Attendees Dale Robins, RTC
Michael Ray, ODOT
Chuck Green, PB
Tom Wilson, PB
Paul Korsmo, Entranco
Arnold Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan
LAC/SC AttendeesRandy Anderson
Brian Carlstrom
Mike Clark
Mike Doke
Jennifer Donnelly
Rodger Ford
Jerry Grossnickle
Cecil Jaksha
Roger Kauble
Karl Kment
Dean Lookingbill
Michael Morneault
Brian Prigel
Charlie Sciscione
Don Struck
Don Wiley
The joint meeting of the Local Advisory and Steering Committees was held at the Expo Center, Hood River, Oregon. Arnold Cogan began the meeting at 6:00 pm with an overview of the agenda and then self-introductions from the attendees.
(Arnold Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan)
On February 28, 2002 about 40 people attended the open house. The attendees participated in the following activities:
- Reviewed and commented on bridge design concepts for crossing alternatives under consideration.
- Viewed an awards ceremony for participants in a youth bridge design contest.
- Listened to a presentation about the project and participated in subsequent question and answer sessions.
The following is a summary of the observations from the meeting.
- Relatively few people made comments about specific elements of the alternative bridge designs. Most were concerned more with the location of the alternatives and related issues.
- Comments about crossing locations were related primarily to the East and City Center crossings. Several comments oppose the City Center location, while comments about the East corridor are mixed.
- The consultant team prepared a cable-stay bridge design concept to supplement those from the design workshop, for consideration. This alternative garnered the most comments, which were split between highly favorable and strongly negative.
- Specific design features that received positive comments included the delta piers, haunched girders, open railings and arched span, with one person recommending a through arch.
(Tom Wilson, Parson Brinckerhoff)
Tom Wilson presented the cost estimates based on the January 2002 design workshop, where conceptual drawings (plan and profile) for various bridge types were developed. Within each of the corridors, variations of possible structure types and configurations were defined. Structures varied by lengths and design features (e.g., different types and location for piers, different superstructure types). Construction costs for each alternative were based on unit costs and quantities for major construction components as well as bridge approaches and ancillary work. Additional costs were then added for engineering, construction management, and contingency to arrive at a total project cost. Table ES-1 summarized the cost estimates. The costs for right-of-way acquisition and environmental mitigation are not included.
Table ES-1. Summary of Cost Estimates (2002 dollars)
Corridor Structure Estimated Cost Range (millions) City Center New Fixed Span Bridge (various types) $106-113 Twin-Bored Tunnel $350-400 Existing New Fixed Span Bridge (various types) $110-121 Retrofit Existing Bridge $137 East New Fixed Span Bridge (various types) $129-142 New Fixed Span Bridge (various types) for vehicles plus retrofit existing bridge $179-192 Note: Cost estimates for bridges are based on 45-foot typical sections.
Some of the questions from the presentation were:
Q: Why the bow in the existing corridor structure?
A: There is not a structural reason for the bow it is for architectural purposes.Q: Would the bow aid in the grade control?
A: It could help but the grade would still make 5% grade without it.Q: What is the elevation of the bridge from water level for river traffic?
A: It is 80’.
Response: Dredge derricks require more than 80’, about 87’.Q: Does the existing retrofit add pedestrian/bike facilities?
A: YesQ: Why three lanes?
A: The 20 year traffic projection said 2 lanes, but the 75-100 year design life cycle showed 2 lanes with a reversible lane during peak traffic hours.
(Chuck Green, Parsons)
Chuck Green presented a slide show with an overview on the Financial Feasibility Study. The financial feasibility study was conducted, based on the October 2001 Intercept and Phone Surveys. The results of this study are summarized as follows:
- Willingness to pay Increased Tolls, Local Taxes
- True demand behavior is variable
- Survey data suggests upwards of $2.00 acceptable
- $1.50 conservative estimate, equivalent in real terms to the $0.50 toll that existed in 1975
- Toll Revenue Potential
- Increase toll from $0.75 to $1.00 in 2004
($0.50 of each $1.00 is set aside for new crossing)- Increase toll from $1.00 to $1.75 when new crossing opens in 2010
($1.75 in 2010 equivalent to optimal $1.50 today)- Under the proposed toll structure, toll revenues appear capable of financing upwards of $50 million in project cost.
- Non-Toll Local Revenue Sources
- Assuming 50% federal & state funding, need upwards of $2M annually to supplement tolls
- Majority of users (toll revenues) are from Washington, but Hood River local economy benefits the most from the bridge
- Burden sharing suggests a mix of county-wide and city-wide taxes
- Property taxes have the most promise
- Limited amounts of state and federal funding may be available, but it is unlikely that they will fund the majority of the project cost.
