Introduction
The I-80/SR 65 interchange is an integral connection and well-used by many people travelling along the I-80 and SR 65 corridors.  Congestion created by those using the interchange causes traffic to back-up at points along these corridors.  The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), in collaboration with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, and the County of Placer, are looking for ways to improve the I-80/SR 65 interchange and adjacent transportation facilities.  The objectives are to reduce congestion and improve traffic operations and safety in the project area, while maintaining access to local streets and businesses within the corridors.  Improvements to the transportation facilities would comply with current Caltrans and local agency design standards and consider all travel modes and users.  The project will be designed and built over several phases, depending on funding availability.

Workshop #3 Purpose
This community workshop was the third in a series of public workshops and hearings being planned by PCTPA to involve the public and obtain input during the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase.  This project is subject to state and federal environmental review requirements because the use of federal funds from the Federal Highway Administration is proposed.  Accordingly, project documentation will be prepared in compliance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  As part of the process, a notice of preparation (NOP) was released on January 2, 2013.  The NOP serves as a request for comments from the responsible and trustee agencies regarding environmental issues, reasonable alternatives, and reasonable mitigation measures that should be discussed in the draft EIR/EA to address each agency’s specific concerns in their areas of responsibility.

This workshop served as the Public Scoping meeting, a requirement of the environmental process.  The purpose of this workshop was to review the project’s progress to date, introduce the 5 alternatives, and gather input from community members.  PCTPA is beginning the environmental assessment for this project and the public scoping meeting was an opportunity for the public to provide comments or concerns.  Input received will become part of the public record and will be considered in developing alternatives to be studied in the environmental document.

Publicity & Noticing
Community workshop notification flyers were sent via e-mail to local jurisdictions (Cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, and Placer County); interested agencies; vicinity organizations/businesses, and interested individuals.  The notice was posted to PCTPA’s web site (www.pctpa.net) and the project web site (www.8065interchange.org).  Meeting information was also posted on the following websites: City of Roseville, Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations, Roseville Chamber of Commerce, City of Lincoln, and Lincoln Chamber of Commerce.

A public meeting notice was placed in the “A” section of the Roseville Press Tribune and was published on December 14, 2012.

Press releases were sent via e-mail to the following publications:

• Auburn Journal
• KCRA NBC Channel 3
• KFBK 1530 AM
• KOVR CBS Channel 13
• KXPR Capital Public Radio
• KXTL Fox 40 Channel 40
• KXTV ABC Channel 10 (News 10)
• Lincoln News Messenger
• Rocklin – Placer Herald
• Roseville Press Tribune
• Rocklin and Roseville Today
• Sacramento Business Journal
• Sacramento News & Review
• Sacramento Press
• Sun Senior News
• The Sacramento Bee

Articles related to the meeting were published in the following electronic and print publications:

• Roseville Press Tribune
• Lincoln News Messenger
• Placer Herald
• Rocklin and Roseville Today
• Sacramento Bee
  

Workshop #3 Format
Twenty-three members of the public attended the workshop.  The workshop was organized as an open house with a series of information stations where the attendees could get information about the project, ask questions, and provide feedback.  Celia McAdam, PCTPA’s Executive Director, began the workshop presentation and provided a brief background of the project.  Luke McNeel-Caird, PCTPA project manager, reviewed the project goals, progress to date, and provided an update on near-term project improvements that had been considered.  Leo Heuston, CH2M Hill project manager, then presented the 5 alternatives under consideration, highlighting benefits and concerns of each:

• Alternative 1 – Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Diamond-Shaped)
• Alternative 2 – Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Trumpet-Shaped)
• Alternative 3 – Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated
• Alternative 4 – Transportation System Management (TSM)
• Alternative 5 – No-Build (No Project)

Common benefits of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were summarized including added capacity, high speed connections, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV or carpool lanes), and local circulation improvements.  The presentation concluded with a series of next steps including: finalizing traffic operational analysis, preliminary engineering of alternatives, environmental technical studies, and the draft environmental document.

Following the presentation, attendees were encouraged to visit the information stations where the project team was available to answer questions.  Attendees were given an informational flyer describing each alternative as well as a feedback form to provide input on the alternatives.  Feedback forms could be turned in at the workshop, returned via email, fax, or mail, or filled out online on the project website.

The information stations included:

• Project Limits Map
• Alternative 1 – Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Diamond-Shaped)
• Alternative 2 – Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Trumpet-Shaped)
• Alternative 3 – Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated
• Alternative 4 – Transportation System Management (TSM)
• Project Schedule
• Environmental Process

Community feedback will be summarized as part of the NOP comments received between January 2 and January 30, 2013.

