Attachment_F_-_UPRR_Field_Diagnostic_Meeting_Minutes.pdf

ATTACHMENT F

UPRR FIELD DIAGNOSTIC MEETING MINUTES

MINUTES

SR 99 / 120 Interchange Improvement Project – SJCOG

Diagnostic Meeting for the Following:

Manteca, CA, SR 120 at Moffat Blvd., DOT 766388F, MP 98.29, Fresno Sub

Meeting Date: November 6th, 2024

Time: 10:30 am

Location: Moffat Boulevard, beneath the SR 120 Westbound structure

Attendees:

Name Agency/Firm Phone Email

Shira Rajendra Mark Thomas (916) 704-3597 srajendra@markthomas.com

Garry Horton Mark Thomas (916) 899-3644 ghorton@markthomas.com

Eric Fredrickson Mark Thomas (916) 995-9729 efredrickson@markthomas.com

Bash Zaman Mark Thomas (916) 403-5756 bzaman@markthomas.com

Gwen Owens SJCOG (209) 674-5489 owens@sjcog.org

Chad Adams City of Manteca (209) 608-8894 cadams@manteca.gov

Tim Barron UPRR (916) 789-5247 trbarron@up.com

Trevor Taylor Benesch/UPRR (530) 227-1689 ttaylor@benesch.com

David Stewart CPUC (415) 806-0490 david.stewart@cpuc.ca.gov

Jordan Peterson CPUC (916) 268-8050 jordan.peterson@cpuc.ca.gov

Stephen Woodfill Caltrans (209) 687-2479 stephen.woodfill@dot.ca.gov

Shauna Bivens Caltrans (209) 814-0353 shauna.bivens@dot.ca.gov

Alexandros Xides Caltrans (209) 479-1067 Alexandros.xides@dot.ca.gov Sean Gill Caltrans (209) 715-3304 sean.gill@dot.ca.gov

Rich Brown Caltrans (209) 687-2253 richard.brown@dot.ca.gov

1. Introductions

UPRR began the meeting with a safety briefing led by Trevor Taylor to include general railroad safety topics as well as emergency response and other site-specific items.

The team reviewed the purpose of the diagnostic and conducted introductions discussing project specific roles and responsibilities. Introductions included representatives from Caltrans, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), City of Manteca, San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

2. Project Description Caltrans provided a project overview. In Phase 1B, the project will increase the existing NB SR 99 to WB SR 120 connector from one lane to two lanes. This includes modifying the existing SR mailto:srajendra@markthomas.com mailto:ghorton@markthomas.com mailto:efredrickson@markthomas.com mailto:bzaman@markthomas.com mailto:owens@sjcog.org mailto:cadams@manteca.gov mailto:trbarron@up.com mailto:ttaylor@benesch.com mailto:david.stewart@cpuc.ca.gov mailto:jordan.peterson@cpuc.ca.gov mailto:stephen.woodfill@dot.ca.gov mailto:shauna.bivens@dot.ca.gov mailto:sean.gill@dot.ca.gov mailto:richard.brown@dot.ca.gov

99/120 separation structure by removing the existing median barrier and converting the structure to a two-lane, one-way connector. The EB SR 120 to NB SR 99 connector will be partially realigned, and a new separation structure will be constructed over SR 99 to allow the existing connector to be converted to two WB lanes. The design team noted that the proposed structure will clear span the UPRR property and does not propose to have any columns or footings on UPRR property. The WB Spreckels Road Undercrossing (Van Ryn Avenue) will be widened towards the median of WB SR 120 to construct a 1.2-mile additional lane to Main Street. A sound wall will be built along EB SR120 from east of the Main Street on-ramp to slightly east of the Moffat Overhead. As part of the bridge railing replacement on the eastbound SR 120 overhead structure, the outside shoulder will be widened by 9-inches to meet a Caltrans standard 10-foot shoulder width. All work on the existing structure will involve the bridge deck and there will be no modifications to the existing bridge girders, columns, or footings. The NB 99 traffic on the modified existing connector will proceed to the median of WB 120 with a new overhead structure over the UPRR and Moffat Blvd. The SB 99 traffic to WB 120 will remain on the existing WB 120 overhead structure over the UPRR and Moffat Blvd.

Austin Road interchange will remain as a partial interchange in this phase.

The Design team noted that the design of the proposed structure is currently in progress and a type selection report is anticipated to be submitted to Caltrans in approximately 6-8 weeks. It was further noted that a steel girder bridge or pre-cast concrete girders were being considered.

UPRR noted a cast in place structure is discouraged per the UPRR/BNSF Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separations and that all vertical and horizontal clearance requirements must be met and shown on plans.

