, BCAG updates this
countywide plan every three years.
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Physical Constraints and Road System
The geography of Butte County constrains transportation and circulation. In the flat valley of the
southwestern portion of the county, the circulation system is affected most significantly by the
Feather River. The river bisects the lower portion of the county running south. In the foothills
and mountains of the eastern part of the county, travel is limited to east-west roadways that run
through valleys and canyons. Man-made barriers also constrain automobile traffic. For instance,
the circulation system is affected by the railroad tracks running north-south parallel to the state
highways. Together the river and railroad tracks facilitate north-south travel, though they also
hinder east-west travel in the southern portion of the county.
Butte County has over 2,100 miles of public roadways under the jurisdiction of various
government entities (see Table 5-1). These roadways carry an estimated 1,703 million miles of
travel demand annually, according to the 2000 Caltrans California Motor Vehicle Travel
Forecast.
TABLE 5-1
MAINTAINED ROAD MILEAGE IN BUTTE COUNTY, 2000
Jurisdiction Total Maintained Road Miles
City of Biggs 10.9
City of Chico 181.9
City of Gridley 22.8
City of Oroville 74.0
Town of Paradise 97.7
Total (Cities)387.3
Butte County (Unincorporated)1,359.6
State Forestry & Fire Protection 1.0
State Highway 183.4
State Parks and Recreation 53.8
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 8.0
U.S. Forest Service 152.6
Total 2,145.6
Source: 2000 Caltrans Maintained Mileage & Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Estimates by
Jurisdiction
Figure 5-1 below shows the existing transportation system in Butte County, including roads,
railways, waterways, and airports.
UV32
UV99
UV70
UV191
UV162
UV70
UV162
UV99
UV32
PARADISE
OROVILLE
BIGGS
GRIDLEY
CHICO
UV149
U
P
R
R
U P R R
EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Figure 5-1
Butte County
General Plan
®
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000
Date printed: November 10, 2003
Miles02468101
Chico Municipal Airport
Paradise Airport
Oroville Municipal Airport
Ranchaero Airport
Lake Oroville
F
e
a
t
h
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
R
i
v
e
r
Legend
Chico Municipal Airport
Oroville Municipal Airport
Paradise Airport
Ranchaero Airport
Railroads
Highway
Major Road
Lakes and Rivers
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
5
Functional Classification and Design Standards of Roadways
Butte County’s streets and highways can be described in terms of a hierarchy of roadways
according to their functional classification. The resulting hierarchy of roadways, as well as the
general characteristics of each type, is described below. Two major classifications, urban and
rural streets, are grouped according to the character of service they are expected to provide. It is
necessary to differentiate between urban and rural areas since the services they provide can differ
greatly. Butte County’s road improvement standards for these classes of roads are contained in
Appendix II of the Butte County Improvement Standards, adopted by Board of Supervisors
Resolution 02-104 and all subsequent amendments. Copies of these Improvement Standards are
available from the Department of Public Works and are available on their web site at:
http://www.buttecounty.net/publicworks/improvement_standards/is_index.html.
Urban Roadway Classes
Urban Local Roadways
Urban local roadways are intended to serve adjacent properties only. They carry very little, if
any, through traffic and generally have low volumes. They are normally discontinuous in
alignment to discourage through traffic, although they are occasionally laid out in a grid system.
Speed limits on local roads seldom exceed 25 miles per hour. An example of a local roadway in
an urban environment is the cul-de-sac.
Urban Collector Roadways
Urban collector roadways are intended to collect traffic from local roadways and carry it to roads
higher in the hierarchy of classification. Collector roads also serve adjacent properties. They
generally carry light to moderate traffic volumes at speed limits typically in the range of 35 to 45
miles per hour.
Urban Arterial Roadways
Urban arterial roadways can be further divided into major and minor facilities. They are fed by
local and collector roads and provide intra-city circulation and connection to regional roadways.
Although their primary purpose is to move heavy volumes of traffic, arterial roadways often
provide access to adjacent properties, especially in commercial areas. Speed limits on arterial
roadways typically range from 45 to 55 miles per hour.
Rural Roadway Classes
Rural Local Roads
Rural local roads serve primarily to provide access to adjacent land and provide for travel over
relatively short distances.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
6
Rural Collector Roads
Rural collector roads serve travel that is primarily intra-county rather than of regional or
statewide importance. Travel distances on these roads are usually shorter than on arterial
roadways.
Rural Arterial Roadways
Rural arterial roadways provide for corridor movements having trip lengths and volumes that
indicate substantial statewide or interstate travel. They generally link urban areas of over 50,000
population as well as many areas with 25,000 population or more. They are often regional
highways or freeways as described below.
The following classifications of roadway serve both rural and urban areas by providing travel on
important, high-volume corridors.
Regional Highways
Regional highways are used as primary connections between major traffic generators or as
primary links in state and national highway networks. Such routes often have sections of many
miles through rural environments without traffic control interruptions.
Freeways and Expressways
Freeways and expressways are intended to serve both intra-regional and inter-regional travel.
They provide no access to adjacent properties, but rather are fed traffic from collector and
arterial roadways by access ramps. Freeways provide connections to other regional highways and
are capable of carrying heavy traffic volumes. Speed limits on freeways are usually the highest
allowed by law.
This hierarchy of streets and highways is only a general guide to the classification of roadways
that make up the circulation system. Because streets often serve dual functions, they cannot be
definitively classified. In addition, the width of a roadway does not always correspond directly to
its function in the overall circulation system, though the wider roadways tend to have more
regional function.
Major Roadways in Butte County
Freeways
Butte County has two segments of four-lane limited-access freeway or expressway. One segment
is State Route 70 between 0.4 miles south of SR 162 through Oroville to the junction of SR 149.
The other segment is State Route 99 starting at the SR99/SR149 intersection and continuing
through Chico to one mile north of the Eaton Road interchange. These segments are part of the
north-south travel corridor of State Route 99 and part of State Route 70 as described below.
Because these state routes have only two segments of freeway, the Butte region has one of only
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
7
two standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) in the United States that is not served by an
interstate freeway.
Regional Highways
Six State Highways serve as regional highways in Butte County. These highways, which provide
the primary access through the county, are listed in Table 5-2.
TABLE 5-2
STATE HIGHWAYS IN BUTTE COUNTY
State Highway Description/Function
State Route 99 SR 99 travels north-south, connecting Butte County with Yuba City, Marysville and
Sacramento to the south and Red Bluff to the northwest. It directly serves the
communities of Gridley, Biggs, and Chico.
State Route 70 State Route 70 begins in Sutter County, where it splits from SR 99 south of Yuba
City/Marysville. It serves Oroville and then continues to the northeast into Plumas
County.
State Highway 149 SR 149 connects the Chico area to Oroville. This 4.62 mile highway connects SR 70
north of Oroville with SR 99 south of Chico.
State Highway 191 SR 191 is an access route to the Paradise Ridge area and to Butte College. It begins at
SR 70 approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the junction with SR 149 and continues
north to the Town of Paradise.
State Highway 162 SR 162 provides east/west access for Oroville and the southern part of Butte County.
It runs from the Glenn County line to the foothills east of Oroville, serving the
Oroville Dam recreation area.
State Highway 32 SR 32 is an east-west highway between Orland and Chico. It also runs northeast from
Chico through Forest Ranch toward Lake Almanor.
Other Significant Roadways
A number of arterial and collector roadways in Butte County are regionally significant in that
they serve regional population areas. Most of these are part of the county’s roadway network.
These roadways are described in Table 5-3.
TABLE 5-3
REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AREA
Roadway Description/Function
Hamilton-Nord-Cana
Highway
Two-lane north-south roadway that runs between SR 32 and SR 99 west of Chico.
West Sacramento Avenue East-west roadway running between River Road and SR 32 west of Chico and continuing to
Esplanade within the city. It has two lanes west of SR 32.
Chico River Road Two-lane east-west roadway running between River Road and SR 32 west of Chico.
Ord Ferry Road Two-lane east-west road between the Sacramento River at Ord Bend and Dayton Road.
Durham-Dayton Highway Two-Lane continuation of Ord Ferry Road from Dayton Road to SR 99.
