Steering Committee Members Brian Prigel, City of Bingen Mayor
Don Struck, Klickitat County Commissioner
Marc Harvey, Port of Klickitat Commissioner
Faye Jenkins-Edwards, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Alternate
Dean Lookingbill, RTC Transportation Director
Jennifer Donnelly, City of Hood River
Bob Nichols, Port of Hood River Commissioner
Charles Sciscione, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Don Wiley, Hood River County Engineer
Jim Amundsen, Klickitat County EngineerLocal Advisory Committee Members Karl Kment, Oregon Citizen
Brian Carlstrom, Windance (Business/Windsurfing)
Albert Choi, Washington Business
Risa Wonsyld, Oregon Citizen
Cyndi DeBrueller, Columbia Riverkeepers
Michael Morneault, Washington Business AlternateGuests Mike Dokes, Port of Hood River
Peter Frothingham, Citizen
Elvia Frothingham, Citizen
Matt Kosmata, Citizen
David Dorocke, CitizenStaff Dale Robins, RTC
Michael Ray, ODOT
Arnold Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan
Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan
Kevin Halsey, Entranco
Mike Traffalis, Parsons Brinckerfoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
Arnold Cogan opened the meeting shortly after 7:00 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. Mr. Cogan reviewed the agenda. He then asked people to introduce themselves, state which committee they are serving on and what interest group they represent (business, community, state, city, etc.).
Dale Robins provided background about the study. The Hood River Bridge was constructed in 1924. The construction of the Bonneville Dam in 1938 created the need to vertically rebuild the bridge. During reconstruction, a lift span and tollbooth were added. The Port of Hood River privately owns the bridge and the states of Oregon and Washington are not financially invested in it.
Local citizens and officials on the Washington side were concerned about the existing bridge, and through their efforts the SR-35 corridor was designated and funding obtained. In 1997, the Washington State Legislature designated a future SR-35 link across the Columbia River somewhere in the Bingen/White Salmon area. In 1998, WSDOT received TEA21 funding for the current feasibility study. The Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation are providing the matching funds.
A Management Team oversees the study, including representatives from ODOT, WSDOT and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council. Mr. Robins represents RTC and is the project manager. Michael Ray from ODOT and Faye Jenkins-Edwards from WSDOT also serve on the management team.
In 1999, a scoping phase for this study was completed. There were two critical questions asked. First, “Is the Columbia River Crossing Study needed?;” The response from the local community was “yes”. The second question was, “What should the study consider and what products should be developed?” The three-tiered approach was developed from comments received in the scoping phase. Each tier would take the study to a more detailed level of analysis and narrow the number of options considered. In the first tier, a wide range of options will be identified and considered. The study will consider a short-term and a long-term solution. Short-term solutions may include improvements of the existing bridge. Long-term solutions will address needs 20 years or more from now.
There are a number of ways for people to be involved. Committee members, are providing advice to the Management Team about study issues and alternatives. Newsletters will be mailed to interested citizens. Staff will work with children in local school districts on both sides of the river, involving them, partly as a means of interesting their parents in the study. A study website also is available for additional information (http://www.rtc.wa.gov/Studies/SR35/).
Mike Traffalis reviewed the three-tier process. In Tier 1, baseline conditions will be analyzed, including gathering existing data. A range of alternatives will be developed and an initial screening will be completed. Early public involvement efforts include committee meetings and open houses. These are part of a “scoping” phase required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Tier 1 will conclude by about March (2001). Traffalis reviewed the four corridor options, including a no build option that will be carried through the entire study as part of the NEPA process. The corridors being studied include a west, city center, current, and east corridors.
Q: What does “Urban area exempt from GMP” mean?
A: That means it is exempt from the Columbia River Gorge Management Plan.
Q: Aren’t both ends of the bridge exempt from the scenic area?
A: Yes, but the river in between is not.
