PRESENT Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 Cattlemens, 2000 Taylor Road, Roseville PROJECT TEAM REPRESENTATIVES Name Organization Celia McAdam Luke McNeel Caird Leo Heuston Judy Matsui Drury Gladys Cornell Ciara Zanze Sam Jordan STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS Organizations Represented Cattlemens Restaurant City of Rocklin City of Roseville Dry Creek Conservancy Golfland Sunsplash Pillar Hotels Rocklin Chamber of Commerce Stonehouse Property Sun City Roseville Taylor Road Self Storage Westfield Galleria William Jessup University Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Placer County Transportation Planning Agency CH2M Hill CH2M Hill AIM Consulting AIM Consulting Caltrans MEETING PURPOSE: Approximately 60 stakeholder representatives were invited to the third stakeholder focus group meeting for the I 80/SR 65 Interchange Improvement project. This key stakeholder group consists of a cross section of project vicinity property and business owners/tenants, residents, and other interested organizations that may be directly affected by the future I 80 / SR 65 Interchange Improvements project. The purpose of the meeting was to receive feedback from key stakeholders regarding the five alternatives. MEETING OBJECTIVES: Review the overall project including the study area, existing constraints and considerations, and current project phase.
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 Address questions or concerns about the overall project. Introduce the 5 alternatives and receive stakeholder input and feedback. Attachments (included at the end of this document) Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting Invitation January 9, 2013 PowerPoint Presentation Project Overview The I 80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements project proposes to improve the I 80/SR 65 interchange including widening I 80 between Douglas Blvd and Rocklin Road, and SR 65 between the I 80/SR 65 interchange and Pleasant Grove Blvd. The project is currently in the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. Project Goals and Objectives Reduce congestion Improve traffic operations and enhance safety Maintain community access Consider all travel modes and users Concepts Refinements and Alternatives Presentation: Alternative 1 Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Diamond Shaped) Proposes to relocate the two existing Taylor Road interchange ramps to the east, in combination with the I 80/SR 65 interchange, and provide two additional ramps (four total) in a diamond interchange configuration. This alternative provides additional capacity on I 80, SR 65, and the I 80/SR 65 interchange, improved access to Taylor Road, improved traffic weaving conditions on I 80, and improved interchange spacing between the Eureka Rd interchange and the I 80/SR 65 interchange. Stakeholder comments and questions on Alternative 1 included: Question: Was the restripe of SR 65 not pursued because it was found to be unsafe? o Project Team Response: Yes, the existing width of the viaduct can provide for three lanes and shoulders, but they would be less than standard widths (very narrow). The PCTPA Board felt that this was not acceptable and elected to pursue the improvement of this location as an early phase of the project. Question: What does within the existing footprint mean? It is hard to see what is proposed as part of alternative 1 vs. what exists today on the alternative map. Page 2 of 10
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 o Project Team Response: The new I 80/SR 65 interchange ramps will be shifted away from their existing locations to make room for a new Taylor Road Interchange that will be constructed within the core of the interchange. The Taylor Road interchange will be a separate connection between I 80 and Taylor Road that is generally located within the extents (footprint) of the existing I 80/SR 65 interchange ramps. Question: What is the impact of this alternative on the Rocklin Road interchange? o Project Team Response: The City of Rocklin has started engineering design on improvements to the Rocklin Road Interchange. The project team is closely coordinating with the City. Improvements to the I 80/SR 65 interchange and the corridor as a whole helps to improve the flow of traffic on the freeway which relieves traffic on the adjacent local streets, including the I 80/Rocklin Road interchange. Question: The City of Rocklin already agreed to remove two of the ramps on the Taylor Road interchange. I m concerned that because of this project we may have to make Rocklin Road a partial interchange as well? o Project Team Response: The proposed alternatives would improve conditions at the Rocklin Road Interchange, but does not modify the existing interchange. However, need to improve the Rocklin Road Interchange is also based upon existing and future conditions outside of our project area. The project team does not anticipate the I 80/SR 65 IC improvement project will require reduction of access on the Rocklin Road Interchange. Comment: This alternatives looks like it will create better access to business on Taylor Road by opening up access in all directions. This is a positive for the City of Roseville. Question: Does the southbound exit from I 80 onto SR 65 encroach on the Self Storage property on Taylor Road? o Project Team Response: No, the ramps are realigned but stay within the existing right of way. Question: Does everything stay within the existing right of way with this alignment? o Project Team Response: No, it encroaches into Secret Ravine in one area and onto areas along the north side of I 80, west of SR 65. Question: Can you explain why the current southbound SR 65 ramp to east bound I 80 needs to be moved and reconstructed? o Project Team Response: The ramp will be reconstructed and off set about 100 feet from the existing facility. Currently the ramp is in the center of the footprint, in order to improve design speeds for the eastbound I 80 to northbound SR 65 ramp and add HOV lanes; the ramp needs to be moved from the center to the west. Question: Will the existing Taylor Road ramps be removed? Page 3 of 10