3. Design and Construction Items UPRR reviewed current train counts as listed in the FRA Inventory Report. It was noted that there are 9-day thru, 9-night thru and 2 switching trains per day on the Fresno Subdivision at subject location. Train design speed is 70mph.

The team discussed Temporary Traffic control and detour plans. UPRR advised detours and temporary traffic control plans to consider if any traffic is being routed toward adjacent at-grade crossings. UPRR referenced the Public Projects Manual and advised proposed temporary traffic control at or near grade crossings is to be reviewed through diagnostic process. The design team confirmed that detours away from Moffat Boulevard toward adjacent at-grade crossings as part of construction are not anticipated.

The design team advised that temporary traffic management / traffic handling / detour sheets and general construction staging plans will be shared with the City of Manteca. UPRR noted that detour plans should be reviewed by the diagnostic team once approved by the City. It was further noted that Contra flow due to lane shifts in the vicinity of the crossing will not be approved due to the potential of vehicles being trapped behind a down gate meant for the opposite direction.

The design team noted that Austin Road Grade Separation project should be completed before construction commences for Phase 1B. The current estimated construction start date for Phase 1B is Summer / Fall of 2026.

CPUC noted that once GO-88B authorization is provided, it is valid for 3 years and should be coordinated within the project schedule.

The diagnostic team reviewed the existing DOT number noting that there are two separate structures covered under one DOT number. CPUC advised that CPUC crossing records show one DOT# (766388F) for the entire (both) SR 120 structure above the UPRR tracks. CPUC confirmed that proposed structure will be included in the existing DOT number.

UPRR noted that the visibility at the Moffat Boulevard Industry Crossing (DOT 752437J) should be considered when selecting construction staging areas along Moffat Boulevard. UPRR further noted that any temporary construction areas, staging areas, and access routes requiring use of UPRR property are to be shown during project design. It was noted that all equipment and materials should be staged off UPRR property where possible. UPRR advised that if a crane is to be built/staged in between the existing bridges during construction, Caltrans is to confirm if it will be out of the foul of the tracks when not in use.

UPRR advised that drainage is not to be directed towards UPRR property and will be reviewed during design. Locations of deck drains will be reviewed and existing drainage is not to be made worse by project. The design team confirmed there would be no drainage directed to the UPRR property.

UPRR advised the project team that during concept review UPRR Network Planning indicated plans for a future track on the east side of the existing track. UPRR asked the design team to show the future track on proposed plans noting one track on the east side of existing with 20’ track centers. UPRR requested vertical and horizontal clearance be shown on plans during design.

UPRR advised information related to submittals and structure requirements for the design of this project must follow the UPRR/BNSF Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects.

https://www.up.com/real_estate/roadxing/industry/grade_separation/index.htm

UPRR advised the project team that the proposed project is to not adversely affect train UPRR operations at any time during construction or after. UPRR discussed the different work windows for construction, including Conditional and Absolute Work Windows.

• Conditional Work Window (2-hour) – Train operations have priority over construction activities.

• Absolute Work Window – Construction activities have priority over train operations.

UPRR noted absolute work windows are generally not approved.

This project will need to be built using a Conditional Work Window and will be coordinated https://www.up.com/real_estate/roadxing/industry/grade_separation/index.htm very closely with a railroad flagger. If an absolute work window is required, coordination with the Public Project Manager and Local Service Unit along with a detailed explanation for UPRR review will be required.

The team reviewed UPRR property noting approximately UPRR maps show approximately 100’ of right of way. The design team noted that for the construction phase, installation of a construction fence that delineates land owned by UPRR from the City of Manteca could be considered and implemented. UPRR noted this proposal should be reviewed with the local Track Manager and if installed, should be placed more than 25’ from eastern track and outside UPRR right of way. UPRR noted that access to property by UPRR forces will need to be maintained throughout the project.

The team discussed crane locations and other equipment that may be used for construction noting these items should be identified on the staging plans. The team reviewed flagging requirements and UPRR advised flagging is required for any person or equipment that will be within twenty-five (25) feet of any track or will be near enough to any track that any equipment extension (such as, but not limited to, a crane boom) will reach to within twenty-five (25) feet of any track. UPRR further noted that railroad flagging will be required on the project including when construction activity occurs above the tracks on the bridge structure (including the sound wall construction on the EB-120 overhead) and should be accounted for in the project estimate. It was noted that flagging costs would not be included in the C&M agreement. The design team noted the flagging estimate, at least $2,000 per day should be set aside.

The contractor must obtain a flagging contract before construction begins. Two vendors are available for flagging.

UPRR discussed construction observation which is in additional to flagging noting a UPRR representative will visit the site at a minimum twice a month.