Tier 2 should begin by the spring of next year, moving through Tier 2 over the next year and then into Tier 3. In Tier 3, we will identify and start the conceptual and preliminary design of a preferred option.
The question was asked if the Gorge Commission should be on the Steering or Local Advisory Committee to represent their interests. It was explained that there is a Regulatory Resource Committee consisting of representatives from the environmental regulatory/resource agencies; the Gorge Commission has been asked to participate through that committee. The Columbia River has no land use, and without a land use designation nothing is permitted. The Gorge Commission staff is aware of this and intends to address it in their comprehensive update.
A question was asked what the web site address is. The website address is located at the bottom of the study letterhead. The website can be accessed through the Gorge.net web page. Jim Amundsen, said he heard about the meeting on the radio.
Arnold Cogan handed out a schedule of Steering and Local Advisory Committee meetings. He went over the meeting schedules, including the purpose/agenda and the desired outcomes of each meeting. Mr. Cogan also explained the composition and function of the Local Advisory, Steering, Resource Regulatory Committees and the Management Team.
People asked if notice of the meetings would be posted on the web site, if the meetings would be open to the public, and if news releases would be posted?
Mr. Robins responded that the meeting notices and the meeting minutes will be posted on the web. The meeting will be open to the public and news releases will be posted on the website. Open houses will be held throughout the study process also.
Q: What is the composition of the committees?
A: We aimed for a half and half balance of Washington and Oregon members.
Q: Is the Hispanic community represented?
A: Yes, someone was identified to serve on the committee. We tried to remind them to come by telephone and were unsuccessful; a packet was sent to them.
Q: What about representation from the Native American community?
A: They are not represented on the local advisory committee at this point but we plan to conducting interviews with representatives of the tribes and other interests that are not represented on the various committees.
Dale Robins went over the results of the questionnaire. He passed out copies of the results of the September 2000 questionnaire. Approximately, 8600 copies were distributed through the local newspaper in Hood River and Bingen/White Salmon area. Copies of the survey were also available at city halls, libraries, county buildings, Port of Hood River, Bridge Mart, and other locations. Robins briefly summarized the response to each question. As of the meeting, 273 surveys have been returned, representing about a 3% response rate; 213 were returned by mail and 60 by e-mail.
The comment was made that many people choose to live close to where they work. A question asked was if we had the authority to take the ownership of the Hood River Bridge away from the Port of Hood River. The response was “No.” The Port bought the Bridge in 1951. Another question was “Who owned the Bridge originally”? The Oregon and Washington Bridge Company, a government agency originally owned the bridge.
Two out of three people who returned surveys provided an address, indicating they would like to continue to receive information about the project. These names, along with those from the scoping phase have been added to the mailing list. The mailing list includes approximately 250 people.
Matt Hastie gave an overview of the Public Open House on October 19, 2000. Approximately 40 people attended the first open house. Activities included a live/work map, an opportunity to identify the three most important issues to be studied, comment on specific crossing alternatives, and listen to a project presentation.
The majority of open house participants live in Washington and work in Oregon. Top priority issues include location, alternative transportation, safety, tolls, and capacity. Most frequently cited comments related to specific crossing alternatives include traffic impacts, tolls/bridge ownership, location, safety, environmental impacts, proximity to communities, and physical constraints.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a committee discussion of project-related issues. Issues identified up to this point were distributed as a starting point for further discussion with the committees.
Q: At the Open House I had heard that putting a bike lane or walkway on the existing bridge couldn’t be done. Is that true?
A: An actual study was never done for that kind of project. The Port did request a cost estimate to add a 12-foot sidewalk to one side of the bridge. The cost was based more on the cost per linear foot and did not include additional structural improvements that might be necessary to support a sidewalk.
Q: Is it possible to retrofit the existing bridge now versus 20 – 50 years from now when we get a new bridge.
A: We don’t have an answer, at this point.
Q: How far will the baseline survey go in looking at long term or short-term solutions?