The following are questions from the slide show.
Q: Was the toll a one-way toll?
A: Yes.Q: Is the total revenue of tolls on the bar chart cumulative?
A: No, it’s annual revenue.Mike Doke, Port of Hood River said that one year from this fall a $7M redecking project will be started. The Port will finance through a bond. The Port collects approx. $2M/yr in tolls and $0.5M is taken off the top for Operations and Maintenance. The remaining goes towards economic development of the Port and pays wages for employees.
Q: What is the cost for removal of the existing bridge?
A: $9M.Q: Is the demolition costs included in the new bridge cost?
A: Yes.Assuming that that traffic volume remained constant, it has been estimated that $5.91 one-way tolls would need to be collected for 100% recovery of construction costs for a new bridge.
Q: Can the new construction use material from the existing bridge – recycle material?
A: The piers are very old and perhaps not in good shape. It is difficult to reuse bridge material, such as piers, when the new design is totally different.Q: If the bridge needs to have 87’ clearance rather than the 80’, does that add a significant cost increase to the project?
A: It may add some to the cost, but likely less than 10-20%.Q: Is the barge company going to participate in funding if they are the ones requiring a higher bridge span?
A: Possibly could, have not figured that into the financial feasibility.
(Arnold Cogan, Cogan, Owens & Cogan)
Other possible financing options that haven’t been considered are:
- Future development/speculative development
- Would generate more traffic/tax revenues (e.g., new super Wal-Mart, Indian Casino, Cooper Spur Expansion)
- Future shape of transportation funding
- TEA 21 reauthorization
- Political climate
- State
- Nationally
- Local lobbying efforts
Known financial factors were used in the study, none of the above was considered.
Q: Is the congressional staff in both states on board?
A: Newsletters on the study have been sent to congressional staff on both sides of the River.Karl Kment said he would prepare a letter for Senator Wyden, Oregon, tomorrow. Mayor Prigel, Bingen, said the timing is appropriate right now for a lobbying effort. He also asked if there was any economic development funding left from the Columbia River Gorge Commission. Mike Doke replied yes, but there are limited dollars.
(Chuck Green, PB & Paul Korsmo, Entranco)
The first screening in Tier II narrowed the 17 build alternatives to 6. The Management Team conducted a second alternatives screening in March 2002 to select alternatives for evaluation in the DEIS. Screening criteria were developed in accordance with technical expertise, the Purpose and Need Statement, and public and agency comments. Baseline information available on a corridor level and the results of technical studies conducted in Tier II were used as the basis for this screening. Alternatives were screened for their potential to have high, moderate, or low impacts associated with each criterion. The Management Team recommended the advancement and elimination of the following alternatives.
Summary of Rationale to Forward or Eliminate Alternatives
Corridor Alternative Recommendation Reason City Center New fixed span bridge for all modes Eliminate
- Adverse impacts associated with water-based recreation, and
- Severe geologic constraints on Washington side bridge landing.
City Center New tunnel with existing bridge retrofit for pedestrian and bicycle use Eliminate
- Substantial increase in vehicle-miles-traveled,
- Substantial excavation in steep slope on Washington side portal,
- High cost, and
- High level of business displacement in Hood River.
Existing New fixed span bridge for all modes Advance
- Lowest impacts to transportation,
- Lowest impacts to environmental resources,
- Lowest impacts to recreation, and
- Lowest cost.
Existing Retrofit of existing bridge for all modes Eliminate
- Identical low impacts as existing new fixed span, except it has higher capital costs and higher construction impacts.
East New fixed span bridge with existing bridge retrofit for pedestrian and bicycle use Eliminate
- High impacts to fish from in-water work associated with two bridges;
- High environmental impacts associated with Bingen Pond, nearby peregrine falcons and bald eagles, and wetlands on Oregon approach;
- High visual impacts associated with two bridges;
- Four goal exceptions to Oregon statewide planning goals;
- Potential encroachment on Koberg State Park; and
- High cost (two bridges, new I-84 interchange, BNSF railway bypass).
East New fixed span bridge for all modes Eliminate
- High travel distances for pedestrians and bicyclists;
- High environmental impacts associated with Bingen Pond, nearby peregrine falcons and bald eagles, and wetlands on Oregon approach;
- Four goal exceptions to Oregon statewide planning goals; and
- Potential encroachment on Koberg State Park.
