Local Advisory Committee
Meeting

Thursday, May 3, 2001
6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Hood River Expo Center

Attendees

    Committee Members    

Brian Carlstrom
Jerry Grossnickle
Cecil Jaksha
Risa Wonsyld
Randy Anderson

Staff

Dale Robins
Faye Jenkins-Edwards
Michael Ray
Chuck Green
Matt Hastie
Arnold Cogan
Mike Traffalis

Visitors
Mike Doke

Welcome

Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan, opened the meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. Committee members introduced themselves to new member Randy Anderson (replacing Albert Choi). Hastie reviewed the agenda with the attendees.

Status Report

Dale Robins, Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council

Since the last Local Advisory Committee meeting (LAC) (February 15, 2001) there have been meetings with the Resource Regulatory Committee (RRC), Steering Committee (SC) and the public.

RRC members voiced concerns that the Purpose and Need Statement and initial screening process did not adequately address environmental issues. The Purpose and Need Statement now includes more language to address the concern.

Tier I is concluding and there will be a report available within the next 6 weeks. The study has been narrowed to three corridors proposed to be further evaluated in the next tier, including identifying and assessing specific alternatives. This will be happening between now and the end of the year.

Public, agency and advisory committee comments

Matt Hastie

Hastie reported on the NEPA process.

We have received over 70 public and agency comments. Approximately 60 people attended public open house/scoping meeting on March 8. Hastie went over the comments from the Open House.

Question: Has the Friends of the Gorge commented?
Answer: No, they haven’t since the last meeting. They have a representative on this committee and we mailed information to them. Unfortunately, this meeting conflicted with their Board meeting tonight.

Question: Do we have all the public comments for distribution?
Answer: Yes, we can make copies of them and send them to you upon request. The comments will be summarized and put on the website though we do not plan to include the complete text of all comments.

Question: Have the Federal Regulatory Agencies commented?
Answer: Yes, they have provided fairly general comments about the process. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife also provided detailed comments about several of the proposed corridors, including possible impacts on wildlife habitat at Bingen Lake.

Preliminary Corridor Screening Results and Committee Discussion 

Chuck Green, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Green led the committee through a review of the Purpose and Need Statement. He summarized the criteria and ratings.

Question: Does the Purpose and Need Statement need to say “minimum environmental impacts”?
Answer: We added to the Purpose Statement the objective to, “Minimize impacts to the natural, built, and aesthetic environment.” The environmental regulatory and review agencies are looking at this statement now and feedback is expected in May or June.

Three corridors have been identified. We are hoping for comments and concurrence to make a recommendation to the steering committee to move these corridors forward.

A review of the navigation channel revealed that the tight bends in the river are hard to navigate.

Comment: Towboats are looking for a minimum of 300’ wide horizontal crossing. Keeping the existing bridge as a bike/pedestrian bridge wouldn’t help navigation.

Question: Is this the worst bridge for navigating on the Columbia River?
Answer: No, the Vancouver Railroad Bridge is worse. A study is underway to look at a lift span for that bridge.

Question: If something hits the bridge and damages/destroys it, who would pay for repairs?
Answer: Insurance policies likely would pay portion. It depends on the source and extent of the damage.

Question: Would a tunnel crossing limit the options to be studied?
Answer: We will discuss this after we finish talking about the criteria and preliminary corridor screening. (See later comments)

A review of the criteria of the screening proceeded. All corridors will have environmental impacts.

Comment: I have found a lot of artifacts near existing bridge. They probably are being washed up from the river.

Comment: The presence of Native American sites could lead to major conflicts/problems with the Tribes.

Question: Are the Tribes on any of the committees?
Answer: No, a Bureau of Indian Affairs representative is on the RRC. We tried to contact tribal representatives at the beginning of the study with no response. We will continue to try and involve them.

Question: Has there been any consideration of an I-84 access or bridge access to casino?
Answer: We have not heard about one and are not sure if tribes have or will request an interchange.

