Committee Members Michael Morneault
Cecil Jaksha
Randy Anderson
Karl Kment
Maria Dominguez
StaffDale Robins
Faye Jenkins-Edwards
Michael Ray
Chuck Green
Matt Hastie
Paul Korsmo
Chris Hemmer
VisitorsMike Doke
Robert Travis
Vern Landgren
Roger Gadway
BJ Korsmo
Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan, opened the meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. Self-introductions were done. Hastie reviewed the agenda with the attendees.
Tier I is concluded. The study has been narrowed to three corridors. Specific locations and types of facilities will now be addressed. A report on Tier I has been completed and sent to committee members.
We are now in the process of obtaining concurrence on the Purpose and Need Statement from resource agencies. We have received comments from a number of agency representatives and are in the process of summarizing those comments and prepare our proposed responses.
Chuck Green led the committee through the Draft Evaluation Criteria. There are three impact levels to rate each alternative – high, moderate and low (copy attached). The evaluation criteria relate to the six “issue points” contained in the Purpose and Need Statement. Green summarized the criteria that were categorized by “issue point.” Under “Impacts to the natural, built, and aesthetic environment” issue point a new criterion was added, “Environmental justice.” This criterion will address impacts that could affect minorities or low-income populations.
Chris Hemmer led the committee through the Evaluation of Alternatives. The alternatives are as follows:
City Center Corridor
- Floating Movable Bridge
- Fixed Span Bridge for all modes
- Fixed Span Bridge with Existing for Bikes/Peds
- Movable Bridge with Existing for Bikes/Peds
- Movable Bridge for all modes
- Tunnel with Existing Bridge for Bikes/Peds
Existing Corridor
- Movable Bridge, keep existing for bikes/peds
- Movable Bridge, all modes
- Fixed Span Bridge with existing for bikes/peds
- Fixed Span Bridge for all modes
- Tunnel with Existing Bridge for Bikes/Peds
- Tunnel for all modes
- ITS/Traffic Management/Reversible Lane Operations
- Retrofit of Existing Bridge
East A Corridor
- Movable, all modes
- Fixed Span Bridge with Existing for Bikes/Peds
- Fixed Span Bridge for all modes
There is also the “No Action” alternative.
There was much discussion on the alternatives for each corridor. The following is a summary of the discussion.
The advantage of a high level fixed span bridge would be the removal of maintenance and operational costs associated with a lift span.
The grade level of any crossing would need to be at 3-4%, and not to exceed 5%. A grade exceeding 5% would be difficult for both the boring machinery, if a tunnel crossing, and for truck traffic. Sections of I-84 do have grades of 5% of more; however, they are short sections of highway.
How does a floating bridge affect river navigation?
The floating bridge could swing open for river traffic. Also a movable span near the north side could be considered.
What is the required vertical height of the bridge so that it could be a fixed span?
The vertical clearance is 75-80 feet above the average water level.
City Center Corridor - How would North intersection of tunnel deal with Dock Grade and the natural gas lines?
The utilities issue has not been considered at the point. Not sure about gas line. Should be no issues with Dock Grade – a bored tunnel would still be underneath Dock Grade at this point.
Is an immersible tube tunnel not as deep?
Yes, but the crossing would use different types of tunneling with immersible tube. This would be a disadvantage if using several methods, you would need to bore through hillside and then switch to immersible tube and then to cut and cover type of tunnels.
Existing Corridor – Why would a tunnel loop under the motel instead of going in a westerly direction?
The tunnel would be in the Marina and could not reach the below-surface level without being in the water.
On the Oregon side, why not look at having a high level bridge connect to OR-35? Could have new bridge above the existing development.
Could be costly. We did look at this. Would need to have freeway access off bridge. The topography in this area is difficult for ramps and would be hard to mitigate.
What about the traffic issues on I-84?
Would look at signals for the off-ramps. Traffic operation would need to be addressed. Traffic operation would be a short-term solution.
Has the Indian Casino been taken into account for in the East A corridor?
No, there is not currently enough information on the project.
Is the tunnel option on the East A corridor?
No.
At this point in the meeting Chuck Green led the committee members through each of the alternatives within the three corridors to determine what would be eliminated and what would still be considered viable.