The existing Corridor (EC) Fixed Span Bridge for All Modes alternative was then differentiated into three alternative alignments that are described as follows:
EC-1 West Connection to Dock Grade
This alternative would be directly adjacent to the west side of the existing bridge until north of the shipping channel, where it would shift west to avoid the in-lieu fishing site on the Washington side. The SR 14 intersection at Dock Grade would be signalized and widened to accommodate turn lanes. The grade of SR 14 would need to be raised, and Dock Grade would need to be realigned at the intersection for safety reasons.
EC-2 West Alignment
This alternative would be directly adjacent to the west side of the existing bridge until north of the shipping channel, where it would shift west to avoid the in-lieu fishing site on the Washington side. It would be grade separated from the railroad mainline on the Washington side. The SR-14 intersection would be signalized and widened to accommodate turn lanes.
EC-3 East Alignment
This alternative would be directly adjacent to the east side of the existing bridge. It would be grade separated from the railroad mainline on the Washington side. The SR-14 intersection would be signalized and widened to accommodate turn lanes.
Q: Who is the management team and how did the elimination and advancement of alternatives proceed?
A: Dale Robins, RTC; Faye Jenkins-Edwards, WSDOT; and Michael Ray, ODOT along with the consultants makes up the Management Team. The process of elimination or advancement of alternatives is based on the alternatives screening and general consensus of the Management Team.Cecil Jaksha moved to eliminate those corridors that the Management Team recommended and advance the Existing Corridor Fixed Span Bridge for All Modes. Karl Kment seconded.
All in favor: 15 – any oppose: 1.
Discussion followed on the three alternative alignments.
The proposed west bridge is 20-30’ from the existing bridge and clears the in-lieu fishing site.
Q: The dog leg doesn’t need to be in the east alignment– can’t it just go west and dog leg on the Oregon side?
A: We can look at this change in alignment in the DEIS.Q: Tolls would be collected one way on the southbound travel lane?
A: Yes, so backup would be on the bridge not in the intersection near Bridge access road and I-84 ramps.Q: Do we have to have a no build alternative?
A: Yes, in the DEIS as part of the NEPA requirements.Response: I would recommend the EC 3 on the Washington side go straight to the south.
A: It possibly could. The goal is to intersect SR 14 at right angles.Mayor Prigel made a motion to carry EC 1-3 and no-build option forward into the DEIS. Randy Anderson seconded. Discussion followed.
Q: Is there a reason EC 1 needs to connect with Dock Grade?
A: It is a direct way to White Salmon rather than having to go through the town of Bingen.Q: Is there a problem of forwarding all three alternatives.
A: We could go forward with only two.Q: Is the NEPA process followed in every part of the design stage?
A: Yes, all of it. The NEPA process attempts to avoid and/or minimize design impacts to the environment. Mitigation commitments made in the NEPA document are considered during design and included in the design documents.Q: Will there always be two designs?
A: It is reasonable to expect that alternative designs (bridge types and locations) might have different environmental impacts. It is likely that at least two build alternatives would be considered in the DEIS, in addition to the no build alternative. The bridge designs were narrowed down in previous workshops.Q: Chuck, was it your hope to pare this down to one alternative?
A: To a minimum of two plus a no build was the hope.Q: Do we need the Dock Grade connection, that’s the discussion item?
A. It is not critical to the success of the alternative, but we would recommend keeping it for the DEIS and studying it further.A vote was taken to carry all three alternative alignments and the no build forward.
All in favor: All; motion passed.
(Chuck Green)
Short-term improvements are low-capital physical and operational improvements that are needed within the next five years to maintain or improve traffic operations on the existing bridge. A set of mid-term improvements is recommended in case the bridge replacement is more than ten years away. These improvements would maintain or improve traffic operations in the 6-10 year timeframe. Chuck Green presented management team recommendation.
Short-Term Improvements
- Roundabout or traffic signal at I-84 eastbound ramps and Oregon 35/Hood River Bridge access road: this would reduce or eliminate peak traffic episode queuing and spillback onto the I-84 mainline. A roundabout is recommended due to the close proximity of Oregon 35, as well as the offset nature of the eastbound I-84 off and on ramps.
- Close or restrict turns at the private driveway onto the Hood River Bridge access road: Vehicles turning left into, or out of, the driveway conflict with bridge traffic. With increased traffic, congestion, and queuing at the toll both, and the increased potential for accidents, turning movements at the driveway should be restricted at a minimum to right-turns only, and potentially closed if the accident rate increases.