Workshop #2 Purpose
This community workshop was the second in a series of public workshops and hearings being planned by PCTPA to involve the public and obtain input during the Public Approval and Environmental Documentation phase.  The workshop took place during PCTPA’s regularly scheduled Board meeting.  The purpose of this workshop was to review the project’s progress to date, share 7 preliminary design concepts and gather input from the PCTPA Board and community members.

Publicity & Noticing
Community workshop notification was made in a newsletter, which was sent via e-mail and USPS to local jurisdictions (Cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville and Placer County); interested agencies; vicinity organizations/businesses, and interested individuals.  The notice was also posted to PCTPA’s web site (www.pctpa.net) and the project web site (www.8065interchange.org).

Display ads were published in the following newspapers:

• Placer Herald
• Lincoln News Messenger
• Roseville Press Tribune.

Press releases were sent via e-mail to the following publications:

• Lincoln News Messenger
• Placer Herald
• Roseville Press Tribune
• Auburn Journal
• Sacramento Bee (Tony Bizjak – Our Region – Transportation)
• Sacramento News & Review
• Sacramento Press
• Sacramento Business Journal
• Sun Senior News
• The Compass
• KFBK – 1530 AM
• KXSR (Capitol Public Radio) – 91.7 FM
• KCRA – NBC – Channel 3
• KOVR – CBS – Channel 13
• KXTV – ABC –Channel 10
• KTXL — Fox  — Channel 40

The City of Lincoln E-newsletter advertised the meeting for a week prior.

Workshop #2 Format
The workshop took place during PCTPA’s regularly scheduled January Board meeting.  Celia McAdam, PCTPA’s Executive Director, introduced the project to the Board with an overview of the project’s purpose and goals, public outreach, schedule and progress to date.  Leo Heuston, CH2M Hill’s project manager, then provided background on the project’s limits, traffic and several other issues (capacity, operations, safety, and local access) along the I-80 and SR 65 corridors and the interchange.  He then described 7 concepts, developed to date, which address the traffic issues:

• #1  Taylor Road – Shift Ramps
• #2  Taylor Road – Full Access (Tight Diamond)
• #3  Taylor Road – Full Access (Trumpet)
• #4  Antelope Creek Drive Connection
• #5  Taylor Road – Eliminate Existing Ramps (the existing Taylor ramps access relocated to other existing vicinity interchanges)
• #6  Transportation System Management (TSM)
• #7  No Build (do nothing)

Common features for all design concepts were summarized including improved weaving, added capacity, high speed connections, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV or carpool lanes), and local circulation improvements.  An initial set of concerns and benefits were outlined for each concept during the presentation.  These concepts may potentially move forward for consideration as alternatives in the environmental document.  They will be subject to adjustments pending the results of the traffic study and further screening.

The staff presentation concluded with a series of ‘Next Steps’ (traffic analysis – summer 2012, alternatives selection – spring 2012, and environmental technical studies – spring 2012).

Board and public comments/questions followed:  Staff responses are in italics.

Would #6 (TSM) be considered a potential first phase of the project?

Maybe.  More data must be collected to determine how various TSM measures could be applied.  TSM measures are typically cheaper to do than construction improvements such as new bridges, traffic lanes, etc.  Applicable TSM measures such as ramp metering will probably be applied to all alternative concepts.

None of the concepts are acceptable because of construction costs.  Is #2 (Taylor Road – Full Access with the Diamond-shaped Interchange) the least expensive option?  Is cost a deciding factor?

The concepts have been developed (to-date) based primarily on how well they address traffic problems.  They will be adjusted based on the traffic study and additional screening, which will consider environmental issues and the ability to identify project phases, construction costs, and potential funding sources.  For example, #2 (Full Access with the Tight Diamond-shaped Interchange) would require a tunnel under I-80 which could be expensive.  #3 (Taylor Road – Full Access with the Trumpet-shaped Interchange) uses existing structures, which would be cheaper.

Of all the concepts, #5 (Taylor Road – Eliminate existing ramps) is not an acceptable option.

The 2009 Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) identified the potential to close the Taylor Road ramps based on a subsequent traffic analysis and any future effects on downstream I-80 bottlenecks.  This concept will probably be one of the alternatives analyzed in the environmental document to satisfy the need to create a reasonable range of alternatives.

Is the decision to include # 6 (TSM) decided before concepts are approved or after?

TSM measures are considered in the environmental document.

Is there any consideration given to creating a better ‘back way’ into the Galleria (from Atlantic Street)?  What would it do to traffic patterns?