Midway Two-lane road that runs parallel and west of SR99 between SR 162 and the end of Park Avenue
in the south of Chico.
Colusa Highway Two-lane east-west roadway running between the Colusa County line and West Biggs Gridley
Road in the southwest portion of the county.
Cohasset Road Four-lane north-south roadway beginning at SR 99 north of Chico to Eaton Road and two-lane
from Eaton Road running to the Tehama County line.
Esplanade A north-south roadway running from SR 99 in the County area north of Chico and continuing
through Chico to Main Street and Broadway which form three lane components of a north-south
one way couplet in the downtown area.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
8
Skyway An east-west link between south Chico and Paradise and a north-south road from Paradise to
Humboldt Road at Butte Meadows. It has four lanes from Park Avenue to the Town of Paradise,
with the four lanes becoming divided approximately from Honey Run Road to the Paradise
Town limits. It has two lanes elsewhere.
Durham-Pentz Road Two-lane continuation of Durham-Dayton Highway running east-west between SR 99 and
Pentz Road.
Pentz Road Two-lane north-south road running from SR 70 north of Oroville to Skyway north of Paradise.
Cherokee Road Two-lane road running north-south between Table Mountain Boulevard in Oroville and State
Route 70 north of that city.
Forbestown Road Two-lane east-west roadway running between SR 162 east of Oroville and La Porte Road near
the Yuba County Line.
Oroville -Bangor Highway Two-lane road running east-west from Lincoln Boulevard to Miners Ranch Road and north-
south from Miners Ranch Road to La Porte Road in the southeast part of the county.
Lower Wyandotte Road Two-lane road running east-west from Foothill Blvd. to Upper Palermo Road.
Upper Palermo Road and the
Palermo-Honcut Highway
Two-lane roads running generally north-south between SR 162 and Honcut.
La Porte Road Two-lane roadway running in a northeasterly direction from the Yuba County line to the
Plumas County line roughly following the southeast boundary of Butte County.
Palermo Road Two-lane road running east-west from SR 70 to the Palermo-Honcut Highway south of
Oroville.
Table Mountain Boulevard Two-lane roadway running roughly parallel to SR 70 in a northerly direction from Montgomery
Street in Oroville to SR 70 north of SR 149.
East Oroville Dam Boulevard Oroville Dam Blvd. continues to run east of SR 162 at the Olive Highway after which it
becomes East Oroville Dam Blvd. from east of Foothill Blvd. to the Oroville Dam. The
unincorporated County portion runs roughly from Glen Drive easterly to the Oroville Dam
Lumpkin Road Two-lane road running southeasterly from Forbestown Road to the east junction of the
Lumpkin-LaPorte Road near Feather Falls.
Honey Run Road, Centerville
Road, and Nimshew Road
A series of two-lane roads running roughly parallel to and north of Skyway between Chico and
Paradise.
Oroville-Quincy Highway Two-Lane continuation of SR 162 east of Oroville, between Foreman Creek Road and the
Plumas County line.
Larkin Road and Biggs East
Highway
Two-lane roads running between SR 162 in the Thermalito area west of Oroville to SR 99 near
Biggs and Gridley.
East Gridley Road Two-lane road running east-west between SR 99 and SR 70 east of Gridley.
Accident Summary Information
Table 5-4 shows the number of fatal and injury collisions in Butte County from 1991 to 2000.
Over the last decade the number of fatal and injury collisions has declined.
TABLE 5-4
FATAL AND INJURY COLLISIONS IN BUTTE COUNTY, 1991-2000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Fatal collisions 35 32 27 25 30 26 32 44 27 24
Persons killed 36 36 32 27 32 29 41 51 32 27
Injury collisions 1,256 1,179 1,119 1,140 1,193 1,112 1,116 991 908 1,011
Persons injured 1,884 1,794 1,669 1,795 1,796 1,679 1,723 1,603 1,387 1,506
Source: 2000 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Collisions, California Highway Patrol
Table 5-5 shows that in 2000 more fatal accidents occurred on unincorporated roadways than in
the cities, but more accidents involving injuries occurred in the cities than on unincorporated
roadways.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
9
TABLE 5-5
FATAL AND INJURY COLLISIONS BY ROAD CLASSIFICATION, 2000
Biggs Chico Gridley Oroville Paradise Unincorp.
State
Highways
County
Roadways
Total
Unincorp.
Fatal collisions 0 1 1 6 1 7 8 15
Persons killed 0 1 1 6 1 8 10 18
Injury collisions 1 287 29 118 151 138 287 425
Persons injured 1 427 49 165 212 231 421 652
Source: 2000 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Collisions, California Highway Patrol
The roadways in unincorporated Butte County with the highest accident records between 1992
and 2002 are shown in Table 5-6 below.
TABLE 5-6
STREETS WITH HIGHEST ACCIDENT RECORDS
IN UNINCORPORATED BUTTE COUNTY, 1992 TO 2002
Street Number of Accidents
Skyway (Chico city limits to Butte Meadows,-not including Paradise)775
Lincoln Blvd.340
Lower Wyndotte Rd.255
Midway 199
Durham Dayton Hwy.150
East Gridley Rd.123
Dayton Rd.109
Esplanade 93
W. East Ave.68
Myers St.61
Source: Butte County Public Works Department, 2003
Table 5-6 shows that the Skyway has led all other streets in the total number of accidents. The
Skyway, one of the newest roadways in the area, had 763 accidents reported between 1992 and
2002.
Table 5-7 below provides a further breakdown of accident types for the top ten roads in
unincorporated areas of Butte County from 1992 to 2002. The first figure is the total number of
accidents. The Skyway had the most number of fatal accidents and injury accidents. Lincoln
Boulevard was second with 384 total accidents and 164 injury accidents. The exact causes of
these accidents is impossible to determine. However, the Skyway has a high volume of traffic,
mixed with steep grades and numerous residential encroachments along the road, while Lincoln
Boulevard has a reduced maximum speed limit. In 2001, a portion of Lincoln Boulevard was
also reduced from four lanes to two lanes with a continuous left turn lane to calm the number of
speeding vehicles.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
10
TABLE 5-7
COLLISION FACTORS FOR ACCIDENTS LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED BUTTE COUNTY,
1992 TO 2002
Location Total Accidents Fatal Injury Pedestrian
Property
Damage Only
Skyway 775 15 381 9 370
Lincoln Blvd 340 3 146 18 173
Lower Wyndotte Rd..255 3 92 2 158
Midway 199 5 85 2 107
Durham Dayton Hwy.150 5 60 2 83
East Gridley Rd..123 5 49 0 69
Dayton Rd.109 2 51 0 56
Esplanade 93 1 34 0 58
West East Ave.68 2 23 2 41
Myers St.61 0 15 4 42
Source: Butte County Public Works Department , 2003
Other rural roadways with numerous single vehicle accidents include Oroville-Bangor Highway,
Lower Wyandotte Road, Midway, and River Road. As the surrounding suburban populations
increase, these two-lane rural roadways may need improvements to serve traffic moving to and
from the urban areas.
5.3 PLANNED/ PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
The Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) is responsible for preparing and
updating a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) every three years. The RTP identifies the
transportation needs of the Butte County Region, proposes a program of capital and operational
improvements needed within the next 20 years, and recommends a package of revenue increases
to fund the proposed program. The most recent RTP was adopted by BCAG on September 27,
2001.
The RTP is designed to identify the region’s future transportation needs and serve as the
foundation for the preparation of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and
the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The 2001 RTP outlined these goals:
• To provide convenient access to a transportation network that serves both the county and
region for all modes of travel.
• To provide and maintain a safe, efficient, and convenient countywide roadway system that
meets the travel needs of people and goods through and within the region.
• To provide effective, convenient transit with emphasis placed on those sectors of the
population that are most reliant on public transportation.
• To provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods through and into Butte County.
• To promote general and commercial aviation facilities and services that are complementary
to the countywide transportation system.
• To provide a safe, convenient, and efficient non-motorized transportation system that is
part of a balanced overall transportation system.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
11
• To provide an economical short-term solution to the negative impacts of single-occupant
vehicle travel through the use of alternative transportation methods.