Corridors recommended to be eliminated include:

Corridors recommended to go forward include:

The Management and consulting team plan to move to Tier 2 with 3 corridors and 8-10 alternatives. Some corridors could have 1 alternative; others could have several.

Question: Are there problems with the existing low corridor? You mentioned several possible problems with the City Center and East A corridor but did not mention similar possible problems with the existing low corridor.
Answer: Yes. Possible apparent problems include:

  • In lieu fishing site
  • Cultural/historical site
  • Retail complex-Hood River Inn & other businesses

On the other hand, it has the fewest environmental impacts based on our preliminary corridor examinations.

Question: Does this recommendation remove the eliminated corridors from further study?
Answer: Yes.

Question: Are we making a recommendation to the Steering Committee?
Answer: Yes.

Question: Is it assumed that the environmental impacts would be fewer if a new bridge was located next to the existing bridge. Is it possible to build another bridge in the same place without seriously disrupting traffic over the bridge?
Answer: Yes, construction of a new bridge could be phased at the existing location to minimize impacts on traffic and navigation.

Question: Do we still have low, medium, and high potential for specific corridors to go forward?
Answer: No. This screening presented tonight replaces the previous screening. We are recommending these three corridors go forward. From an engineering perspective, the existing low alternative has the highest potential.

Question: What about traffic problems with the existing location, particularly with interchange?
Answer: A project to improve the intersection is in the Hood River city and county plans. It is not in the State plans.

Comment: If City Center corridor proceeds, I would recommend enlarging it to include more upstream area.

Comment: I think the option that has the greatest potential is a jump span bridge (similar to the I-205/Glenn Jackson Bridge over the Columbia River) at the existing location, connecting at the west end of corridor to avoid the need for a lift span and impacts on river traffic. It could touch down near the existing location on the Oregon side.

Question: Is an option to strengthen (rehabilitate or widen) the existing bridge?
Answer: Yes, maybe part of no “new crossing” option.

Comment: At the East A corridor, you would need to avoid Koberg State Park and the Native American Treaty Fishing Site. Also, a lot of construction would be needed on Washington side. You also could have Railroad conflicts. Burlington Northern is in the process of eliminating all at-grade rail crossings. The Port of Klickitat is looking at a tunnel undercrossing in that area.

A motion was made to accept the proposal to eliminate the West, Existing High and East B corridors from further consideration. The motion was seconded and passed. Some discussion was held about the East A corridor having too many environmental issues. It would have economic benefits for the Port of Klickitat. The Committee agreed to leave it on the table as an option. It is too soon to eliminate the corridor before more detailed analysis is completed.

A motion was made to recommend the four remaining corridors (City Center, Existing Low, East A and No Action) be carried forward. The motion was seconded and passed. A discussion on the No Action alternative continued.

Question: Could it include some improvements to the existing bridge?
Answer: The short-term recommendation could be to make modifications to the existing bridge. The long-term recommendations also could be reconstruction of the existing bridge in the current location. The study will identify different options within the existing low corridor and likely will include retrofitting the existing bridge.

Comment: Would it be up to the Port of Hood River to do that.

Question: Has there been a recent seismic study of the existing bridge?
Answer: Yes. It was studied as part of evaluating the redecking project. The engineers said the bridge is not strong enough to accommodate a heavier deck either to incorporate a heavier decking material or to include a pedestrian walkway or widening. The understructure would have to be strengthened to accommodate this. A more thorough structural inspection will be done soon (after July) using divers to check the condition of the piers.

Question: Did some washout at the north pier show up in the 1993 study?
Answer: We found some loose concrete that was determined to be overflow from the concrete forms and not evidence of deterioration.

Question: Has a seismic study be done?
Answer: The Port believes it was studied in 1995-96. We can’t give a Richter scale level assessment. There were no discernible impacts from the recent quake. A broader engineering study by the Port’s consultant is expected to be done by the end of this summer. It should provide useful information for this study.