UPRR noted that utilities must be investigated by the project sponsor for determination of conflicts. The project sponsor shall make necessary requests for utility relocation directly with the utility owner (Not UP) for relocation so as it does not conflict with the proposed design.

UPRR noted that railroad property is not covered by 811 and a separate dig ticket is required by submitting at the following link:

https://www.up.com/aboutup/community/telecom/groups/index.htm UPRR noted that UPRR facilities will be marked up by the local Manager of Signal Maintenance (MSM) and will be coordinated through the UPRR Designated Representative. The team noted that the standard 811 CBUD process should also be part of the notification process.

The design team confirmed that the Right of Way fencing between structures will be modified to suit the revised corridor configuration.

UPRR discussed the UPRR Minimum Criteria for Track, Shoring and Existing Structure

Monitoring as well as the UPRR General Notes for Overhead Structures that were provided to the agency by UPRR as part of the Concept review. UPRR also advised the ‘Guidelines for Preparation of a Bridge Demolition and Removal Plan for Structures over Railroad’ must be followed where demolition work is concerned (e.g. existing EB 120 barriers). Trevor Taylor to share the latest copy of the guide with Eric Fredrickson. Documents have been provided with minutes for reference.

The team discussed the spliced girder locations and UPRR noted that splices shouldn’t be located over the tracks.

The team discussed lighting requirements as outlined in the UPRR/BNSF Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects. The team reviewed an RFI that had been submitted by the project.

Per UPRR Structures response, “the applicant shall provide a lighting system for the existing and proposed structures that is compliant with Section 5.7 of the UPRR/BNSF Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects.”

UPRR discussed standard review times noting each submittal for design and construction review could take 4 to 6 weeks; however, this is only a goal time and not a guaranteed timeline. UPRR encouraged the agency to follow up on status for submittals where a response hasn’t been received.

The team discussed the C&M Agreement noting the agreement for this project will be drafted by Caltrans. Trevor Taylor noted that he is willing to provide a cursory review of the C&M agreement before 100% plan approval and provide comments where applicable. It was noted that the C&M would not be officially submitted to UPRR Real Estate for review until 100% Plans were approved and all estimates (if applicable) were generated and approved by the agency.

The new WB-120 and existing EB-120 bridges are considered separate projects for UPRR submittals and reviews.

4. C&M Agreement Specific Items The next steps would be to finalize the meeting minutes and work towards the 30% submittal.

Once the final plans are approved, the project can move onto the C&M agreement phase at which point the UPRR Real Estate team will get involved. Trevor Taylor noted that UPRR would require submittal of specific exhibits that would accompany the standard design submittal from Mark Thomas as well as the draft C&M from Caltrans. Trevor Taylor to provide the list of required documents and exhibits with the design team.

UPRR will sign the GO-88B application once the design plans are 100% approved and concurrently with signature of the C&M agreement.

Garry Horton noted that two easements would be required from edge of deck to edge of deck.

Trevor Taylor noted that a crossing license would likely be provided rather than an easement but that guidance and direction will come from UPRR Real Estate as part of the C&M agreement review.

UPRR noted that two different C&M agreements may be required for this project pending review of existing agreements between Caltrans and UPRR as well as additional information regarding the DOT number. (Possible for one agreement for the new WB SR 120 bridge and one for the bridge rail demolition and construction of the new sound wall on the existing SR 120

EB.)

5. CPUC Specific Items

Dave Stewart noted that CPUC would respond within 45 days of the request for the GO-88B authorization being submitted.

Dave Stewart noted that the CPUC minimum vertical clearance required above the rail tracks is 22’ 6”. UPRR has a more conservative requirement of 23’ 4”. If the overhead clearance needs to be temporarily reduced to allow for possible false work during construction, the variance (temporary) must be requested as part of the GO 88-B request and must also be approved by UPRR. This variance is only good during construction and the final, permanent overhead clearance must comply with the 22’ 6” height requirement. A request to permit a permanent height of less than 22’ 6” must be submitted and approved by the Commission prior to filing the GO 88-B and can take 6 months or more to process.

Dave Stewart also noted the new SR 120 WB bridge will be considered a modification (GO-88B Application) to the approved entire SR 120 bridge.

6. Next Steps

The SR 99 / 120 interchange improvement project has a tight schedule, with a planned construction commencement date of Summer/Fall 2026 with 18 months of construction. Close coordination between stakeholders is essential. The following immediate action items/milestones are:

• Finalize meeting minutes by end of November this year

• Commence work on 30% design submittal and type selection report.

• Begin the Concept submittal process for the new EB SR 120 bridge sound wall.

• CPUC to look into the necessity for a new DOT number for the bridge.