• To achieve and maintain air quality that meets federal and state standards.
• To minimize consumption of non-renewable energy sources.
• To facilitate the development of the most efficient and effective transportation system
possible through existing and future land development forms.
• To secure funding of vital transportation needs through all conventional sources.
• To facilitate the use of electronic information transfer services as an alternative to vehicular
trips.
The 2001 RTP contains policies, action statements, and funding recommendations to meet
regional transportation needs over the next twenty years. It identifies $200 million in roadway
projects and prioritizes the funding for these projects. The top long range priority for Butte
County is the State Route 70, Marysville Bypass to the Oroville Freeway, which is a key part of
a plan to construct a continuous four-lane expressway from Chico to Sacramento.
The RTP also identifies fourteen other priority transportation projects. These projects are shown
Table 5-8 below.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
12
TABLE 5-8
BUTTE COUNTY
REGIONAL PROJECT PRIORITIES
Roadway Segment Project
description
2001-2009
estimate
2010-2019
estimate
2020-2025
estimate
Total
Estimate
Agency
SR 70 SR 162 to
Ophir Rd
Widen to 4 lanes
Interchange at
Ophir Rd.
$33,000,000 $33,000,00 BCAG,
Caltrans &
County
SR 70 Oroville to
Marysville
New 4 lanes;
Marysville Bypass
$50,000,000 $25,000,000 $75,000,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
County
SR 99 SR 32 to E.
1st Ave
Aux. lanes SR 32
to E. 1st; widen E.
1st Ave.
$15,000,000 $15,000,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
Chico
SR 99 Cohasset
Rd
Interchange
Construct S on
ramps, restripe,
overcrossing
$1,200,000 $1,200,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
Chico
SR 99 Eaton Rd
interchange
Signalize ramp
intersection
$825,000 $825,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
Chico
SR 99 At Estates
Drive
Signalize
Intersection
$495,000 $495,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
Chico
SR 99 East Ave.
Interchange
Add additional off-
ramp and turn
lanes
$375,000 $375,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
Chico
SR 99 Skyway
and E. Park
Ave
Interchange
Reconstruct SB
ramps with a four
lane overcrossing
$2,850,000 $2,850,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
Chico
SR 99 E 20th St.
Interchange
Add loop off
ramps, widen
overcrossing and
off ramps
$8,100,000 $8,100,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
Chico
SR 99 At Estates
Dr.
Restrict to Right
in/out, const.
Frontage Road to
Southgate
$6,750,000 $6,750,000 BCAG,
Caltrans &
Chico
SR 162 Oroville
Dam Blvd
to Foothill
Blvd
Widen to 4 lanes $7,527,000 $7,527,000 City of
Oroville
Caltrans
SR 191 Buschman
Rd to
Pearson Rd
Add left turn lane $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Town of
Paradise
Caltrans
Skyway
Forest Hwy
171
Inskip to
Butte
Meadows
Reconstruct,
Overlay
$4,000,000 $4,000,000 Butte
County,
FHWA
Skyway Pentz Rd.
to S. Park
Dr.
Widen to 4 lanes
(across Magalia
Dam)
$4,000,000 $3,000,000 $7,000,000 Butte
County,
BCAG
Source: Butte County Regional Transportation Plan, 2001
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
13
5.4 BCAG TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL
BCAG maintains a travel demand forecasting (TDF) traffic model for the Butte County region
that is used to prepare existing and future year peak hour volume and level of service (LOS)
estimates for the county’s regional roadway network. This analysis does not constitute a
standard, only an estimate, and is designed to be used for general planning purposes only. The
most recent BCAG traffic model data forecasts traffic volumes for a 25-year period, from 2000
to 2025.
A traffic model is a computer program that simulates traffic levels and patterns for a specific
geographic area. The program consists of input files that summarize the area’s land uses, street
network, travel characteristics, and other key factors. Using this data, the model performs a series
of calculations to determine the amount of trips generated, where each trip begins and ends, and
the route taken by the trip. The model’s output includes projections of traffic on major roads. The
BCAG TDF model is a valuable tool for the preparation of long-range transportation planning
studies.
To be accurate for projecting traffic volumes in the future, a model must first be calibrated to a
year in which actual land use data and traffic volumes are available and well documented. A
model is accurately calibrated when it replicates the actual traffic counts on the major roads
within certain ranges of error set by Caltrans. 2000 is the latest year for which a comprehensive
set of traffic counts was obtained and corresponds with 2000 Census data.
The ability of a traffic model to replicate traffic counts is known as model validation. For the
model validation, over 200 roadway segments within the county were included as study
locations. Traffic counts at these locations were compared with the base year a.m. peak hour and
p.m. peak hour, and daily model projections to determine the model’s accuracy. In general, the
BCAG TDF model generates results that exceed the validation standards established in the
Travel Forecasting Guidelines (Caltrans, 1992) for daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour
conditions.
The BCAG TDF model is consistent in form and function with the standard traffic forecasting
models used in the transportation planning profession. The model includes a land use/trip
generation module, a gravity-based trip distribution model, and a capacity-restrained equilibrium
traffic assignment process. It utilizes the 2000 version of MINUTP software, which is consistent
with many of the models used by local jurisdictions in California and Caltrans.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
14
Level of Service (LOS)
Establishing roadway level of service (LOS) allows transportation planners to evaluate traffic
operating conditions and provides a basis for comparison of operating conditions. A roadway or
street segment is assigned a LOS grade that corresponds to its quality of traffic operations. A
LOS grade of “A” indicates high quality service; a LOS grade of “F” indicates low quality
service.
Table 5-9 below presents the characteristics associated with each LOS grade. As shown in the
table, LOS “A”, “B” and “C” are considered satisfactory to most motorists, while LOS “D” is
marginally acceptable. LOS “E” and “F” are associated with severe congestion and delay and are
unacceptable to most motorists.
It is common in traffic engineering practice to design, maintain and improve street facilities in
order to maintain level of service “C” or better, except in congested urban areas where this
policy would be uneconomical. The policies of the cities of Chico, Oroville, and Paradise, Butte
County, and Caltrans concur with this, though their evaluation criteria and degrees of “strictness”
vary.
TABLE 5-9
PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTIONS
Level of
Service Traffic Flow Quality
A Describes free-flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the FFS for a give street
class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay
at signalized intersections is minimal.
B Describes reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the FFS for
the street class. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delays
at signalized intersections are not significant.
C Describes stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more
restrictive than those in LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to
lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the FFS for the street class
D Borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay an decreases in
travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or a
combination of these factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of the FFS.
E Characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds 33 percent or less of the FFS. Such operations
are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays or
critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.