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 o Project Team Response: Yes, the existing ramps will be removed and replaced with new ramps. One of the main points of conflict occurs at Taylor Road because the Interchange is only ½ mile from the Eureka Road interchange and the I 80/ SR 65 Interchange. Traffic is trying to merge on and off in close proximity which creates the back up. Moving the ramps so they are spaced farther apart eliminates the points of conflict. Comment: The worst traffic is occurring at Taylor Road, so eliminating the ramps would only make conditions worse on Taylor. I do not see the same congestion on SR 65 traveling towards westbound I 80. o Project Team Response: Traffic congestion may or may not occur at the times that we are using a roadway or ramp. The project traffic analysis looks at traffic during peak travel times. The traffic analysis shows that these ramps are part of a larger congestion and operational problem on I 80 between the I 80/SR 65 interchange and the I 80/Eureka Road interchange and moving them from this location is necessary. The proposed Alternative 1 and 2 will improve the Taylor Road access by providing improved connections at a location outside of the problem area. When some folks observe very little traffic on the ramps or very heavy backups, it can be attributed to the ramps being blocked by the congestion on I 80. Currently all of the traffic is trying to occupy the same space; Alternative 1 distributes the traffic and removes points of conflict. Question: Does Alternative 1 include a lot of lane merging? o Project Team Response: No. The alternative (Alternative 2 and 3 also) removes freeway access points from the most critical areas, helping improve traffic flow on I 80. Comment: Since the construction on I 80 was done, there is a problem with merging that causes congestion coming from Douglas Boulevard to eastbound I 80. The traffic trying to exit is conflicting with traffic that is entering. o Project Team Response: Comment noted, this is an area that we will be looking at as we continue to analyze traffic operations. Question: Does this alternative consider future traffic volumes? o Project Team Response: Yes, the project team is looking at a horizon year of 2040 to accommodate future traffic volumes and other planned projects for the region. Question: When the Eureka Road interchange was designed, was the Taylor Road interchange considered? o Project Team Response: Before SR 65 was constructed, Taylor Road and Atlantic Street worked as a combined interchange, which no longer complied with Caltrans standards. The solution was to modify Taylor to make it a partial interchange that worked with the new I 80/SR 65 interchange and still provided local access. When the Eureka Road interchange Page 4 of 10
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 was designed, the Taylor Road and I 80/SR 65 interchanges would have been taken into account. Growth in the region has now caused the area to be congested and we are proposing this project to improve the operations into the future. Question: Did we plan for the future when the Eureka Road interchange was designed? o Project Team Response: Typically projects are designed 20 plus years into the future. Question: Does the analysis and traffic modeling that is in progress include adjacent interchanges on the system to see how they all work together? o Project Team Response: Yes, the traffic modeling will include all interchanges within the project area, as well as additional adjacent interchanges that are near the project area. Comment: I am concerned that the Rocklin Road interchange may become the next bottle neck and end up being closed or made a partial interchange like Taylor Road. It is an important access point for the City of Rocklin and the businesses in the area. o Project Team Response: It is not likely that the Rocklin Road interchange will be closed. It is important to choose an alternative that does not break down part of the system; the project team is looking at the system as a whole to balance regional flows with the local street system. Question: Is part of the issue with the Taylor Road interchange the close proximity to the Eureka Road interchange? o Project Team Response: Yes, there is a spacing issue with the Taylor and Eureka Road interchanges not the Rocklin Road interchange. Comment: The Taylor Road interchange was in place before the Eureka Road interchange and should not be closed. o Project Team Response: These alternatives propose to relocate Taylor Road, but not to remove it completely. So access would be maintained. There is also a no build alternative included in the project team s analysis. If no alternative is chosen after this process then essentially there is no project and no modifications will be made. Comment: I am opposed to closing Taylor Road but not opposed to moving it. Alternative 2 Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Trumpet Shaped) This alternative proposes to shift the two existing Taylor Road interchange ramps to the east, in combination with the I 80/SR 65 interchange, and provide two additional ramps (four total) in a trumpet shaped interchange configuration. This alternative provides additional capacity on I 80, SR 65, and the I 80/SR 65 interchange, improved access to Taylor Road, improved traffic weaving conditions on I 80, and improved interchange spacing between the Eureka Road interchange and the I 80/SR 65 interchange. Page 5 of 10
