Attendees Michael Morneault
Cecil Jaksha
Randy Anderson
Karl Kment
Brian Calstrom
Brian McCarter
Brian Prigel
Charles Kelley
Don Struck
Don Wiley
Doug Crow
Jerry Grossnickle
Michael Lang
Mike Doke
Patrick Sweeney
Risa Wonsyld
Rodger Ford
Roger Holen
Roger Kauble
Wayne Wooster
Chuck Ruhsenbergen
Vern Landgren
Agency StaffDale Robins (RTC)
Faye Jenkins-Edwards (WSDOT)
Michael Ray (ODOT)
Technical ResourcesChuck Green (Parsons)
Mike Traffalis (Parsons)
Facilitator and TimekeeperMatt Hastie (Cogen Owens Cogen)
Table FacilitatorsBrian McCarter (ZGF)
Charles Kelley (ZGF)
Patrick Sweeney (PB)
Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan, opened the meeting at approximately 5:00 p.m. Self-introductions were done. Hastie reviewed the agenda with the attendees.
The meeting purpose was for participants to help develop new bridge design concepts in each crossing corridor. The attendees were divided into 3 tables, with each table covering one of the 3 corridors.
Chuck Green, Parsons, gave an overview of the SR 35 Crossing Public Opinion Survey Results.
Brian McCarter gave an overview of bridge and tunnel designs. A variety of bridge designs were reviewed discussed, along with different types of tunnel designs. This information was provided to get a good understanding of what designs and factors might be important to consider in terms of impacts on the landscape and natural environment.
Each person at a table reviewed and discussed preliminary design criteria. The design criteria covered the following six areas:
- Bridge Touchdowns
- Visual Impact of main and approach spans
- Structural Transparency
- Lighting
- Environmental
- Materials
If anyone felt a criterion was not listed they were advised to add it.
The desired outcomes were recommendations for:
- 2-3 Design Types per Corridor
- Span Length/Pier Spacing
- Lighting – whether or not to have it; type of illumination
- Design Treatment(s) at Crossing “Touchdown” Points
- Color/Materials
Following is a summary of the results from the Group Presentation and Discussion at each table.
Criteria Table 1
East A CorridorTable 2
Existing CorridorTable 3
City Center CorridorSummary 1. Bridge Touchdowns a. Monumental or diminutive bridge entry markers Minimal & diminutive touchdowns, wide spans between piers Diminutive touchdowns High speed entrances b. Recreational opportunities-wayside or viewpoint dev. Walkways on touchdowns Need Bike and pedestrian facilities; accommodates elderly tourists and recreational uses; higher touchdowns to reach Hwy. 35 2. Visual Impact of main and approach spans a. Dominant or subordinate figure in the landscape Subordinate with curves to mimic and compliment hills, beautiful structurally Subordinate visual impact with a historic reflection, frozen in time, perhaps archway with visual pullouts Visually subordinate, low profile Few touchdowns, relatively visually subordinate 3. Structural Transparency a. Use large trusses that are transparent, thin concrete or steel profiles that are ribbon like, or massive bridge elements that are sculptural Architecturally pleasing, like Alsea and the I-205 bridges Guardrail consistent with Hood River Historic Highway, small scale bridge, minimize bridge Main span Arch; flavor of the Gorge Designed such as the Alsea Bay Bridge 4. Lighting a. Accent lighting can be used to enhance structural elements or hide them at night Lights only for safety Tasteful lighting, modern fixtures Lighting primarily for safety and security; some support for lighting a more prominent navigation span 5. Environmental a. Number of frequency or piers Minimal piers; spacing approximately every 600 feet Minimal environmental impacts, minimal piers (wider spans); spacing approximately every 600 feet Spacing approximately every 600 feet for approach spans and 1,200 feet for navigation channel span Wide spacing between piers b. Big or small footprint at touchdowns Minimize footprint at touchdowns 6. Materials a. Concrete or Steel Concrete more appropriate Concrete with basalt look concrete Concrete rather than steel b. Color, recessive or dominate. Neutral or earth tone Neutral Green, aqua or gray Colors fitting into landscape OTHER COMMENTS Don’t keep old bridge; build inexpensive bridge; construction should create minimal disruption to economic activity; twin old & new with modes; prefers East end for location. Scenic Area signs, a bridge like the Alsea or Yaquina Bay but not busy.
An Open House will be held on February 28, 2002. The results from this meeting will be presented.
Results of a youth bridge contest also will be presented at the open house. The contest is being advertised in the Hood River and White Salmon newspapers. Local businesses are sponsoring prizes for this contest. The contest entries will be displayed at the Open House and prizes will be awarded to contestants there.
Consultants are currently conducting a financial and economic feasibility study of a new or improved crossing. The study is based in part on the results of the telephone and motorist intercept survey. The analysis is expected to be completed by March/April and will provide information about estimated costs, potential need for local financing, possible revenues from tolls, and needed share of local, state or federal funding.
Tier 2 will evaluate and narrow down a broad range of preliminary alternatives to three crossing options (2 build options and a no-build option). In combination with the financial and economic feasibility study, the Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation Regional Administrators will decide whether to continue to Tier 3. Completion of Tier 2 is planned for May/June 2002. If the Regional Administrators decide to proceed with Tier 3, the study team will proceed with the development of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
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
       
|