F Characterized by flow at extremely low speeds, typically one-third to on-fourth of the FFS. Intersection
congestion is likely at critical signalized location, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
The LOS thresholds used in BCAG’s TDF model were developed based on methodologies
described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The thresholds are based on peak hour traffic
volumes and are detailed in Table 5-10 below.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
15
TABLE 5-10
BCAG TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL
PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS
Facility Type A B C D E F
Minor 2-Lane Highway 0-90 91-200 201-680 681-1410
1411-1740 1741-999999
Major 2-Lane Highway/Expressway 0-120 121-290 291-790 791-1600
1601-2050 2051-999999
4-Lane, Multilane
Highway/Expressway
0-1070 1071-1760 1761-2530 2531-3280 3281-3650 3651-999999
2-Lane Arterial -- 0-970 971-1760
1761-1870 1871-999999
4-Lane Arterial, Undivided -- 0-1750
1751-2740 2741-2890 2891-999999
4-Lane Arterial, Divided -- 0-1920
1921-3540 3541-3740 3741-999999
6-Lane Arterial, Divided -- 0-2710
2711-5320 5321-5600 5601-999999
3-Lane Arterial, One way roadway -- 0-1310
1311-2060 2061-2170 2171-999999
2-Lane Freeway
0-1110 1111-2010 2011-2880 2881-3570 3571-4010 4011-999999
2-Lane Freeway + Auxiliary Lane
0-1410 1411-2550 2551-3640 3641-4490 4491-5035 5036-999999
3-Lane Freeway
0-1700 1701-3080 3081-4400 4401-5410 5411-6060 6061-999999
3-Lane Freeway + Auxiliary Lane
0-2010 2011-3640 3641-5180 5181-6350 6351-7100 7101-999999
4-Lane Freeway
0-2320 2321-4200 4201-5950 5951-7280 7281-8140 8141-999999
Major 2-Lane Collector --0-550 551-1180 1181-1520
1521-999999
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
TDF Model Results
Capacity-increasing roadway projects that the 2025 traffic model assumes will be constructed by
2025 are identified in Table 5-11 below. These projects have been included in the 2025 BCAG
TDF model roadway network.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
16
TABLE 5-11
BCAG 2025 TRAFFIC MODEL
ASSUMED REGIONAL CAPACITY-INCREASING PROJECTS
Roadway Segment Project Description
Bruce Rd Skyway to SR 32 Widen to Four Lanes
Bruce Rd SR 32 to California Park Dr Widen to Four Lanes
Bushmann Rd Foster Rd. to Skyway Extension, 2 Lanes
Clark Rd Wagstaff to Skyway Widen to Four Lanes
Cohasset Rd Sycamore Creek to Boeing Ave Widen to Four Lanes
Eaton Rd SR 32 to SR 99 Construct 2-lane Expressway
East Ave SR 32 to Esplanade Widen to Four Lanes
East Ave Ceanothus Ave to Manzanita/Eaton/East Intersection Widen to Four Lanes
Eaton Rd Hicks Ln to Cohasset Rd Widen to Four Lanes
Eaton Rd Wildwood Dr to Cohasset Rd Widen to Four Lanes
Esplanade Aspen Glen Subdivision to Eaton Rd Widen to Four Lanes
Floral Ave Eaton Rd to East Ave Widen to Four Lanes
Forest Ave Humboldt Rd to SR 32 Widen to Four Lanes
Manzanita Ave East Eaton/Manzanita IC to California Park Dr Widen to Four Lanes
Notre Dame Blvd Humboldt Rd to 20th St Extension, 2 Lanes
Silver Dollar Wy Whitman Ave to Fair St Construct new 2-lane Roadway
Skyway Bille Rd to Pentz Rd Widen to Four Lanes
Skyway Pentz Rd to South Park Dr Widen to Four Lanes
Speedway Existing to Entler Ave.Extension, 2 Lanes
SR 149 SR 99 to SR 70 Widen to Four Lanes
SR 162 Oro-Dam Blvd to Foothill Blvd.Widen to Four Lanes
SR 70 SR 162 to Ophir Rd Widen to Four Lane Expressway
SR 70 Ophir Rd to Marysville Widen to Four Lane Expressway
SR 99 At E. Park Ave/Skyway Interchange Widen Overcrossing to Four Lanes
Table Mountain Blvd Montgomery Ave. to Grand Ave Widen to Four Lanes
Source: BCAG, 2003
Table 5-12 below was developed based on output from BCAG’s TDF model. The table identifies
estimated base year (2000) and projected (2025) peak hour traffic volumes on local roads of
regional significance that connect population centers with industrial, commercial, recreational
and other important uses. Level of Service (LOS) is then used to express the traffic flow
conditions of a road segment in relation to the capacity of the roadway. Please note that for the
purposes of this analysis, LOS “A”, “B”, or “C” were not differentiated, but rather were grouped
into a single category, LOS “C”. This category can be interpreted as representing LOS “C” or
better.
As Table 5-12 shows, four regional roadway segments, State Route 162 from Olive Highway to
Lower Wyandotte Road and from Lower Wyandotte Road to Foothill Boulevard in the City of
Oroville, Skyway from SR 99 to Notre Dame Blvd in the city of Chico, and Skyway from Bille
Road to Wagstaff Road in the town of Paradise, are operating with a peak hour volume beyond
capacity (LOS of “F”). A number of other segments of both state routes and important County
roadways are operating with volumes in the LOS “D” and “E” range.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
17
Determining where deficiencies will occur in the future is helpful in determining priorities for
highway funding and for allocating limited monies to the most important projects. Table 5-12
shows that many road segments are expected to stay or to become deficient in LOS by 2025.
This analysis includes the increased roadway capacity shown in Table 5-11. The following
roadway segments are projected to have an LOS of “F” in 2025:
• SR 32 - W. Sacramento Ave. to W. 1st St. - Chico
• SR 70 - SR 149 to SR 191 - Unincorporated
• SR 99 - Durham - Pentz Rd to Skyway - Unincorporated
• SR 99 - Eaton Rd. to Keefer Rd. - Unincorporated
• SR 162 - Larkin Rd. to SR 70 - Oroville
• SR 162 - SR 70 to Feather River Blvd. - Oroville
• SR 162 - Feather River Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd. - Oroville
• SR 162 - Lincoln Blvd. to Olive Hwy. - Oroville
• SR 191 - Durham-Pentz Rd. to Airport Rd. - Unincorporated
• SR 191 - Airport Rd. to Bushmann Rd. – Unincorporated & Paradise
• SR 191 - Buschmann Rd. to Pearson Rd. - Paradise
• Cohasset Rd. - SR 99 to East Ave. - Chico
• Cohasset Rd. - East Ave. to Lupin Rd. - Chico
• Cohasset Rd. - Lupin Rd. to E. Lassen Ave. - Chico
• East Ave. - Esplanade to SR 99 - Chico
• Esplanade - Garner Lane to Eaton Rd. - Unincorporated
• Esplanade - East Ave. to Cohasset Rd. - Chico
• Skyway - SR 99 to Notre Dame Blvd. - Chico
• Skyway - Notre Dame Blvd. to Bruce Rd. - Chico
• Skyway - Bruce Rd. to Honey Run Rd. – Unincorporated & Chico
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
18
TABLE 5-12
BCAG TRAFFIC FORECAST
BUTTE COUNTY ROADWAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
2000 & 2025
2000 Estimate 2025 Estimate
ROADWAY SEGMENT
Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
Muir Ave. to East Ave.850 C 1,350 D
East Ave. to W. Sacramento Ave.1,000 D 1,250 D
W. Sacramento Ave. to W. 1st St.1,850 E 2,100 F
W. 1st St. W. 5th St.1,900 D 2,150 D
W. 5th St. 8th/9th/Walnut St.1,450 C 1,750 C
8th St. (One way WB),Walnut to Main 1,000 C 1,250 C
9th St. (One way EB), Walnut to Main 950 C 1,200 C
8th St. (WB), Main to SR 99 950 C 1,150 D
9th St. (EB), Main St. to SR 99 1,050 C 1,300 D
SR99 to Forest Ave.1,250 D 1,600 D
Forest Ave. to Humboldt Rd. (Hog Springs)1,050 D 1,550 D
SR 32
Humboldt Rd. (H.S.) to Robert E. Lee Dr. (F.R.)500 C 650 C
Yuba County Line to Lower Honcut Rd.650 C 2,000 C
Lower Honcut Rd. to East Gridley Rd.650 C 2,000 C
East Gridley Rd. to Palermo Rd.800 D 2,200 C
Palermo Rd. to SR 162 1,050 D 2,650 C
SR 162 to Montgomery St.2,000 C 3,600 C
Montgomery St. to Grand Ave.2,500 C 4,400 C
Grand Ave. to SR 149 2,100 C 3,350 C
SR 149 to SR 191 1,050 D 2,150 F
SR 191 to Pentz Rd.500 C 750 C
SR 70
Pentz Rd. to Big Bend Rd. (Concow)500 C 500 C
Sutter County line to Archer Ave.900 D 1,400 D
Archer Ave. to Spruce St. (Gridley)2,300 D 2,650 D
Spruce St. to East Biggs Hwy.1,100 D 1,700 E
East Biggs Hwy. SR 162 (East)1,100 D 1,700 E
SR 162 to (East) to SR 149 1,100 D 1,700 E
SR 149 to Durham - Pentz Rd.2,300 C 3,500 E
Durham - Pentz Rd to Skyway 2,400 C 3,800 F
Skyway to East 20th St.3,500 C 5,150 C
East 20th to SR 32 4,800 C 6,500 D
SR 32 to Cohasset Rd.5,700 C 7,650 E
Cohasset Rd. to East Ave.3,800 C 5,600 C
East Ave. to Eaton Rd.2,300 C 5,500 C
SR 99
Eaton Rd. to Keefer Rd.1,100 C 2,000 F
SR 149 SR 70 to SR 99 1,300 D 2,500 C
Glenn County line to SR 99 (south intersect)100 C 200 C
SR 99 (north intersect) to Larkin Rd.150 C 200 C
Larkin Rd. to SR 70 1,200 D 2,950 F
SR 70 to Feather River Blvd.2,350 D 3,200 F
Feather River Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd.2,300 D 2,950 F
Lincoln Blvd. to Olive Hwy.2,300 D 2,900 F
Olive Hwy. to Lower Wyandotte Rd.2,150 F 2,700 D
Lower Wyandotte Rd. to Foothill Blvd.2,100 F 2,600 D
Foothill Blvd. to Canyon Dr.1,400 D 1,700 E
SR 162
Canyon Dr. to Forbestown Rd.650 C 750 D
SR 70 to Durham-Pentz Rd.800 D 1,650 E
Durham-Pentz Rd. to Airport Rd.900 D 1,900 F
Airport Rd. to Bushmann Rd.1,000 D 2,100 FSR 191
Buschmann Rd. to Pearson Rd.1,200 D 2,500 F
Aguas Frias Rd.Durham-Dayton Rd. to Grainland Ave.100 C 200 C
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
19
2000 Estimate 2025 Estimate
ROADWAY SEGMENT
Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
Grainland Ave. to SR 162 100 C 200 C
Biggs to SR 99 500 C 700 CBiggs East Hwy.SR 99 to Larkin Rd.700 C 1,000 D
Clark Rd.Wagstaff Rd. to Skyway 1,100 C 1,400 C
SR 99 to East Ave.2,500 D 3,100 F
East Ave. to Lupin Rd.2,300 D 3,100 F
Lupin Rd. to E. Lassen Ave.1,700 C 2,900 F
Lassen Ave. to Boeing Dr. (Chico M. Airport)1,400 D 2,700 E
Boeing Dr. to Keefer Rd.300 C 400 C
Cohasset Rd.