A: The study will use existing studies, including bridge inspection data. Conducting an additional inspection of the Hood River Bridge is not part of the study process. The study will depend on what the Port has already done and currently is doing to report on the condition of the Bridge. If the bridge were not privately owned, inspections would have been required to be more frequent. Current inspections don’t indicate anything is wrong with the Bridge; however, additional inspections are recommended. The Port Director has asked their engineering firm to give them a cost estimate of what it would cost to do an inspection to Federal standards.
Q: How much of our resources for the study will be used to look at possibly improving the infrastructure of the existing bridge?
A: We won’t address that in detail in Tier 1. Tier 2 will get into a little more analysis. Any heavy engineering analysis related to the size of the structural members and similar issues would be undertaken in Tier 3. At this stage, we are still weighing short-term solutions with a variety of alternative long-term solutions. A 12’ sidewalk is probably going to raise a weight/load issue for the existing bridge and could require establishing and enforcing load limits on the types of vehicles crossing that bridge.
Dale Robins noted that the three tier approach process allows the direction of the study to be altered to meet the needs of the community.
Q: I understand that in the short-term, the Port plans to replace deck of the bridge within two years?
A: Yes, they are going to start next winter and take two winters to replace the entire deck.
Q: Are they using the same materials?
A: The Port is looking at a diamond-grid metal deck.
Q: Who hired you to do the study?
A: This was a line item in ISTEA, the federal transportation funding act, providing funds directly to the Washington State of Transportation which decided to have RTC manage the study.
Q: Are you going to come up with estimates of how much it is going to cost? To whom will you present the results of the study?
A: The final decision will be by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation. The Federal Highway Administration also likely will be involved. The Departments of Transportation would go through each state’s transportation commission to take action on the study recommendations.
Q: If a new bridge were built, who would own it?
A: That would be a recommendation of the study. If a new bridge were built, it would be built by the states in cooperation with the Federal government. In similar joint projects, the Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation generally have alternated which bridge they own.
A committee member noted that during flush times of prosperity, the government can’t afford to pay for new infrastructure. Typically, infrastructure is built in hard times. It is important to accomplish the study now and be ready with a plan and recommendations to help influence political support regarding the study and project, to help obtain funding when it is available.
Political reality is all around us. It is important to tap into local communities also and other interests when focusing on these issues. We have developed an aggressive approach to get the project done and send information to state and federal representatives who are on the mailing list. Without a serious problem, it will take at least 10 years to start building a new bridge.
Q: We really don’t know what the problem is and until we do, we won’t know the degree of the short-term problems and solutions.
A: The Port of Hood River has hired HNTB, the current Bridge Consultant, to prepare a report on how they can do a updated inspection. This would be done in conjunction with the re-decking and replacement of the stringers noted in the 1993 report. Such an inspection could occur within the next 6 months, including an evaluation of the bridge’s structure integrity. The Port of Hood River has made a number of repairs in the last 5 years, and have scheduled a number of additional improvements over the next few years.
The short-term recommendation will be in addition to the improvements that the Port currently has scheduled. Study recommendations will be for improvements not maintenance issues. If you have a maintenance issue, you need to contact the Port directly.
Other issues:
- How do commercial needs weigh in? What are the scenic issues?
- It is difficult for wide loads to cross the river into Klickitat County.
- We should look at broad economic issues, not just who benefits locally from bridge improvements.
- Expand the study to look at capacity in terms of future population growth and traffic needs.
- How do you plan to include trucking needs? The Oregon and Washington Trucking companies should be sent information. Underwood Fruit also should be contacted, as well as SDS lumber. (All of these interests have been contacted and given an opportunity to comment on the project.)
- Lots of people are concerned about this issue, but might not have received a survey. How do we involve them?
- There seems to be a lack of overload capacity.
- Location
- Some alternatives seem very expensive and not worth studying, e.g. the bluff to bluff option.
- At this point (early in the study) we are looking at every option. Evaluating every option that sound absurd may provide us with valuable information.
