|
|
|
|
Public Works advances on city road projects |
|
|
Thursday, 31 January 2008 |
 Bishop Public Works Director David B. Grah (above left) reviews the engineering details for a road improvement project with Public Works Superintendent Deston Dishion. Grah credits Dishion with making sure that each project’s implementation conforms to the approved plans. Photo by Ken Koerner. By Ken Koerner
Register Staff 1-29-2008
The City of Bishop Public Works Department has been busier than a one-armed boxer in a championship bout.
Citizens routinely see city crews and equipment on public streets, actively working on the physical aspects of approved and funded Public Works projects. What most residents won’t see is the difficult and complex work that precedes those crews, trucks and tools being put to use.
Apparently, this is the case with every major improvement. “A lot of the work has to be done well up front,” City of Bishop Director of Public Works David Grah said, “and at times this can actually be years before construction can begin.” Grah pointed out that the principal factor in overall duration stems from funding sources.
“Bishop needs to depend upon other agencies as a revenue source for street projects,” said Grah, “and this is generally going to be a federal or state agency, like Caltrans, for instance.”
Grah explained that the city’s own budget cannot support such enormous expenditures. “No municipal government of our size could,” he said.
“We requested funding from Caltrans,” said Grah,” to allow for the replacement of the sidewalks on MacIver Street back in May, 2007 – and we had to be ready to build it at the time of that request – it was only yesterday (Jan. 23) that we got the funds. So that work will finally be able to happen around May, 2008.”
Grah, nonplussed by the familiar pattern of the process, said, “state-funded projects, when all goes well, can come out in about a year, but the real average is probably more like three years.” Grah went on to explain that, “ … federally-funded projects are the most cumbersome; they can take five years or more.”
While aspects from the involvement of federal or state transportation agencies contributes heavily to the overall duration of Public Works projects, the City of Bishop figures into time lines, too. Grah explained that the city also has guidelines and mandates that must be followed in the orderly and legal pursuit of business. “Due to the nature of Public Works projects,” Grah said, “they require a lot of action on the part of the City Council.”
Evidence of this was apparent during the City Council meeting on Jan. 14. That evening, Grah advised the members about two separate street improvement projects, both of which would include an opportunity for public comment prior to any action that might be taken by the council. The first such agenda item dealt with the South Second Street Improvement Project, designed to rehabilitate and improve South Second Street from East South Street to East Line Street (see The Inyo Register, Jan 22, 2008 for more details on that specific project). The second of the public works projects listed on the meeting’s agenda was identified as Road Improvement Project A.
According to the Public Works documents for Project A that were provided by Grah, “the purpose of the project is to address issues with pavement, with drainage, with pedestrian, disabled and bicycle circulation, with parking patterns and with water and sewer service in Bishop on North Third Street from East Pine Street to East Elm Street and on Short Street from South Second Street to South Third Street.” Within that same documentation, mention is made of the possible “improvement of the intersections with intersecting streets.”
As straight-forward and comprehensively defined as that project overview may seem, it represents a small fraction of the documentation and approvals required before that first shovel-full of dirt can be moved to accomplish that goal.
In terms of identifying the need for an improvement project, that is something of a two-prong front: Public Works routinely examines the condition of city streets – but they do have help spotting needs. “Many times,” Grah said, “projects are initiated as input is received from our citizens. They have a sort of 24/7 awareness of problems, particularly those that happen repeatedly right where those families live.”
After that needs assessment has been investigated, an initial plan of attack is developed to address the problems – and to incorporate whatever related improvements should be tackled at the same time. Yet another step taken along the path to progress.
Those design and engineering considerations point Grah toward the most productive approach to be taken, then that information must be shared with the public so that their opinions may be heard.
In the case of Road Improvement Project A, public input was solicited at an open hearing on Jan. 3 and written comments were received. A resident on East Elm Street noted in her public/written comments that the “project looks good – although we would prefer sidewalk to be next to street. It is easier to step out of a vehicle than onto grass or gravel.” She also noted that she “would appreciate street lighting that keeps light directed onto streets and not house windows and is not so high that it obliterates the night sky.” Her comments were seriously received and considered by Public Works.
Among the many pages of project documentation provided to the City Council (and the public and media outlets) following receipt of these comments, the Public Works Department’s “response” notation states, “Sidewalks along right of way line is safer for pedestrians, is consistent with General Plan, and is generally supported.” The paperwork went on to note, “to the extent practical, reduced-glare lights will be included in required overhead power relocation.”
Not everyone achieves total success with adherence to his or her personal comments and requests. Someone living in the 300 block of Short Street questioned the city’s plan to make a portion of Short Street “one-way, with diagonal parking.” The response this comment elicited noted, “most think there is a shortage of parking on Short and diagonal parking appears to be the best way to provide more parking.” However, another of this same citizen’s comments reflected their opinion that, “trees should be provided on Short Street.” A more favorable response came their way on that front, with the response stating, “trees will be provided on Short Street.”
Grah’s interactions on Public Works street projects frequently stretch from the funding agency in Washington, D.C. or Sacramento, to their regional transportation committees, to the offices and council chambers of the City of Bishop, and includes public outreach efforts, too. Grah has also been in contact with consulting engineering firms along the path; but there is often road still left for him to travel.
In the case of Road Improvement Project A, there was also the necessity for Grah to navigate the bureaucratic waters related to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. Lahontan’s concerns, referenced in correspondence from its Victorville headquarters, were all fully addressed within the Bishop project’s Environmental Initial Study, “on pages 3-5.”
However, the City of Bishop and its Public Works Department still hadn’t covered all the bases essential to such a simple street resurfacing, curb construction, drainage improvement effort on a relatively minimal section of public thoroughfare. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power also needed its opportunity to be consulted regarding the proposed street improvements. As in the case with the state water agency, the LADWP sought a reply related to “drainage considerations – and the proposed sewer connection and storm water treatment.” Grah ensured that the appropriate environmental statements were provided, and LADWP correspondence received by Grah’s office indicates “LADWP has no objections to the project at this time …”
By the time the various departments and agencies, within and outside the City of Bishop, had achieved sufficient progress to bring this before the City Council, the summarization and the critical documents to be reviewed and acted upon by council members had been pared down to “only 47 pages” … and clearly there was more work to be done on the part of Public Works and the City Council.
With all the effort and resources that had been employed prior to the City Council having scheduled it on the agenda – and all that transpired during the council meeting that night – Road Improvement Project A hadn’t even come close to allowing for the physical work on this improvement project to begin on site.
As was the case with the prior Public Works-related agenda item being acted upon, Grah advised the council that “some paperwork was not processed in the spring of 2007 and so funding that should have become available in July 2007 will not be available until after the California Transportation Commission meeting in March 2008.” Grah further advised the council, “this will likely result in a shift of the project date to spring, 2009.”
The good news for Bishop residents is – despite the many hurdles and delays that accompany such processes – everything related to Road Improvement Project A is on-track and at some point, maybe a year down the road, the equipment and work crews will be visible out on the street, making things better for years to come.
In the meantime, David Grah continues to work each day in order to make something productive happen next year … or the year after, or the year after …
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 08 March 2008 )
|
|
|
|