Keefer Rd. to Vilas Rd.200 C 300 C
Colusa County line to Pennington Rd.60 C 150 C
Pennington Rd. to Biggs Gridley Rd.150 C 250 CColusa Hwy.
Biggs Gridley Rd. to SR 99 750 C 800 C
SR 32 to Hegan Lane 600 C 900 CDayton Rd.Hegan Lane to Durham-Dayton Hwy.500 C 800 C
Dayton Rd. to Midway 100 C 150 C
Midway to Stanford Lane 70 C 100 CDurham-Dayton Hwy.
Stanford Lane to SR 99 150 C 250 C
SR 99 to SR 191 850 C 1,300 DDurham-Pentz Rd.SR 191 to Pentz Rd.200 C 200 C
SR 32 to Cussick Ave.1,650 D 2,050 D
Cussick Ave. to Esplanade 2,000 D 2,400 D
Esplanade to SR 99 2,750 E 3,300 F
SR 99 to Cohasset Rd.2,100 D 2,750 E
Cohasset Rd. to Floral Ave.1,450 D 1,950 D
Floral Ave. to Mariposa Ave.1,100 C 1,800 D
Mariposa Ave. to Marigold Ave.900 C 1,450 C
Marigold Ave. to Manzanita Ave.900 C 1,100 C
East Ave. to Vallombrosa Ave.900 C 1,400 C
East Ave. - Manzanita
Ave - Bruce Ave
California Park Dr. to SR 32 1,100 C 1,500 C
SR 99 to Larkin Rd.700 C 800 CEast Gridley Rd.Larkin Rd. to SR 70 500 C 700 C
Esplanade to SR 99 1,300 D 1,800 E
SR 99 to Hicks Lane 900 C 1,600 DEaton Rd.
Hicks Lane to Cohasset Rd.500 C 1,500 C
SR 99 to Garner Lane 100 C 250 C
Garner Lane to Eaton Rd.900 C 2,150 F
Eaton Rd. to Lassen Ave.1,300 C 2,500 D
Lassen Ave. to East Ave.2,400 D 3,300 F
East Ave. to Cohasset Rd.2,100 D 2,750 E
Cohasset Rd. to E. 9th Ave.2,200 D 2,550 D
E. 9th Ave. to E. 1st Ave.2,600 D 2,850 E
Esplanade
E. 1st Ave. to Main St./Broadway 2,100 D 2,600 D
Main St. (NB)Esplanade/E. 1st St. to 9th St.1,100 C 1,500 D
Broadway (SB)Esplanade/E. 1st St. to 9th St.1,100 C 1,400 D
E. 9th St. to 16th St.1,900 D 2,200 D
E. 16th St. to E. 20th St.1,800 D 2,000 DPark Ave.
E. 20th St. to East Park Ave.1,250 C 1,650 D
E. Park Ave.Park Ave. to SR 99 2,200 D 2,550 D
Forbestown Rd.SR 162 to Lumpkin Rd.200 C 250 C
Dayton Rd. to S.P. Railroad tracks 150 C 250 CHegan Lane S.P. Railroad tracks to Midway 400 C 600 C
Honey Run Rd.Skyway to Centerville Rd.150 C 200 C
Honey Run Rd. to Centerville Rd.100 C 150 CCenterville Rd.Centerville to Nimshew Rd.50 C 100 C
Centerville to Skyway 150 C 200 CNimshew Rd.
SR 162 to E. Hamilton Rd.600 C 1,200 D
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
20
2000 Estimate 2025 Estimate
ROADWAY SEGMENT
Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
E. Hamilton Rd. to East Biggs Hwy.100 C 200 C
East Biggs Hwy. to E. Gridley Hwy.50 C 100 C
Larkin Rd.E. Gridley Hwy. to E. Evans Reimer Rd.300 C 400 C
SR 162 to Marysville Baggett Rd.1,500 C 1,750 C
Marysville Baggett Rd. to Monte Vista Ave.850 C 1,000 C
Monte Vista Ave. to Ophir Rd.750 C 800 CLincoln Blvd.
Ophir Rd. to Palermo Rd.500 C 600 C
SR 70 to Palermo Honcut Hwy.50 C 100 C
Lower Honcut Rd.
Palermo Honcut Hwy. to LaPorte Rd.50 C 100 C
LaPorte Rd.Lower Honcut Rd. to Oro-Bangor Hwy.50 C 100 C
SR 162 to Oro-Bangor Hwy.800 C 950 CLower Wyandotte Rd.Oro-Bangor Hwy. to Ophir Rd.400 C 600 C
Upper Palermo Rd.Ophir Rd. to Palermo Rd.250 C 300 C
Palermo Honcut Hwy.Palermo Rd. to Lower Honcut Rd.100 C 150 C
East Park Ave. to Hegan Lane 1,600 D 2,100 DMidwayHegan Lane to Durham-Dayton Rd.800 C 1,200 D
SR 70 to Lincoln Blvd.750 C 1,250 DMontgomery St.Lincoln Blvd. to Table Mountain Blvd.650 C 1,100 D
Lincoln Blvd. to Lower Wyandotte Rd.100 C 200 C
Lower Wyandotte Rd. to Foothill Blvd.100 C 150 C
Foothill Blvd. to Swedes Flat Rd.50 C 50 COroville-Bangor Hwy.
Swedes Flat Rd.50 C 50 C
Upper Palermo Rd. to Lincoln Blvd.150 C 200 C
Lincoln Blvd. to Lone Tree Rd.100 C 150 CPalermo Rd.