Facility Types

Mike Traffalis, PB

Traffalis discussed the type of facilities

Mike also presented some locations around the United States and internationally that serve as examples of these facilities currently in use.

Question: Why did Boston use a tunnel?
Answer: Because of the cost (lower right-of-way costs) and no visual impacts. Each project will have a different set of reasons for their choice.

Question: Have you thought about how long it would take to build this?
Answer: No. Construction timing and phasing will be part of the Draft EIS work that will be done in Tier III.

Comment: You may have difficulty getting permission for dredging if it affects fish mitigation.
Response: We would have to address fish migration with these options and time dredging or other activities in the water to avoid impacts on migrating fish.

Comment: The shipping channel could and maybe has changed since the maps you are using were developed. The location of the channel is not set in stone.

Question: How does the extra boring cost compare with the possible cost of an interchange?
Answer: We will not be sure until more engineering work has been completed.

Question: What about the cost comparison between the immersed and bore tunnels?
Answer: The cost of the immersed tunnel is likely to be lower because it is a shorter tunnel.

Question: Would the railroad conflict with the existing low option?
Answer: Not with a bridge facility.

Traffalis noted that a bored tunnel likely is not feasible for the existing low corridor given potential impacts on the area to the east of the existing interchange. The consultants did not look at any tunnel options at the East A corridor because the river is too deep at that point. For that option, they just looked at two bridge options, a fixed and lift span.

Question: Did you look at a floating bridge at the East A corridor?
Answer: No, our topography data for that area is inaccurate. We probably will have the area flown again (for aerial photos) to obtain better topographic data before studying alternatives further at that location.

Traffalis noted that at some point, the committee and community will need to provide direction about whether a very simple functional design is desired or whether a more visually striking, “signature” bridge is appropriate. The type of design will affect the cost of the bridge.

Comment: We want functional, not fancy crossing.

Comment: The argument may be that you need something fancy for aesthetic reasons.

Comment: The character of the crossing will depend on the final selection of location. A plain bridge at the East A corridor would be relatively unobtrusive. At the existing location, a bridge would be more visible from all the local communities and something more striking might be more appropriate.

Comment: I like the idea of using the existing bridge for pedestrians, bikes, and motorcycles.
Response: If we want to keep the existing bridge for bikes and pedestrians, we also need to consider that there may still be an upgrade cost to replace the bridge deck to make it “walkable” and to provide for long-term bridge operations.

Comment: It could be more expensive to maintain the existing bridge than to build a bigger new one.

Question: How would a fixed span affect grade?
Answer: We would need to maintain minimum slopes to meet Americans with Disability Act requirements, and would also need to design to accommodate trucks.

Next Steps

Matt Hastie

We probably will end up with about eight (8) options for review at the next committee meeting. We plan to send out information about range of alternatives during the summer.

Question: Who will own the new bridge?
Answer: That has not yet been determined. It will be addressed in the financing plan prepared as part of this study.

Comment: We will want to know how much it will cost to maintain the existing bridge. That should be factored in to your comparison.

Comment: At some point we may have to stop using the existing bridge.

Comment: Port assumes the existing bridge potentially could last 50 years.

Question: If a new bridge is built with a pedestrian lane, does the Port have reasons to maintain the existing bridge?
Answer: Probably yes.

Comment: It seems like the tunnel options could be eliminated now.
Response: We do not recommend doing so at this time. We need more data to evaluate and compare them.

Some committee members have not attended these meetings. The Management Team plans to replace those who have not attended any meetings. Hastie asked committee members for suggestions about possible replacements.

Comment: Possibly the owner of the Bingen Haus.

The meeting was adjourned.

The meeting was adjourned.

For more information...

E-mail or phone:

Dale Robins
Regional Transportation Council
1351 Officers Row, Vancouver WA 98661
Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-696-1847

Send mail to webmaster@rtc.wa.gov with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright ©1992-2008, Regional Transportation Council, All Rights Reserved.
This page was last updated January 16, 2008.