Thank you for the August , Technical Memorandumfor interchangejh.s~;fi~.a#()ii-tor. the proposed US I OllRainier A venue Interchange.

Transcription

1 .: " -SIAif OF CALlFORN1A-BUSlNESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATIO~L~ III GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX OAKLAND, CA PHONE (5lO) FAX (510) TY ,. -., --:::==c= ~ '=- September 30, 2009 Attachment 2 Mr. Vince Marengo Director of Public Works City of Petaluma P.O. Box 61 Petaluma, CA Dear Mr. Marengo: Thank you for the August , Technical Memorandumfor interchangejh.s~;fi~.a#()ii-tor. the proposed US I OllRainier A venue Interchange.'"'< The merriorandum's Transportation (Department) Design Information Bulletin 77 and Chapter 27 oftheproj~ f Development Procedures Manual. However, we offer the following review comments.and-, request that the City of Petaluma (City) provide the additional information identifiedbelowin. order for the Department to consider approval of the justification for new interchange: GENERAL COMMENTS Subject needs to be changed outline contains the conditions set forth in the Califorriia Depa.ttItreritoi. to «Justification for new access point on.the St.I~~~~iy' " Once the new access point is justified only then will a nonsta:bdaia.'nimpai:6.]:yn{ea'til! be considered... ":>,". As the Technical Memorandum is intended to be a stand-alone d()dtlill~p4;pp~~i~~1cly01it plans and other attachments (e.g., estimates, assumptions,etc.}11~~4t()l:)~\ui I't1dedt6 support the information presented..<i,?<' A strip map will definitely be helpful to show the limits()fo.periltigh~.~ii;sis~ locations of "other interchange consi dered,' and proxi mityof16ca1streetjmprdy~m~i:i.tsconsidered. )e. It is extremely important that the latest propos dgeot#~tri6~iht$~w~liirigton Interchange be delineated asexistingcondition fqfthe.viliou'silltemativesin the memorandum in order to ci"mfythere)ationship:ad~iti9nainibdl:fications needed, and the extent and associated cost 0" "throwaway" forotherbuildalternatives. It is also important to carefui~yirivestigate the East-Washington Interchange as to why further improvements to this interchange by itself, or in conjunction with the "Split "Caltrans improves mobility across California"

2 and together with some local street improvement, would not meet.)/.<i.p:ulrp~)searid need of the project... : :,.: Extent of right of way impacts referenced in various places seeins very conservative. Perhaps, some can be avoided through minor design adjustments. It appears that the costs "to meet all design standards" were added to Alternative 4 but not. to other alternatives. Overall, there needs to be more specific and equitable comparisons on cost and impacts to justify the proposed elimination of Alternative 4. '" It appears that Alternative Sby itself will not meet the purpose and need of this project; There were references in the memorandum that this could be a "phased." If so, it will need to be conceptually designed to be compatible with other alternatives. The assumption that this project will not be built until the MSN (Segment C) project is constructed should be added to the discussion section. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Page 1 Second paragraph - The Project Report referenced was approved in 1988, not Third paragraph - The author of.themarch 17, 1992 letter to the City the Petaluma was not the headquarters geometrician, but the late Jim Smith, Senior Transportation Engineer of District 4 Project Development North Counties. Page 2 Fourth paragraph - Cite the numerous traffic studies conducted over the years that concluded that improvements in the US 10 1/East Washington Interchange alone would not be sufficient to address the traffic congestion at the East Washington Street Interchange. Last paragraph - Define the acronym TJKM when first used in the memorandum. '. Page 13 Interchange Justification - The first requirement is that: "The need being addressed by the re(lue:st cannot be adequately satisfied by existing interchanges to the system, and/or local roads streets in the corridor can neither provide the desired access, nor can they be reasonably.unoroved (such as access control along surface streets, improving traffic control, modifying ramp terminals and intersections, adding turn bays or lengthening storage) to satisfactorily.accommodate the design year traffic demands." This test must first be met before moving to the next step: '.::"~.A_ The next step is to ensure that: "The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by reasonable transportation system management (such as ramp metering, mass transit, "Caltrans improves mobiluy across California"