Lone Tree Rd. to SR 70 100 C 100 C
SR 70 to Messilla Valley Rd.300 C 650 CPentz Rd.Messilla Valley Rd. to Malibu Dr.350 C 650 C
SR 99 to Notre Dame Blvd.3,000 F 3,400 F
Notre Dame Blvd. to Bruce Rd.2,500 D 3,000 F
Bruce Rd. to Honey Run Rd.2,400 D 2,900 F
Honey Run Rd. to Pearson Rd.2,500 C 2,900 D
Pearson Rd. to Bille Rd.2,300 D 2,750 E
Bille Rd. to Wagstaff Rd.2,300 F 2,600 D
Wagstaff Rd. to Clark Rd.1,600 D 2,000 D
Clark Rd. to Coutolenc Rd.1,750 D 2,150 D
Coutolenc Rd. to Nimshew 1,700 D 2,000 D
Nimshew Rd. to Lovelock Rd.150 C 200 C
Skyway
Lovelock Rd. to Powellton Rd.100 C 100 C
Montgomery St. to County Center Dr.1,400 D 1,700 CTable Mountain Blvd.County Center Dr. to SR 70 500 C 600 C
Source: Butte County Association of Governments
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
21
5.5 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT SERVICES AND
FACILITIES
While, as in all rural areas in California, the automobile is the primary mode of travel in Butte
County, the Regional Transportation Plan, Butte County General Plan, and the general plans of
the local jurisdictions support a balanced transportation system that coordinates mass transit,
private autos, and other modes rather than the overwhelming dominance of one mode.
Fixed Route Public Transit
The Butte County region currently has three fixed route transit systems in operation in 2003.
They are the Butte County Transit (BCT), the Chico Area Transit (CATS), and the Oroville Area
Transit (OATS). All three systems are coordinated to provide broad coverage.
Butte County Transit (BCT) operates three lines for inter-city transportation between Chico,
Paradise, Oroville and the Gridley-Biggs area. One line runs between Paradise and Chico, a
second between Oroville and Chico, and a third between Paradise, Oroville, and Gridley-Biggs.
Overall, the BCT system utilizes seven 47-passenger passenger buses that run on compressed
natural gas, in addition to five diesel vehicles – two 45-passenger, two 18-passenger, and one 31-
passenger vehicle. All buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts. Route 1 provides twelve round
trips daily connecting Chico and Paradise; Route 2 provides ten round trips daily connecting
Chico and Oroville; and Route 3 provides three round trips daily connecting Paradise, Oroville,
Gridley, and Biggs. Extended service is provided to Paradise Pines and Magalia. Transit service
is operated between 5:40 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, with weekend service
between 8:00 a.m. and 6:20 p.m.
In 2003, fares are $1.00 for inter-city travel. Travel within a city is 75 cents. Discount (seniors,
disabled, and students) ride for 55 cents. Monthly passes are available for $30.00 ($18.00 for
discount). Day Passes are available for $2.50 ($1.50 for discount). California State University,
Chico (CSUC) students and faculty may ride free, and the system is reimbursed by CSUC. Butte
County Transit carried 213,547 passengers a total of 458,326 miles during the 2001/02 fiscal
year.
Chico Area Transit (CATS) is the largest transit operator in Butte County and operates within the
Chico urban area. CATS’ fleet consists of 18 wheelchair lift-equipped buses: five 37-passenger
buses, four 35-passenger buses, four 31-passenger buses, two 26-passenger buses, and three 37-
passenger trolleys. Buses are wheelchair accessible and have bicycle racks. CATS has ten fixed
routes, nine of which connect with the Butte County Transit routes at First and Main Streets
and/or at the Highway 32 Park-n-Ride. Operating hours are 6:15 a.m. to 8:50 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and 8:30 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. on Saturday. No Sunday service is provided. Several
of the routes have extended evening hours. Eight primary routes operate year-round, while the
two student shuttle routes are limited to when CSUC is in session. Normal fare is 75 cents, with
seniors and persons with disabilities paying 35 cents. Students are 50 cents. A monthly pass is
available for $25.00 ($15 for students, and $11.00 for seniors/disabled). CSUC students and
faculty ride free, however, the system is reimbursed by CSUC. Service began in 1982. During
the 2001/02 FY more than 852,000 trips were provided covering 540,000 miles.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
22
Oroville Area Transit System (OATS) operates three 30-passenger vans on one bi-directional
fixed route serving the City of Oroville, the County Administrative Complex, and the downtown
transit center. While service is primarily within the Oroville City limits, a portion of Thermalito
and South Oroville are also served. Operating hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except for major holidays. The general fare is 75 cents and 50 cents for seniors,
students and persons with disabilities. Ridership figures for FY 2001/02 were 35,000 passengers
and 76,000 miles.
Demand Responsive Transportation
The transportation needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities are addressed by various
demand responsive systems in the local urban areas. These are available in Paradise, Chico,
Oroville, and Gridley under the names Paradise Express, Chico Clipper, Oroville Express, and
Gridley Golden Feather Flyer. These systems operate automobiles and/or wheelchair lift-
equipped vans on an on-call basis. The following is a description of each of these services
according to the 2001 RTP.
Paradise Express
The Paradise Express provides paratransit service for elderly (62 and over) and persons with
disabilities traveling within the Town of Paradise. The system operates six 11-passenger
vehicles. Service is provided Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturdays and
Sundays. The fare is $1.25.
Oroville Express
The Oroville Express provides paratransit service to persons 65 and over and to persons with
disabilities within the Oroville urban area. The system operates five 13-passenger and one 8-
passenger van. Service is provided Monday through Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Fridays
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and on weekends.
Chico Clipper
The Chico Clipper provides paratransit service to persons 62 and over and to persons with
disabilities within the Chico urban area. The Clipper is the largest paratransit system in the
county, operating nine 18-passenger vehicles. Service is provided Monday through Saturday,
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sundays 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Gridley Golden Feather Flyer
The Gridley Golden Feather Flyer is a subsidized service for elderly persons 62 and over and to
persons with disabilities traveling within the Gridley urban area. The single 18-passenger vehicle
operates from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. There is no Sunday service.
Social Service Transportation
Butte County hosts a network of social service agencies that provide specialized transportation to
their clients. The largest of these is the Work Training Center, which operates 23 primary and six
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
23
backup vehicles transporting clients throughout Butte County. Vehicle capacities vary from nine
to 14 passengers.
Private Bus Operators
Greyhound Lines is a private common carrier that provides scheduled service to the Butte
County region. The main Greyhound bus terminal is located in downtown Chico at the Amtrak
station. The station is served by Chico Area Transit. Greyhound offers 13 departures from Chico
daily and also serves Paradise, Oroville, and Gridley as well as destinations outside the Butte
County region.
5.6 EXISTING AND PLANNED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
FACILITIES
The unincorporated areas of Butte County have existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle
facilities located in both rural and urban environments. For the most part, the urban environments
within the County’s jurisdiction lie within the greater Chico and Oroville urban areas where the
County’s existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities interface with the various
facilities of those communities.
Pedestrian Facilities
The majority of the pedestrian facilities located within the urban areas of unincorporated Butte
County consist of sidewalk facilities which were placed in conjunction with site improvements
for subdivisions and commercial development. Newer sidewalk facilities include access ramps
that meet both County and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, while older
facilities are being gradually upgraded to include access ramps as part of the County’s Capital
Improvement Program. To create uniform pedestrian corridors, sidewalks improvements will
also have to added to complete existing facilities that presently terminate without accessible
ramps or connections to adjacent facilities.
The Butte County Public Works Department has set up the following criteria for the
improvement of sidewalks within County’s jurisdiction:
• Provide access ramps and complete sidewalk improvements in areas which are adjacent to
or provide routes to schools.
• Construct minimum twenty five-foot radius curb returns at intersections and County
standard access ramps in urban areas where sidewalks already exist.
• Continue sidewalks to interconnect with those already existing to create uniform pedestrian
corridors in the unincorporated urban areas of the County.
The Butte County Development Standards typically require proposed residential and commercial
developments located in the county’s urban areas to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk
improvements within the county roadways fronting development. Residential developments
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
24
located within the Chico urban area that have lot sizes greater than one acre come under a
separate rural standard that presently does not require curb, gutter, and sidewalks to be
constructed. Elsewhere sidewalks are presently constructed to County Public Works Standards
with a four-foot wide sidewalk in residential areas and a five-foot wide sidewalk within
commercial areas.
Bicycle Facilities
Since Butte County has a mild climate, bicycling is popular for both transportation and
recreation.