The detailed traffic study is being developed.It will consider potential connection points, which could result in more alternative concepts.

Where the northbound SR 65 traffic merges with westbound I-80 (south of the Galleria connection) is only 2 lanes, is there room and weight accommodation on the ramp to allow for 3 lanes instead of 2?  Would it be possible to restripe the lanes and see what happens?  Couldn’t this be done quickly with a Mitigated Negative Declaration instead of going through an environmental review process?

There may be the width on the viaduct for an auxiliary lane to avoid back-ups.  This could be a potential 1^stphase.  Caltrans would have to be consulted.  An environmental review process would still have to be carried out.  A restriping project may even be split off as a separate project.

The Board directed the staff to look into the viaduct restriping idea and report back at the February Board meeting.

What happens at Eureka and East Roseville Parkway if the Taylor Road ramps were closed and the Eureka Road ramp was re-signed as Eureka/Taylor?  Roseville is improving Eureka to provide two lanes onto Taylor; the ramp would be relocated ½ mile back, providing additional capacity onto NB 65 without having to deal with the merge.

#5 (Taylor Road – Eliminate existing ramps) shifts traffic to existing vicinity interchanges such as the Eureka/Atlantic one.  The impacts and resultant improvements will be examined in the traffic study.

The auxiliary lane on WB I-80 from Douglas to Riverside was encouraged.  Could it be done quickly and inexpensively?

This potential work would require an additional travel lane by requiring more right-of-way, which would be very expensive.  Concept work will explore the potential of creating an additional lane by narrowing existing lanes and shoulders.  This effort would require Caltrans to approve a design exception.

Currently, traffic on the I-80 and SR-65 corridors is split 60/40 with 40% of traffic going onto SR65 while 60% continues onto I-80.  Eventually the traffic patterns will shift, emphasizing the importance of improvements to allow for increased and changing traffic patterns.  Roseville is in support of maintaining access to Taylor Road for local businesses.  Concept #1 Taylor Road – Shift Ramps would maintain that; Roseville businesses are in support of increasing access to Taylor Road.  The proposed Antelope Creek connection would be good for traffic and for the Galleria; however, the apartment complex located on Antelope Creek has a planned phase 2 that would expand into the concept area.  The construction currently underway on Eureka Road will add additional NB lanes to Taylor Road, which will help traffic in the short term but will not account for future traffic into 2035.  Most traffic is on WB 80 to NB 65, if feasible then restriping is a no brainer, however there are concerns about the width capacity.  Roseville would support a potential phase 1, which would focus on WB 80 to NB 65.

There is a potential problem with the proposed HOV (carpool) flyover.  Will NB SR 65 carpool lane traffic have enough distance to merge on to the Galleria Blvd. /Stanford Ranch Road interchange?  There could be a weave concern.  Please look at the traffic numbers in the proposed HOV (carpool lane) going to the Galleria.  It is important to look at weekend traffic as well as weekday traffic, separately for the traffic analysis.  It is important to include TSM in all alternatives.

Does the bottleneck project include the bridge over Antelope Creek?  WB-NB is the problem, do whatever is cheap, fast and furious.

Yes, the project will address this.

Following the community workshop, attendees were encouraged to visit the information station maps where the project team was available to answer questions.

The stations included the following:

• Project Area Map Exhibit
• Concept Drawings Exhibits

Introduction
The existing I-80/SR 65 Interchange was constructed in 1985/1986.  Because of the region’s growth over the last two decades, the interchange along with the I-80 and SR 65 corridors are experiencing increasing congestion.  The high traffic demands during commute hours and recreational trips congest the project area on a regular basis, causing unacceptable conditions.  The overall interchange improvements project is intended to reduce congestion, improve operations and enhance safety.

Workshop #1 Purpose
This was the first in series of public workshops and hearings being planned by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) to encourage public participation.  The purpose of this workshop was to introduce the overall interchange improvement project, the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase, and the proposed schedule, and to gather input from community members.

Publicity & Noticing
Over 120 informational notices were sent via email and U.S. P.S. to local jurisdictions (Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville and Placer County); interested agencies; vicinity organizations/businesses, and interested individuals.  The notice was also posted to PCTPA’s web site (www.pctpa.net) and the project web site (www.8065interchange.org).