- Convert the toll booth to one-way tolls southbound: At peak traffic times, and forecast to be a daily occurrence in the short-term, northbound traffic passing through the toll booth spills back through the adjacent four-way stop intersection. In the long-term, these queues could block the I-84 ramp intersections. Converting the toll booth to one-way tolls ($1.50 toll paid once, rather than $0.75 paid each way) southbound will eliminate the potential for spillback queues affecting intersection and I-84 traffic operation (in the southbound direction, if queues forms, the entire bridge can be used for the queue storage length which does not impact any adjacent intersection), and additionally should reduce the ongoing operating costs to the Port of hood River by reducing the number of toll takers needed to operate the toll booth.
- Bridge replacement fund: A dedicated fund would be established through increased tolls to fund a replacement bridge.
Mid-Term Improvements
If the replacement of the bridge is not programmed to occur for at least ten years, traffic and congestion growth will result in additional improvements needed to maintain or improve traffic operations on the bridge. These include:
- Signalize the I-84 westbound ramps at the hood River Bridge access road: This would alleviate the future failing level of service at the interchange.
- Signalize the four-way stop at the Port/Retail Entrance, or Convert to a Roundabout: The four-way stop, which stops all vehicles, will eventually become a bottleneck and result in traffic spillbacks either into the tollbooth area, or into the I-84 interchange area. Additionally, with short-term improvements at the I-84 ramps and at the toll booth to improve traffic flow, having a stop sign in the center of an otherwise flowing corridor may actually increase accidents over time.
- Signalize the SR 14/Hood River Bridge access road intersection: Eventually, this intersection will experience level of service (LOS) E/F conditions, which could result in higher accident rates as left-turning vehicles drivers become impatient with longer wait times and begin to attempt turns into unsafe gaps in traffic.
Q: On the short-term improvements people will find ways not to cross at the Hood River Bridge so they don’t have to pay the southbound tollbooth fee.
A: It may be a loophole, but the survey doesn’t support this type of scenario happening.Comment: The Operation and Maintenance cost would go down.
Q: How would the funding for the Bridge replacement fund be handled?
A: Most likely through an interlocal agreement. An oversight committee could also be formed.Q: By what authority could the private driveway be closed?
A: If the private driveway is an easement through the Port of Hood River there is a possibility of revoking the easement.Response: By changing the driveway to one-way traffic it is improving the flow of traffic on the road.
Brian Carlstrom moved to “Close or restrict turns at the private driveway onto the Hood River Bridge access road” to a Mid-Term Improvement. Mike Doke seconded.
Agreed: 7; Oppose: 1.
Further discussion on the Mid-Term Improvements pursued. Clarification was requested on where Oregon State’s jurisdiction ended on Highway 35. Michael Ray responded that Highway 35 actually ends near the China Gorge Restaurant to the south of I-84 and that ODOT owns the connecting road through the interchange to near the westbound ramp.
Q: Can the tollbooth be reused rather than spending $750,000 on a new one?
A: Yes, for the short-term. For approximately $100,000 improvements could be made to allow for northbound traffic to flow safely through the toll plaza.Q: Why not keep $100,000 in the short-term for the tollbooth changes?
A: The $750,000 is the total cost of replacing tollbooth and other improvements needed for the long-term improvement, including communication system for automated toll collection.A motion was made to include the $100,000 tollbooth conversion to one-way tolls as a short-term improvement, and changes the $750,000 automated tollbooth conversion to a mid-term improvement.
All in favor: All; motion passed.
The revised short-term improvements would cost under $600,000 including engineering, construction management, and contingencies. The revised mid-term cost would be $2 million including engineering, construction management, and contingencies.
(Dale Robins, Arnold Cogan)
A decision will be made on whether to process to Tier III at the June 4 Washington and Oregon Region Administrators meeting. What is this group’s recommendation? This recommendation will be carried forward for consideration at the Region Administrator’s meeting. Letters of support to go forward to Tier III have been sent by White Salmon, Bingen and Klickitat County.
Comment: There is $400,000 in Federal funding for Tier III. There is still $10,000 +/- needed from WSDOT (this is 10,000 +/- from the original commitment that was not spent in the last biennium and carried forward into the current biennium).
Q: What is the shelf life of study and cost of Tier III?
A: An EIS should be re-evaluated if no major steps to advance the project have occurred during any 3-year period. Updates to meet current environmental requirements may be needed and to evaluate changes in conditions may be needed. The focus of an update would be on changes that have occurred in the project, its surroundings, and impacts.Q: If this project were put on hold, would it be a wasted process?
A: No, this process has helped the community identify where a future crossing could be constructed.Don Struck moved to recommend WSDOT and ODOT continue into Tier III. Karl Kment seconded. Motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at about 8:45.
E-mail or phone:
Dale Robins
Regional Transportation Council
1351 Officers Row, Vancouver WA 98661
Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-696-1847
       
|