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 Stakeholder comments and questions on Alternative 2 included: Question: Can the connections to Taylor Road be mixed and matched from one alternative to the other? o Project Team Response: Yes, for this alternative the connection to Taylor Road can be moved to the Alternative 1 location. Alternative 3 Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated Proposes to remove the two existing Taylor Road interchange ramps and not replace them, shifting traffic to the I 80/Eureka Road, I 80/Rocklin Road, and SR 65/Galleria Blvd/Stanford Ranch Road interchanges. This alternative provides additional capacity on I 80, SR 65, and the I 80/SR 65 interchange, accommodates traffic at the adjacent interchange locations, provides improved traffic weaving conditions on I 80, and improved interchange spacing between the Eureka Road interchange and the I 80/SR 65 interchange. However, access points to the freeway are reduced and access is less direct to businesses on Taylor Road. Stakeholder comments and questions on Alternative 3 included: Question: This alternative does not meet one of the project goals, maintain community access. Is this included in order to have a complete analysis of all options? o Project Team Response: Yes, it is included in order to have a complete analysis of the viable alternatives during the environmental process. The Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans like this alternative because it improves I 80 primarily. Comment: In each alternative there is modified access to businesses on Taylor Road, this label is the only accurate name. The names Taylor diamond interchange and Taylor trumpet interchange mask the fact that the current interchange is being eliminated; alternatives 1 and 2 should be called relocated Taylor Road. Comment: Eureka Road is already congested and cannot accommodate additional traffic volumes if Taylor Road is eliminated. Question: Is there room under the Roseville Parkway bridge to accommodate additional traffic lanes? o Project Team Response: It is very tight, but a combination of narrow traffic lanes and shoulders can be used to accommodate expansion and not rebuild the structure. Question: With this alternative, what is the first northbound exit on SR 65 for the HOV traffic? o Project Team Response: HOV traffic will not be able to merge across the SR 65 lanes to exit at Galleria Boulevard; the first exit will be Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Page 6 of 10
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 Question: Will there be a barrier to prevent people from trying to exit onto Galleria Boulevard from the HOV lane? o Project Team Response: Yes, a separation to restrict traffic from exiting will be provided; there will not be access from the HOV lanes to exit to Galleria Boulevard. Question: Have you considered left side HOV exits? o Project Team Response: At this time no. With the addition of HOV lanes we can explore interior exits. The goal is to connect the I 80 HOV lanes with the planned SR 65 HOV lanes. Question: Is it possible to remove underutilized HOV lanes in heavily congested areas? o Project Team Response: No, HOV lanes cannot be removed. In order to comply with FHWA and Caltrans mandates and to attain air quality conformity, HOV lanes have to be added to freeways even if they are currently underutilized. Question: How were the 20 original concepts narrowed down to this set of 5 alternatives? o Project Team Response: The original 20 concepts were vetted last year during a screening process which looked at whether the concept met the project s purpose and need. The concepts were also presented to the stakeholder group and the public. The project team has only proposed to eliminate some concepts, choosing the most viable of the concepts to propose to carry forward as alternatives. Question: Why is Alternative 3 still included in the set of 5 alternatives? o Project Team Response: Alternative 3 also meets the goals and objectives of the project. However, without the Taylor Road interchange traffic is accommodated at the other existing interchanges. Our traffic analyses will tell us how well it does meet the goals and objectives as compared to the other alternatives and is included in order to have a complete evaluation in the environmental process. The final chosen alternative has to have agreement on the local, state, and federal level. It is important to receive local feedback now in order to select the best alternative. Question: Is it possible for FHWA to move forward and construct Alternative 3 without local acceptance? o Project Team Response: It would be highly unlikely. Most State highway projects are started by local agencies and approved by FHWA. Question: Will our Congressman support this project? o Project Team Response: The project team has a briefing with his staff next week for input. Common Benefits of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: Page 7 of 10