City Center Corridor
Floating Movable Bridge – Recommendation is to eliminate. Committee concurred.
There were no questions or comments from the committee.
Low Level Movable Bridge – Recommendation is to eliminate. Committee concurred.
There were no questions or comments from the committee.
High Level Movable Bridge – Recommended to be retained. Committee concurred.
One comment was that the angle of the bridge would be better. There was a question on the minimum water clearance towards the low end. It would need to have a clearance of 20’ at low end and 80’ for river navigation.
Tunnel with Existing for Bikes/Peds – Recommended to be retained. Committee concurred, but with reservations.
A length of a tunnel option would be three times the actual river crossing distance all underground. It is the highest in costs. It is the lowest of impacts to recreation and environmental issues. It could potentially be attractive to businesses.
The Port of Hood River owns the area and has plans for economic development and as an industrial area. They want businesses that create jobs; not fast food. People question a tunnel option here as a credibility issue due to its high cost.
Some people also oppose any development that is not a recreational/park use. They say it doesn’t belong in a scenic area. However, that is not a discussion item since this area is within the urban exempt boundary of the Scenic Area.
Environmental issues of this option could outweigh the feasibility further into the study. The tunnel would probably be an immersible tube. Some people are intrigued by a tunnel option; it is not necessarily a negative. It was suggested to keep in for now.
Existing Corridor
Low Level Movable Bridge w/Existing for Bikes/Peds. – Recommended for elimination. Committee concurred.
No questions or comments.
Tunnel Options – Recommended for elimination. Committee concurred.
Is it possible to have the tunnel go to the west? No, would be in the Bingen Marina. It is physically impossible.
Are there other tunnels on the Columbia River? No, but there are others in the U.S. that are similar in nature (NYC, Detroit, Boston Harbor, Vancouver B.C., etc.). No disagreement.
Intelligent Transportation System/Reversible Lane – Recommended for elimination. Committee concurred.
No questions or comments.
Low Level Bridge, all modes – Recommended for elimination. Committee concurred.
It was felt that due to operational and maintenance cost of a lift span on a low level bridge that this alternative should be eliminated. How much additional clearance is necessary with a lift? About 35 feet.
High Level Bridge Options – Recommended to be retained. Committee concurred.
It was recommended to keep both the all-modes option as well as the existing bridge for bikes/peds option.
The LAC felt the existing bridge should be eliminated but will carry forward for now.
Would the existing bridge have to be kept for historical reasons? Could the bridge be forced to keep open as historical bridge? The Port of Hood River privately owns the bridge. They could remove the bridge. If it were kept for historical reasons it would need to be funded.
Retrofit of Existing Bridge – Recommended to be retained. Committee concurred but with reservations.
They felt the recommendation should not be carried forward but agreed to keep it in for comparison of cost for retrofit. Doesn’t show much promise in the future.
There would be very high impacts with a detour during construction. The bridge was previously reported as unsafe, it would still be unsafe. May be useful to retain for some times as a basis of comparison; also have lower environmental impacts. In long term could also have higher environmental impacts.
East A Options
Low Level Movable Bridge, All Modes – Recommended to be eliminated. Committee concurred.
No questions or comments.
High Level Fixed Span Bridge w/Existing for Bikes/Peds. – Recommended to be eliminated. Committee concurred.
No questions or comments.
High Level for All Modes – Recommended to be retained. Committee concurred.
On the Washington side a railroad undercrossing study has been done and it is feasible at a cost of about $10M.
A motion was made by Karl Kment to move forward with these recommendations. Motion seconded by Michael Morneault. All in favor - none opposed. Motion passed.
Gilmore Research has been contracted with to conduct the survey. The survey would be a telephone and in person survey. Details need to be worked out. The primary intent of the survey is to obtain information that can be used in the financial and funding analysis.
The Public Open House will be October 11, 2001 at Fidel’s Restaurant in Bingen, Washington.
The next LAC meeting is scheduled for December. It may be better to have it in January 2002.
The LAC was asked if they would be interested in attending a Bridge Design Workshop on a Saturday. They were interested. Also, the consultant team may be presenting the opinion survey results at this workshop.
Meeting adjourned.
E-mail or phone:
Dale Robins
Regional Transportation Council
1351 Officers Row, Vancouver WA 98661
Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-696-1847
       
|