Citizens Advisory CommitteeMeeting Minutes

Project: Portageville BridgeDate: November, 12, 2009Location: Mount MorrisPurpose: Second Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting

1. Ray Hessinger of the NYSDOT opened the meeting with a welcoming statement and an introductionof the project team from NYSDOT, Norfolk Southern Railway, Modjeski & Masters, Inc. M&M, andC&S Engineers, lnc, C&S.

2. Ray then gave a brief overview of the content and results of the first Citizens Advisory CommitteeCAC meeting which included:

* 43 people attended the first meeting.* Federal & State Agencies* Local Government Officials* Concerned Citizens

* The topics of discussion were:* Explanation of the role of the CAC* Description of the SEQR Process* History of Existing Bridge* Purpose & Need and Objectives* Scoping Process and Alternatives

3. Kevin Johns of M&M presented an overview of the findings of the Draft Alternative ScreeningAnalysis.

* The first phase screening was to determine if each alternative met the project objectives. Anyalternative that did not satisfy the objectives was removed from further consideration.

* The results of the first phase screening was the elimination of the Alternative to Repair andRetrofit Existing Bridge Alternative 2 and elimination of Alternatives to Utilize Remote RoutesAlternatives 8 and 9

* The second phase screening evaluated the remaining alternatives using three criteria:* Environmental Analysis* Cost and Feasibility* Constructability and Engineering Issues

* The results of the second phase screening were the elimination of Alternatives to Utilize theSouthern Alignment Alternatives 6 & 7 and elimination of Alternatives to Replace Existing Bridgeon Existing Alignment Alternative 3.

* The recommendations and conclusions of the screening process were that Alternative 1 - NoAction, Alternative 4 - Build on Parallel Alignment and Remove Existing Bridge, and Alternative 5- Build on Parallel Alignment and Transfer Existing Bridge Ownership be advanced for moredetailed analysis in the DEIS.

* The following questions were presented to the CAC for their consideration. The responses aresummarized in Attachment A.

* Do you understand how the Alternative Screening Analysis arrived at the findings it did?If not, why not?

4. Kevin gave an overview of the bridge types considered for replacement of the existing bridge on aparallel alignment. He explained that the project specific geography, loading and aesthetics were themain factors in determining the feasible bridge types. The three types considered were:* Trestle* Truss* Arch

Kevin indicated that the proposed bridge type for this project would be the arch bridge.

5. Tom Barba presented an update to the Environmental Impacts Studies. The progress to date of thefollowing was noted.

* DEIS Format* Visual Impacts Assessment* Historical/Cultural Resources

Tom indicated that Section One of the DEIS was being internally reviewed. The viewsheds for theVisual Impact Assessment had been identified through GIS software and were being field verified.Tom showed a rendering of the proposed arch bridge with and without the existing bridge in theviewshed.

Tom also noted that the Historical/Cultural Resources field work was complete and a draft version ofthe report was being reviewed. The report will be an appendix to the EIS.

The following questions were presented to the CAC for their consideration. The responses aresummarized in Attachment A.

* Are there any other important viewsheds to consider?* Are there any aesthetics issues associated with retaining the existing bridge, what are they?

Is there a particular feature associated with the existing bridge that should be considered inthis regard?

Tom gave an overview of the next steps in the process and indicated that the publication of the DEISwould be the next step followed by the public DEIS hearing.

6. Ray Hessinger offered some closing remarks thanking the CAC participants for their input andinvolvement in the process.

ResponsivenessA response to the individual questions and comments recorded at the meeting and reiterated inAttachment A will not be generated. Rather these questions and comments will be used to some degreeto guide the formulation of the DEIS.

Attachment A - Comment Summary

1. Are there any aesthetics issues associated with retaining the existing bridge, what are they?

2. Is there a particular feature associated with the existing bridge that should be considered inthis regard?

* Possibly explore consultant who would provide a "signature" bridge design.

* History of park tied to the bridge.

* Existing piers to be retained in river to tell the story of the bridges.

* Light and delicate appearance of existing bridge.

* Use for pedestrians.

* Some rail fans may want the new bridge Uust for trains. No bridge is a worse option.

* Both bridges do not look visually pleasing to the eye.

* Historical nature of old bridge.

* Would it be visible from highway?

* South of existing bridge on old railroad bed.

* If visible, from in front to the Glen Iris Inn.

* Right near the parking area, right "under" it.

* Donations to walk on old bridge "proceed at your own risk"

* Family connections to old bridge - seven generations of families

* We like the arch.

* Arch bridge design preferred - existing bridge appears to detract from the aesthetics.

* Piers in gorge bottom.

* Include other bridge types in simulations.

* Cluttered and unattractive view shed with both.

* Consider leaving the piers in place; do they have historical value? Are there environmental issueswith removing them?

* Receding falls - is it a concern?

3. Do you understand how the alternatives screening analysis arrived at the findings it did? Ifnot, why not?

* Would like to still see environmental impacts for southern alternative included.

* Who would want ownership of the bridge?

* What are O&M costs if bridge is made pedestrian bridge only?

* Study does not adequately justify eliminating Alternative No. 2.

* Why can’t using existing bridge work-more justification?

- Cost of maintenance.- Cost of rehab/retrofit.

* What standards could bridge be brought up to if "they" repair existing bridge?

* What is the cost to business all business if they shut down the route during construction?

* Would like prefer a 30 day comment period instead of the two weeks that was given on thecomment form.

* There was no cost given to repair/retrofit existing bridge.

* Will there be public notice/public comment period?

* Conditions of existing bridge - past its useful life for current industry freight standards- cost.

* Impacts to southern alternative:

- Noise- Wetlands- Streams- Cemeteries

* Estimated cost of removing existing bridge 880k* Would railroad be responsible to remove the bridge - yes who else?use some of that?

* There still is an issue with pedestrians - yes, understood!

* Need clarification regarding differences in cost between parallel and existing alignments.

* On-going work should consider pedestrian access on any new bridge.

4. Are there any other important viewsheds to consider?

* Glen Iris Letchworth Museum.

* Check historic photographs and specifically General Greenway.

* Trail users should be looked at as a "viewer"

* West side parking/view areas.

* Hot air balloon views.

* From the riverbed.

* Upstream.

* Fingerlakes trail and Genesee Valley Greenway simultaneous at that point - on east side of thebridge - FLT-22 - length of the park.

* Truss bridge - foundation for the pier appears to be in the trail or canal.

* Arch design - concern with eastside and ridge. Glacial rock - On Route 436 rocks slumped - dowe need concrete foundations, shot crete, tecco mesh, rock bolts?

* Muddy, unstable area north of bridge on park - eastside - no tunnel in rocky area.

* From the air - locally two hot air balloons provide views to customers from the air.

* View of arch bridge with piers remaining in gorge bottom.

* Both truss designs.

F:ProjectG34 - Modjeski & MastersG34.OO1.OO1 - Letchworth Bridge DEISCitizen Advisory CommitteeCAC 111209Meetingcomments from sheets.docx