On October 13, 1998, the County adopted the Countywide Bikeway Master Plan (September
1998) prepared for the County by the Butte County Association of Governments. This Master
Plan was developed to allow the County and local jurisdictions to meet requirements for
transportation grants.
Butte County Public Works specifications and the Countywide Bikeway Master Plan identify
three different classifications of bicycle facilities which are consistent with Caltrans
specifications:
• Class I Bike Paths are bikeway facilities designated for exclusive use by both bicycles and
pedestrians which are separated from, but usually adjacent to, roadways. They are usually
designed for two-way travel with an eight-foot minimum wide of asphalt concrete
pavement and two-foot wide graded aggregate base shoulders wherever practical.
• Class II Bike Lanes usually consist of adjacent one-way lanes on either side of the
roadway that provide for the exclusive and semi-exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
within the road travel way. Class II bike lane facilities require four-foot minimum width
lanes on both sides of the roadway where shoulders are present and five-foot minimum
width lanes where curb and gutters are present. These facilities are for the exclusive use
of bicycles and pedestrians where they are separated from the motor vehicle lane by a
six-inch painted white stripe and designated with signs and permanent pavement
markings. Shared use by motor vehicles within these facilities is only permissible where
indicated by broken or dashed striping.
• Class III Bike Routes may be located on roadway facilities with sufficient width for
shared motor vehicle and bicycle usage and are usually only designated by signs or
permanent pavement markings indicating the route.
In the Chico urban area, the County currently has an existing Class I bike path on the easterly
side of the Midway extending from the Chico City Limits on Fair Street south to Jones Avenue.
Within the Chico urban area, there are also existing Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes
which connect with facilities located within the City of Chico jurisdiction and continue within
the County’s jurisdiction. Several planned Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes for the
Chico urban area are shown in the Chico Urban Area Bicycle Plan on Figure 3 of the
Countywide Bikeway Master Plan. A Class II bike lane was constructed in 2002 on El Monte
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
25
Avenue, between East 8th Street and SR 32, which does not appear in Figure 3. All new County
development and Public Works projects are reviewed for possible incorporation of bicycle
facilities. Budgetary constraints and right of way issues may also restrict the design and
incorporation of complete bicycle facilities.
In the greater Oroville area, two County bicycle facilities have recently been constructed or
designated. In 2002, a Class I bike path was constructed adjacent to Palermo Road from Lincoln
Boulevard to Lower Wyandotte Road. In 2003, the Board of Supervisors designated Lincoln
Boulevard from Oroville city limits south to Monte Vista Ave as a Class II bike lane facility.
Plans for future Oroville area bikeway facilities are shown in Figure 5 of the Countywide
Bikeway Master Plan.
In the Durham Area, an existing Class II bike lane facility runs along Durham-Dayton Highway
from the Midway east to Lott Road. For the remaining portions of the county, existing urban
bikeway facilities typically fall under the jurisdictions of the Cities of Biggs and Gridley or the
Town of Paradise.
The County’s bikeway facilities in the unincorporated areas of Butte County are typically
planned to interface with facilities planned by BCAG and the local jurisdictions. Some of these
facilities in the unincorporated areas are shown in Figures 9 and 9a of the Countywide Bikeway
Master Plan. They include bikeway facilities along River Road, Chico River Road and Old
Humboldt Road in the Chico Area. Bikeway facilities are also planned along Skyway, Neal
Road, Pentz Road, and Midway to connect Chico with Paradise and Durham. Future County
bikeway facilities are also planned along Table Mountain Boulevard, Larkin Road, Gridley-
Colusa Highway, Olive Highway, and Miners Ranch Road to highlight some of the major routes.
5.7 PASSENGER AND FREIGHT RAIL LANES, FACILITIES
AND SERVICES
Union Pacific maintains a total of 100.4 miles of mainline track, with two mainlines, one in the
western portion of Butte County (formerly the Southern Pacific mainline), and one in the eastern
portion of the county. Numerous sidings are located in and around Oroville as well as further
north along the Feather River. These sidings provide transportation services to a number of
manufacturing industries, lumber mills, quarries and agricultural producers.
Passenger service is offered by AMTRAK in one location in Butte County. The Coast Starlight
train is the most popular long-distance train in the Amtrak system. It runs between Los Angeles
and Seattle via Oakland and Sacramento. The northbound train stops in Chico at 2:00 a.m. and
the southbound train stops there at 3:00 a.m.
Other trains are available at stations outside of Butte County. The California Zephyr runs from
San Francisco to Chicago and provides local service in the San Francisco-Sacramento-Reno
corridor. Extra coaches are often carried on this portion of the route to handle heavy loads to and
from Reno. The San Joaquin train runs from the Bay Area to Los Angeles via the Central Valley.
AMTRAK operates a bus service for the northern Sacramento Valley that connects Chico and
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
26
Oroville to the California Zephyr service at Sacramento and to the San Joaquin rail service at
Stockton. Feeder bus connections for intercity rail service are available more widely in Butte
County. Three buses each northbound and southbound stop at Chico and Oroville to connect
with the Capitol Corridor rail service between Sacramento and San Jose with extensions to
Gilroy and Roseville, and with the San Joaquin route between Oakland and Bakersfield.
Subsequent bus connections from these routes allow travel to Reno, Yosemite, Las Vegas,
Monterey, and throughout the Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco Bay urban areas.
No new rail lines are planned in Butte County. Several railroad corridors have been abandoned in
the past few years. Portions of the corridor between Chico and Stirling City, via Paradise, have
been utilized as the right-of-way for Skyway and as a bike and pedestrian trail in Paradise. The
spur line through Chico to the airport has also been converted to a bicycle and pedestrian trail.
The Sacramento Northern corridor between Chico and Durham has also been partially converted
to a bicycle and pedestrian trail by the County and is also being studied for further
bike/pedestrian trail development.
5.8 AIR TRANSPORTATION
Air transportation in Butte County is served by a number of private and public airfields and
heliports serving general aviation and agricultural users. Most of these are small fields for private
use. Commercial flights to distant or out-of-state destinations are available at the Sacramento
International Airport, about 60 miles south of Oroville.
On December 20, 2000 Butte County’s Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). It establishes procedures and
criteria for the ALUC to review proposed land use development and affected cities within the
county for compatibility with airport activity. State law requires public access airports to develop
Comprehensive Land Use Plans, (CLUPs) designating airport vicinity land use and clear zones.
Such plans are to be adopted by the County’s Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which
consists of representatives as follows: two city, two airport managers, two County Supervisors
and one member from the public at large.
The Butte County ALUCP is distinct from airport master plans, which address planning issues
within a specific airport. The purpose of a compatibility plan is to assure that incompatible
development does not occur on lands surrounding the airport.
The 2000 ALUCP encompasses the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Municipal Airport,
the Paradise Skypark Airport, and the Ranchaero Airport. These four airports are the principal
facilities in Butte County and are further described below.
As of January 2004, the existing Butte County General Plan land use designations and zoning
districts located within the Airport Compatibility Zones for the four airports within Butte County
were not completely consistent with the 2000 ALUCP. The communities of Chico and Paradise
have not established consistency with the 2000 ALCUP and their respective General Plans and
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
27
land use regulations. The City of Oroville has established consistency between their General Plan
and land use regulations and the 2000 ALCUP.
An important consideration in the development of the policy update of the General Plan will be
consideration of the Airport Compatibility Zones in respect to General Plan land use
designations. Where land use conflicts continue to exist between the General Plan and the 2000
ALUCP, the Board of Supervisors may choose to initiate further planning processes with ALUC.
Chico Municipal Airport
This facility is the largest airport in Butte County and the only one having regularly scheduled
commercial service. It is owned and operated by the City of Chico. The airport is located to the
north of the city, west of Cohasset Road. Over the past 50 years, urban expansion has extended
towards the airport. Based on the 2001 RTP population projections for the region, the airport will
need to expand. The capacity issues facing the Chico Airport are land-use decisions surrounding
the immediate airport, primarily the west side where 210 acres of land are undeveloped.