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 The three Build alternatives have common benefits that include adding additional travel lanes to I 80, SR 65, and the I 80/SR 65 interchange ramps. The types of lanes added include carpool lanes for high occupancy vehicles (HOV), mixed flow lanes for all drivers, and auxiliary lanes for entering and exiting traffic. A new direct HOV ramp connection between SR 65 and I 80, and improvements to Taylor Road are also proposed. Stakeholder comments and questions on Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 included: Question: Once traffic analysis is done for all alternatives, will there be another stakeholder focus group meeting to share the results? o Project Team Response: The next stakeholder meeting will be held at the administrative draft of the environmental document, at that time the next generation of traffic analysis will be presented to stakeholders before the next public meeting. Alternative 4 Transportation System Management (TSM) This alternative proposes to provide TSM improvements on and adjacent to the freeways that are in lieu of widening the freeways and interchange ramps, while addressing the project goals. These include: Auxiliary lanes between interchanges to improve traffic operations Added HOV bypass lanes on appropriate interchange ramps Ramp metering (traffic signals) on appropriate interchange ramps Electronic Messaging signs to provide drive route information during periods of congestion Added transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities to improve traffic operations This alternative proposes to provide improved traffic operations within the project limits and on adjacent roadways without increasing the capacity of I 80, SR 65 and the I 80/SR 65 interchange. Stakeholder comments and questions on Alternative 4 included: Question: Can elements of the TSM alternative be combined with other alternatives? o Project Team Response: Yes, elements of the TSM are typically included in other alternatives. The TSM alternative is required as a part of the Environmental Document phase. If the problem could be easily fixed with just the TSM improvements, it would have already been done. Question: Is this project included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)? o Project Team Response: Yes. Question: How long is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period open? Page 8 of 10
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 o Project Team Response: The comment period is open from January 2 through January 31. Stakeholders may submit their comments through the feedback form distributed at today s meeting, via email to pctpa@pctpa.net, or online at www.8065interchange.com. Question: Does this project include additional benefits not related to relieving traffic congestion? o Project Team Response: Yes, additional benefits include improving public safety, increased economic development opportunities, and improved access to businesses. Question: Will the team be considering ways to mitigate negative impacts to Secret Ravine and/or improving the existing conditions of the Secret Ravine? o Project Team Response: The project will require that any negative impacts to Secret Ravine be mitigated. Potential impacts will be evaluated as part of the environmental documentation phase. Comment: Secret Ravine is an important local salmon habitat; this corridor has a significant negative impact on the Ravine, it will be important to show mitigation measures. Question: How far can the project progress with the available funding? o Project Team Response: Funds are available to complete this PA&ED process and begin final design of a first project phase. Savings from the I 80 Bottleneck Project will continue to be used for this project; the goal is to use the available funding to get a project that is ready for construction; a shelf ready project. Question: If funding were available to fund the project, how soon could it be built? o Project Team Response: If funding were available, the earliest phase 1 could be constructed would be about 2018 2019. However funding availability could put that date out substantially. A majority of future STIP funding to PCTPA was put into constructing the Lincoln Bypass project. But that does not mean funding could not come from other sources. Question: What is an approximate construction estimate for this project? o Project Team Response: The full project would be about $300 million, which is why it would be constructed in phases. Question: Will this project have a developer impact fee? o Project Team Response: That would be a Board decision, but most likely it would not. Question: Would this project be something that the Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority will look at? o Project Team Response: That is a possibility. Next Steps: Page 9 of 10
Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting #3 January 9, 2013 Community Workshop January 15 NOP comment period open until January 31, 2013 Next Stakeholder meeting fall/winter 2014 Page 10 of 10
STAKEHOLDER MEETING I-80 / SR 65 Interchange Improvements Project Wednesday, January 9 9:00 a.m. Cattlemens Restaurant 2000 Taylor Road, Roseville, CA The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) along with the I-80/SR 65 interchange improvements project team would like to invite you to participate in a stakeholder meeting to discuss progress made in the evaluation of the project concepts and the upcoming environmental documentation phase. We anticipate the meeting should last no longer than 2 hours. We look forward to receiving your input. Please RSVP by Monday, January 7, 2013 by emailing czanze@aimconsultingco.com or calling 916-442-1168
STAKEHOLDER MEETING # 3 I 80 / SR 65 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT APPROVAL & ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED) PHASE JANUARY 9, 2013