3 'f Mr. Vince Marengo September 30,2009 Page 3 and HOV facilities), geometric design, andaltemative improvements to the system without the proposed change in access." The above requirements must be fully addressed before an alternative with new access is to be considered. Page Last paragraph - The minimum requirement for interchange modification or addition is to look at a minimum of one interchange upstream and downstream. In this case where the corridor is already operating in a highlycongestedmode it would be normal and prudent to evaluate the effects further upstream and dbwn~ea.til.:the termination. of the limits of analysis should be predicted on volumes. It is unreasonable to expect that the new interchange will not generate additional trips on its own. Other than the "isolated mainlinersegment between East Washington Interchange and the proposed new access mainline;'whatfi'eewayoperations analysis has been done? It is unreasonable to believe fruit add'ing_a,ilewinterchange to the already highly congested freeway would not adverselyeffectiriainfine.operations. Page 15 Local Street Operations,Itis Iiot4i5p-utedthat the proposed interchange would divert traffic from existing interchanges:' tl~@i-(irii:tiill.ly. The requirement, as stated above, is that "The need being addressedbyther~gp~'si'cannotbe adequately satisfied by existing interchanges to the system, and/orlocalf()ad~-~~lwedts.in the corridor can neither provide the desired access, nor can they be re$bji~'bly piqyeci{3-1,l6h as access control along surface streets improving traffic control;ii1bdifjrihgra:tpp1:dp lh81sand intersections, adding turn bays on lengthening storage) to satisfactorilyacd()tnm'oaa.teib~design year traffic demands." It is also expected that the freeway system openi1:e~t'~1ligh{h'l~~elof service than the local street network and that the local trips and shorterregiofiartrlps:~emainbn the local street network and not clog the freeway system. Page 16 Alternatives that include improvements-to must be included in this PSR~.' the local street network and/or existing interchanges It also appears that all alternatives assume that the MSNproject is completed prior to the construction of an undercrossingat-rainier. While itnow appears that the funding for the completion of the MSN project isinquestion, it is suggested that all alternatives would need to account for the likelihood of this occurring, as the scope, cost, and schedule would be affected. Iris understood that the City does not support right of way acquisition via eminent domain. Unfortunately as'it may be the requirement and will be that this and any other project are constructed in the most public good and with the least private injury. As right of way acquisition will be required on any alternatives, speculating on what parcels will require condemnation is inappropriate at this time. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" _._ _..

4 III - - We do not find an alternative that combines improvements to both existing interchanges and -- local streets. This must be considered as stated above. Page 18 Last paragraph - We disagree with the need for major reconstruction of the northbound on-ramp at East Washington Interchange in Alternative 4. The alignment as shown on available details has been retained as well as the new bridge spanning East Washington Creek. - Page 19 Second paragraph - Rewrite the second sentence to add "terminus" as follows:...widening the northbound diagonal off-ramp terminus from two lanes to four lanes..." Suggest redesigning East Washington details to accommodate Alternative 4 and reduce throwaway. Alternative 4, if designed properly, could keep the throwaway of construction capital of East Washington project to a minimum. It is not as significant as removing 75% of the East Washington project and would cost $21 million of throwaway. Rfmoval of the existing northbound loop on-ramp is not a throwaway, there are no impac~ in the southwest quadrant and the alignment of the proposed northbound diagonal on-ramp)has been mostly retained. Moreover, Alternative 4 can be done without realignment of US I 01 and the current scope of East Washington only involves the northeast and southwest quad ants of the interchange. Without the realignment, impact would be reduced.. Page 20 Second paragraph - Sound walls are also part of Alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore the risk-related to the MSN project of not accommodating the design of the ramps orauxiliary lanes that would result in $5 million increase should also be included in the cost of Altern 'tives 2 and 3. Page 21 - The cost to bring to standard ($ 64.9 million) has been used against Alte bring to standard for Alternatives 2 and 3 are not mentioned. ative 4 but the cost to It appears that in evaluating whether Alternati ve 4 is a viable alternative fhe cost estimate for the throwaway and the cost to bring the features to standard are excessive. The City's precise plan (page 17) may also include portions of Alternati es 3 and 4 (since Alternatives 2 and 3 are almost identical except for the loop on-ramp) d therefore could also reduce the right of way cost. Page 22, Future environmental impacts to Lynch Creek and Washington Creek a! pear to be about the same once East Washington is developed. "Caltrans improves mobility across California;'

5 'W t/ - Mr. Vince Marengo September 30, 2009 PageS Page 24 Impacts of improvements to East Washington as a standalone project are too conservative and exaggerated. For example, anticipated acquisition of35 single-family homes in the northwest and southeast quadrants, if details are properly drawn: could be reduced to only a few residential homes and mostly just partial takes of the residential backyards. Page 25 ForEast Washington Interchange, the additional right of way at the southwest quadrant that is needed for the widening of the southbound on-ramp from East Washington Street to southbound US 101 would be dedicated by Target Store, which purchased the adjacent property. It needs to be clarified whether it is a no cost dedication. Page 26. The current East Washington 90% PS&E plans should not be a determining factor for... Alternative 4' s viability. PS&E plans could be revised to incorporate portions of Alternative 4. Page 29 How was it determined that traffic management systems would not address the need of this project? Page 30 Has there been any other mainline segment weaving analysis"? freeway analysis performed other than "an isolated mainline Page 33 Comparison of Alternative Impacts - How would the project cost and impacts change if the MSN project were not completed ahead of this project? Once these comments and missing information are addressed and incorporated in to the technical memorandum for interchange justification, the Department would be in abetter position to make a determination of its support of the proposed new interchange. It should be noted that conceptual approval is obtained when the nonstandard features and PSR are approved. The Department appreciates the City's cooperation and partnership to determine themost beneficial improvement at US 101 and Rainier A venue.tlf you have any further questions Or. need further assistance, please contact Patrick Pang, Chieffor Officeof Advance.Planningat (510) "Co/trans improves mobility across California"

6 - LEE TAUBENECK Deputy District Director Transportation Planning and Local Assistance c: Susan Lackie, City of Petaluma - ProjectManager Kai Chan, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Brian Krce1ic, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. "Caltrans improves mobility across California"