Information notices for posting were mailed to:

• Lincoln City Hall
• Rocklin City Hall
• Roseville City Hall
• Placer County Board of Supervisors
• Carnegie Library, 590 Fifth St., Lincoln
• Placer County Library – Rocklin Branch, 4890 Granite Dr., Rocklin
• Downtown Library, 225 Taylor St., Roseville
• Placer County Library – Loomis Branch, 6050 Library Dr., Loomis
• Sierra College Library, 5000 Rocklin Rd., Rocklin

Display ads were published in the following newspapers:

• Lincoln News-Messenger – April 7, 2011
• Placer Herald – April 7, 2011
• Roseville Press-Tribune – April 6, 2011

Press releases were mailed to each of the newspapers (above) and to the following:

• Sacramento Bee (Tony Bizjak – Our Region – Transportation)
• KFBK – 1530 AM
• KXSR (Capitol Public Radio) – 91.7 FM
• KCRA – NBC – Channel 3
• KOVR – CBS – Channel 13
• KXTV – ABC –Channel 10
• KTXL — Fox  — Channel 40

The newspapers and radio/TV stations were called to remind them of the workshop.  In addition, key stakeholders were also called to confirm the workshop date, time, and location.

Workshop #1 Format
The workshop was organized as an open house with a series of information stations where the public could get information about the project, ask questions, and provide feedback.  Celia McAdam, PCTPA’s Executive Director, opened the workshop with a brief presentation. In it, she introduced local officials and the project team, provided a project overview, outlined the PA&ED phase and its timeline.  She addressed the Taylor Road interchange issue by stating there are no plans to close the eastbound I-80/Taylor Road exit.   She referenced the 2009 Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) and said a more detailed traffic analysis, to be completed in the project’s PA&ED phase, would determine whether the interchange creates any operational deficiencies to Interstate 80 and whether mitigation of operational impacts is warranted with this project.  If so, options will be identified and considered for possible implementation.  She concluded with ways the community could get involved and stay informed.

Gladys Cornell, AIM Consulting, described the workshop’s information stations and how to provide feedback via workshop comment cards.  She encouraged community members to visit the information stations and discuss the project with project team members.  Comments and/or questions could be made on comment cards supplied at the workshop.  These cards could be turned in at the workshop or returned to PCTPA via mail, email, or fax.

All workshop attendees received an Information Stations Map illustrating the room layout.

The stations included the following:

• General Information:  This table included a Project Information Brochure and Comment Cards.
• Station 1 – Project Information:  This station included overall project background information, the previous Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR), and a Project Timeline for the current phase.  The PSR was also posted to PCTPA’s web site (www.pctpa.net) and the project web site (www.8065interchange.org).
• Stations 2A and 2B – Map Stations:  These stations were identical and included maps of the study area as well as an opportunity to provide input regarding potential site constraints or areas of opportunity.
• Station 3 – Community Input:  This station provided an opportunity for stakeholders to provide input regarding areas of concerns and potential project goals and objectives.
• Station 4 – Traffic Patterns:  This station provided stakeholders with an opportunity to review current traffic patterns in 15-minute increments throughout a typical weekday of the entire study area.

Workshop #1 Questions & Comments
Comments received at the information stations included:

• Station 1 – Project Information.
  • What is in the Caltrans 2009 Project Study Report (PSR) – why was it done and what improvements are proposed?
  • What is the PA&ED phase?  How does it fit within the overall project?
  • How are alternative improvements identified from the Spring 2011 to Fall 2012?
• Station 2A and 2B – Map Stations.
  • What is planned for the Taylor Road Interchange?  Does not want the Taylor Road interchange closed.
  • What are the limits of the project?
  • What is the project going to do / What problems will be addressed?
• Station 3 – Community Input
  • Preserve access to Taylor Road businesses.
  • Avoid worse congestion further east on I-80.
  • Create report on accidents in area of I-80/SR-65 interchange.
  • Create access to businesses on I-80/SR-65 corridors.
  • Create safe traffic flows.
• Station 4 – Traffic Patterns
  • GPS travel time data matched driver experiences in the study area.
  • Recognition that the bottlenecks have system-wide effects (upstream and downstream).
  • General support for addressing congestion.

Future Workshop Considerations
Based on the April 2011 workshop, the project team will:

1. Add April 2011 workshop attendees to the project distribution list.
2. Increase public awareness by:
   1. Getting future public workshop or hearing notice to cable channel community bulletin boards for Lincoln, Roseville, and Placer County.
   2. Posting future public workshop or hearing notice to links on web sites at PCTPA, for the I-80/SR 65 Improvement project, Caltrans, Placer County, Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville.
   3. Looking for ways to get future public workshop or hearing notice to City of Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville, and Placer County and neighborhood newsletters.
3. Add workshop comments/questions with replies to the project web site’s (www.8065interchange.org) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).