- How heavily would endangered species weigh in our analysis?
- Two years from now we could come across an endangered turtle population. What would happen then?
- In the process outlined, one of the things we will develop is the draft environmental impact statement. If we then get to the next step and complete the environmental impact statement, that will be valid as long as we continue the process.
- identification of impacts on a threatened or endangered species would weigh heavily but we hope that we would identify those types of possible impacts early, rather than late in the process. We are looking at environmental, sensitive, and endangered species and will track them throughout the process.
- The Environmental Engineer for the consultant discussed what environmental steps will be taken.
- Jeanette Kloos, ODOT, stated earlier that a sensitive plant has been identified on Stanley Rock.
- Cost/Tolls/Financing?
- The cost of a bridge will be a screening measure and will be considered in general terms before Tier 2. If political reality is that the bridge will be financed by tolls, $2M/year in toll revenues will not buy much bridge. I don’t see lots of other financing options.
- Cost will be important factor as we go through the various options.
- It is tough to get financing without a very specific proposal and estimate.
- We already have looked at the feasibility of a new bridge generally. There is no way we can locally or through state recourses totally fund a new bridge; we will have to have some federal money.
- It is inevitable that we do something with the crossing. It is important to have a preferred solution identified when we seek financing. It may be more acceptable to charged tolls, if people know they will be eliminated when the bridge is paid for. I agree that Washington residents don’t see the benefits from tolls now.
- If we are looking at federal funding, right now a second crossing is being investigated for the Rainier/Longview area, as well as a possible new crossing in the Portland near the existing I-5 Bridge. Is there going to be any attempt to do some comparative needs analysis among these possible projects?
- Currently there is a study underway looking at all of the proposed Columbia River crossing projects. One of the downfalls of this study is that it does not include much information on the Hood River Bridge because it is privately owned and not a high priority. What we do here with our study will impact the Nine Columbia River Crossings Study.
Matt Hastie led the Public Involvement Process discussion. He asked for advice from the committees about the best ways to involve the public in this process.
Current plans include work with the advisory committees, public meetings, mailing newsletters directly and having them available at public locations, media releases, radio public announcements, talk show, school programs, presentations to local groups, stakeholder interviews, a web page and a link to gorge.net. Mr. Hastie asked for additional ideas.
- Additional surveys should be done of bridge users. The bridge is a great opportunity to find out what people who are directly affected think.
- Use a survey to identify why people are using bridge; identify groups or special interests to contact.
- The radio talk show is a good idea.
The consultant team is willing to train speakers for presentations to community groups, such as neighborhood groups, clubs, etc. if members of the Steering Committee or Local Advisory Committee are interested in that opportunity.
Commissioner Nichols stated that the Port is 100% supportive of this study. The Port Commission understands that the bridge probably shouldn’t be used for more than 20 more years. That said, it is hard to say how long the bridge will last. The Port wants to ensure the Bridge is safe and functional for as long as it is used.
There was a brief discussion about when and what time future meetings should be held. Steering Committee members were split between evenings vs. days. Fridays are good, as are the first Wednesdays of the month. Evening meetings should be held from 6-8 p.m. Most members of the Local Advisory Committee prefer daytime meeting. Staff and consultants will poll additional committee members and determine the most convenient meeting time for the greatest number of people.
There also was some discussion about how to accept public input at these meetings. It was determined that public input is very important and should be accepted at any point during the meeting as long as it does not become disruptive.
Dean Lookingbill, RTC, stated this is a community issue and the community has to be involved in this process.
It was suggested that Chambers’ of Commerce on both sides of the River and the Mid-Columbian Association of Realtors (305 Prospect, Hood River, OR) be contacted and provided with information about the study.
The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 2001. Committee members will be notified as soon as a date, time and location are determined.
E-mail or phone:
Dale Robins
Regional Transportation Council
1351 Officers Row, Vancouver WA 98661
Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-696-1847
       
|