Wl Welcome Introductions Background Agenda Where We ve Been & What s Ahead Concept Refinements Alternatives Moving Forward Environmental Studies Next Steps
Your Role Meeting attendance Bring community perspectives p to the project Provide input on project alternatives Where are existing traffic concerns? What access issues need to be considered? Where might properties be impacted? Communicate study progress and decisions
Project Partners PCTPA Caltrans Federal Highway Administration Placer County City of Roseville City of Rocklin City of Lincoln Project Team
Background: Project Overview Study Area Project Phases Project Study Report (PSR) Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) Design, Right of Way, and Construction o
Goals and Objectives of the Project Reduce congestion Improve traffic operations and enhance safety Maintain community access Consider all travel modes and users
Congestion Efficiency Accessibility Safety Alternative Transportation Land duse Plans Draft Purpose & Need
Where We ve Been and What s Ahead Current PA&ED Phase
Where We ve Been Stakeholder and Community Workshops August 23 and April 14, 2011 January 11 and January 25, 2012 Today and January 15, 2013 Project Communications Website, Newspaper, Newsletters Aerial Mapping, Traffic Forecasts and Analyses 7 Concepts to 5 Project Alternatives Environmental Field Studies Notice of Preparation
Near Term Projects Considered SR 65 Northbound Restripe Add 3rd lane I 80 to Galleria I/C Incorporate as 1st Phase of interchange improvements I 80 Westbound Auxiliary Lane Add 5th lane, Riverside to Douglas Pursue as separate project
and What s Ahead Evaluate the Project Alternatives Perform Environmental Field & Technical Studies Prepare Draft Environmental Document & Project Report Hold Community and Stakeholder Workshops
Concepts Moving Forward As Alternatives Alternative 1 Taylor Road Full Access I/C (Diamond Shaped) Alternative 2 Taylor Road Full Access I/C (Trumpet Shaped) Alternative 3 Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated Alternative 4 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative 5 No Build (No Project)
Eliminated Concept Taylor Road Access Shifted Findings Less improvement to I 80 Traffic Operations than the other concepts Partial Interchange design not supported by agencies Benefits Improves interchange spacing Improves I 80 Weaving Maintains local access to Taylor Road Concerns Taylor Road is a partial interchange undesirable Limited access to local traffic
Eliminated Concept Antelope Creek Connection Findings Less improvement to I 80 Traffic Operations than the other concepts Costly Right of Way Acquisitions Benefits Adds parallel capacity on local street Concerns May change local traffic circulation patterns May impact local landfill, UPRR, Antelope Creek
Alternative 1 Taylor Road Full Access I/C (Diamond Shaped)
Alternative 1 Taylor Road Full Access I/C (Diamond Shaped) BENEFITS: Improves spacing between interchanges Diamond Interchange Improves traffic operations on I 80 Improves local access
Alternative 2 Taylor Road Full Access I/C (Trumpet Shaped)
Alternative 2 Taylor Road Full Access I/C (Trumpet Shaped) BENEFITS: Improves spacing between interchanges Trumpet Interchange Improves traffic operations on I 80 Improves local access
Alternative 3 Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated
Alternative 3 Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated Taylor Rd I/C Eliminated BENEFITS: Improves spacing between interchanges Improves traffic operations on I 80 CONCERNS: Reduces number of access connections Shifts local access to Eureka Rd, Galleria Blvd, ldand Rocklin Rd I/C s
Common Benefits of Alternatives 1, 2, & 3 Widen I 80 Add additional mixed flow lanes Add additional auxiliary lanes Widen SR 65 Add carpool/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes Add additional mixed flow lanes Add additional auxiliary lanes Westbound From 6 to 7 Lanes Southbound From 3 to 5 Lanes Eastbound From 5 to 7 Lanes Northbound From 2 to 5 Lanes
Common Benefits of Alternatives 1, 2, & 3 I 80/SR 65 I/C Ramps Increase each ramp by one additional lane Improved design at existing EB to NB loop ramp South to West Ramp 3 Lanes East to North Ramp 3 Lanes West to North Ramp 2 Lanes South to East Ramp 2 Lanes
Common Benefits of Alternatives 1, 2, & 3 I 80/SR 65 I/C Carpool/HOV Connector Add HOV Ramp connection 1 lane in each direction Southbound SR 65 to Westbound I 80 1 Lane Eastbound I 80 to Northbound SR 65 1 Lane
Common Benefits of Alternatives 1, 2, & 3 Improve Taylor Road From 2 to 5 Lanes Remove the existing I 80/ Taylor Road I/C Ramps
Alternative 4 Transportation System Management Ramp Metering Mt (System and On/Off Ramps) HOV Bypass Lanes Changeable Message Signs (CMS) Traffic Signal Coordination Transit Options Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Alternative 5 No Build (No Project) TheDo Nothing Alternative Existing Facilities and Conditions Remain Other Metropolitan Transportation ti Plan (MTP) Projects Required for Environmental Review
Environmental Studies Just Beginning! Assessing the project site conditions and alternatives Seeking Your Input Alternatives presented Areas of concerns Ideas or opportunities Any other items you see as important Support at the upcoming Public Meeting
Questions?
Next Steps Hold Public Scoping Meeting for the environmental document process Finalize Traffic Operational Analysis Preliminary Engineering of Alternatives Environmental Technical Studies Draft Environmental Document