The City of Chico was in the process of adoption of the Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan in
January 2004. The City was conducting hearings and adoption of the plan was anticipated in the
first quarter of 2004. The plan is a comprehensive review of existing and projected facilities and
infrastructure on the airport properties as well as future traffic demands and use patterns for the
airport extending into the future.
The Chico Municipal Airport in 2003 is served by one commuter airline, United Express, with
daily direct flights available to San Francisco. There are daily commercial departures and
arrivals. There are also a charter service, daily Federal Express operations, and four cargo
carriers. The remainder of takeoffs and landings are other private general aviation aircraft, the
California Department of Forestry, US Forest Service, corporate charter flights and medical
deliveries. There are approximately 1,850 full-time employees at the Chico Municipal Airport
and the adjacent Industrial Park, which represents approximately twenty-five percent of all
manufacturing jobs within Butte County.
Chico Municipal Airport has two paved runways and a control tower. A 20-year airport master
plan has been put into place to plan improvements that will expand passenger and cargo
operations. In 1999, the City of Chico completed an Airport Master Plan that proposed
extensions of both runways, including a 1,000 foot northerly extension to the main runway. The
Master Plan also recommended that land be acquired for a future additional 1,000 foot extension
to the main runway. The total recommended extensions to this runway equal 2,000 feet. In 2003,
there were 144 aircraft based at the Chico Municipal Airport, including 104 single engine and 36
multi-engine aircraft as well as 4 helicopters. General Aviation accounted for 45,260 operations
in 1998, which accounted for 62 percent of total daily departures. Other uses include cargo, law
enforcement, and staging area for emergency services.
Based on the City of Chico’s Airport Master Plan, there are 293 daily air passengers. The Master
Plan estimates that by 2020 this number will rise to 400 passengers per day. The Master Plan
also predicts increases in cargo traffic of seven percent annually, based on national forecasts.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
28
This means that by the year 2008 out-bound freight will equal 3,940 tons, and by 2018 it will
reach 7,800 tons. Total annual aircraft operations since 1992 and projections to 2018 are
summarized in Table 5-13.
The 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan provides a compatibility map of
the Chico Municipal Airport and its environs.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
29
TABLE 5-13
CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS
1992 TO 2018 (PROJECTED)
Year Total Operations
1992 76,880
1993 64,404
1994 69,745
1995 60,161
1996 65,616
1997 55,403
1998 67,250
2008 80.370 (projected)
2018 94, 740 (projected)
Source: City of Chico Airport Manager, 1998; Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan Study, April 1999
Oroville Municipal Airport
The Oroville Airport is privately operated, but owned by the City of Oroville. This 795-acre
facility is located 2.5 miles west of the city along State Route 162. Although the city’s sphere of
influence extends a mile west of the airport, only the airport property and some private land to
the north and west are within the city boundary. The surrounding unincorporated county area
includes the community of Thermalito situated northeast of the airport. To the southwest and
southeast lie state-owned water project and wildlife refuge lands. The airport has two paved
runways.
According to the California Aviation System Plan for 1998, this airport serves a moderate 36,500
annual operations. Approximately 93 percent of these operations are by single-engine general
aviation aircraft and two percent by business jets. In 2003, there were 51 aircraft based at the
Oroville Airport, including 45 single engine and 5 multi-engine planes, as well as one helicopter.
In 2000, the City of Oroville amended its General Plan and Zoning regulations to be consistent
with the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. These changes created an Airport
Influence Area in order to make growth of the airport compatible with land use surrounding the
airport. A map of this Airport Influence Area is in the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan.
Paradise Skypark Airport
The Paradise Skypark Airport is located three miles south of the Paradise town center. It is
privately owned and operated and has one runway of 2,710 feet. It is an important regional base
for skydiving activities. Aircraft based at Paradise Skypark total 46, including 40 single engine
and three multi-engine planes, one glider, and two ultra-light aircraft. Annual operations for the
year ending in 1991 were 12,000 and have remained constant.
The 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan provides a compatibility map of
the Paradise Skypark Airport and its environs.
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
30
Ranchaero Airport
The Ranchaero Airport is a 23.5 acre facility located on the west side of Chico. Privately owned
and operated, it has one runway of 2,280 feet. Flight instruction makes up a large portion of its
daily operations. Ranchaero Airport is 23.5 acres in size and is defined as a general aviation
airport. A total of 39 aircraft are based there, including 36 single engine and three multi-engine
airplanes. Annual aircraft operations were estimated at 5,000 and projected to remain constant.
No master plan has been prepared for the Ranchaero Airport. However, the 2000 Butte County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan provides a compatibility map of the Ranchaero Airport and
its environs.
5.9 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN ADJACENT
JURISDICTIONS
The primary inter-regional transportation facility improvement affecting Butte County is the
proposed State project to make the State Route 70 transportation corridor in the North
Sacramento Valley compatible with freeway/expressway standards. The Sacramento Area
Council of Governments (SACOG) and the Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG)
jointly funded a study of the SR 70 and SR 99 corridors to identify and examine various freeway
alignments and alternatives for the Sacramento to Chico Corridor. BCAG and SACOG adopted a
recommendation that the SR 70 corridor be used for a freeway connecting Sacramento and
Chico. Such a freeway would link both the Butte County and Marysville/Yuba City SMSAs to
the nationwide freeway network. The 2001 RTP describes various elements of this proposal. In
early 2003, Caltrans completed a Project Study Report for the Marysville Bypass to the State
Route 70 to Oroville Freeway to identify the project’s scope, costs, and schedule. Caltrans,
SACOG, and BCAG completed a Major Investment Study, which is recommended on a project
of this magnitude. Caltrans is presently completing the environmental impact report (EIR), which
will identify the preferred alternative alignments for the Bypass and enable route adoption.
Caltrans is also examining three alternative alignments for the State Route 70 to Oroville
Freeway that are parallel and to the east of the present SR 70 Highway to avoid environmentally
sensitive areas. Since the preparation of the 1998 RTP, BCAG and Caltrans have begun
preliminary analysis of a project to improve a section of SR 70 at Ophir Road near Oroville to
freeway standards. This work would entail construction of a new interchange in an area with a
high incidence of traffic accidents and potential for future growth. As of 2003, Caltrans was
preparing the environmental documentation for this project.
Another critical component of the overall State transportation corridor plan through Butte
County involves widening State Route 149 to freeway standards. SR 149 is presently an
important two-lane State Highway link that connects SR 99 and SR 70. It also has a high
incidence of traffic accidents. This project has been approved to add two additional lanes to the
existing two-lane facility and construct necessary interchanges at SR 99 and SR 70. Its
construction will complete a four-lane transportation link between Chico and Oroville and will
be a major step towards completing a continuous four-lane freeway facility between Chico and
Chapter 5: Transportation and Circulation
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
31
Sacramento. The total project cost for this critical segment is currently estimated at $82 million.
Construction is estimated to cost $65 million and could begin as early as Spring 2004, pending
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding approval and completion of right of
way acquisition. However, due to funding shortfalls in the STIP, Caltrans cannot guarantee a
2004 construction start date.
Other proposed improvements to the State transportation corridor through Butte County that are
included in BCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan lie within several local jurisdictions. These
include widening SR 99 through downtown Gridley and adding auxiliary lanes to SR 99 where
the state road bisects the urbanized area of Chico. Because of the lack of high quality north-south
circulation through Chico, many motorists use the state highway to get from one side of town to
the other. Chico has been and continues to grow at a much faster pace than the rest of the county.
As such, the demand for additional capacity through Chico has called for the preparation of a
corridor study to look how to best address the congestion through town. BCAG commissioned a
study to look at corridor improvements and is developing a priority list with specific projects.
The parameters of the SR 99 Corridor study begin at Estates Drive and continue northward to
Garner Lane. The proposed auxiliary lane project on SR 99 between SR 32 and E. 1st Ave. was
programmed in the 2000 STIP cycle for Phase 1. The City of Chico has expressed a desire to
place a priority on programming any available STIP funds for projects along this corridor.
In Glenn County, to the west of Butte County, there is a proposed “shortcut” for State Route 32
around the community of Orland. This project would be funded under the Flexible Congestion
Relief portion of the State budget. This improvement has the potential to increase traffic volumes
on SR 32 entering Chico.