Local Advisory Committee Karl Kment
Cecil Jaksha
Jerry Grossnickle
Brian Carlstrom
Michael Morneault
Steering CommitteeMike Clark
Don Struck
Roger Kauble
Mike Doke
Brian Prigel
Don Wiley
Rodger Ford
Dean Lookingbill
Management TeamDale Robins
Michael Ray
Faye Jenkins-Edwards
Chuck Green
Mike Traffalis
Paul Korsmo
Arnold Cogan
(Arnold Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan)
(Dale Robins, Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council)
Tier II concluded in June of 2002. In September, the Washington State and Oregon Departments of Transportation Regional Administrators approved moving forward with Tier III of the SR-35 Study. Between Tiers, staff requested local input and received strong support for moving forward with Tier III. Many letters of support were sent to ODOT & WSDOT from local agencies. Local support was instrumental in securing approval for Tier III.
Since last meeting, staff has been working on receiving concurrency from both Oregon and Washington States on the alternatives to carry forward in the DEIS. All agencies except one in Washington have given concurrency. The alternatives to carry forward into the DEIS include: 1) EC-1 West Connection to Dock Grade, 2) EC-2 West Alignment, 3) EC-3 East Alignment, and 4) No Action. (Map of alternatives, was included in the meeting packet)
(Arnold Cogan)
Arnold Cogan asked the members of both committees if they wanted to work as two separate committees or meet as a combined group for the remainder of this tier? Tier III will entail more technical work and there will not be as many decisions to be made by the committee(s) as in prior tiers. Feedback will be needed on the DEIS, but not much on study itself. One advantage is that all committee members will hear opinions of LAC and SC members at the same time. In addition, the Management Team will have to attend fewer meetings.
Committee Action: Cecil Jaksha moved that the LAC and SC committees meet as a combined group for the remainder of the project. Mayor Brian Prigel seconded and the motion was approved.
(Chuck Green)
Chuck Green reviewed the overall schedule. A Draft Tier III schedule was included in the meeting packet. The DEIS process has begun. A meeting with both states’ environmental representatives will be held on November 12th to kick-off the development of the DEIS. Key decision points were identified on the schedule.
- Between Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 – DEIS Technical Studies
- Between Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 – DEIS Level Engineering
- Between Winter 2002 and Spring 2003 – Draft DEIS Prepared
- Between Winter 2002 and Spring 2003 – Evaluate and Select Preliminary Preferred Alternative
- Between Summer 2003 and End of Fall 2003 – DEIS Public Review
- In late March early April, committee will meet to recommend a preferred alternative
- An open house will be held during the last week in April or the first week in May
- Future committee meetings and public open house will be scheduled for the summer/fall of 2003
The DEIS process is still under the umbrella of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This meeting began the draft EIS process. Previous work in the study will be reflected in that document. EIS draft alternatives will be evaluated on an equal basis in terms of their environmental impacts. Effects on wetlands, noise, air quality, etc. will be summarized in a series of technical/resource reports. Those technical reports will be used to prepare the impact statement.
The Regulatory Resource Committee (RRC) members, who will continue to participate in Tier 3, are experts in their various disciplines. They will review the technical memoranda in their areas of expertise to make sure we aren’t missing anything. Technical memoranda also will be reviewed by the Management Team and FHWA, the lead federal NEPA agency for the DEIS. The technical memoranda are the basis for preparing the DEIS. A Final EIS (FEIS) will be prepared after the public and agency comment period. The last step of the process is FHWA’s Record of Decision (ROD).
There was discussion on how this process works. The NEPA document is approved by FHWA, both State DOT’s and by RTC. In essence they are adopting our work. When the NEPA document is signed there is a three year time period after which it may need to be re-evaluated by FHWA.
There was a discussion about what could happen if someone challenges the EIS after a record of decision has been prepared. Paul Korsmo said he is not sure about the legal issues of such a case; however, Chuck Green said this did happen in the state of Utah and Utah DOT and FHWA lost the legal challenge. The consultant team will track the Utah experience to ensure that the SR-35 process is consistent with NEPA.
(Mike Traffalis)
Mike Traffalis gave an overview of the alignments, touchdown points and short-term alternatives.
There was a question about whether the cost of the bridge should be a concern. Chuck Green said there are trade offs related to the issue of cost. Tier III includes preparation of a financing plan. Discussion of specific dollar amounts should not be a primary concern at this meeting.
Mike Traffalis introduced on the topic of whether the bridge should have a curved vs. straight alignment. A curved alignment will add cost, and affect vehicle speeds. The curved bridge also affects visual quality and was recommended by the architects on the consulting team to improve the aesthetics of the bridge as viewed from downriver. The straight bridge would be shorter, allow people to drive faster and cost less. Committee members inquired about the constructibility and drivability of a curved bridge.
A curved bridge presents a different feel– appealing to the eye and avoiding a hard kink connection at the end of the bridge. It would increase the bridge cost by about 10%. In response to a question about the dynamics of a curved bridge, Mike answered that models could be used to address that issues. In any event, there are expected to be curves in bridge to connect to existing roads on both sides of the River at optimal angles. This prompted committee members to raise the question of why put in more than you need to as well as concerns about increased costs that would affect its users.
Chuck Green explained that the project team needs to establish a footprint – a straight or curved bridge. From an environmental perspective it will not make much difference if the bridge is straight or curved. It is more of a visual impact issue. Although alternative EC3 is the only alternative with a significant curve, all three alternatives will be examined in the DEIS. Paul Korsmo said the DEIS could evaluate the differences among alternatives, with documentation of visual impacts.
Committee members noted that there are advantages and disadvantages to this decision. Can the bridge designs be carried through without a decision being made now? If a decision is not made tonight it will need to be carried through the EIS. It is desirable to have the bridge connect to SR-14 at a 90 degree angle. If adding a curve allows this, it would not really add a significant cost to bridge. EC1 and EC2 already are curved. EC3 would need a curve on the Washington side to intersect with SR-14 at 90 degrees.
Committee Action: Mike Doke moved to keep the curve in alternative EC3; while, moving it out over the water and minimizing the amount of curve. Mayor Brian Prigel seconded and the motion was passed.
The next discussion item was to review the proposed cross-sections and alternatives for shoulders, shy area widths, walkway(s) (whether to have them on one or both sides); discuss implications of alternatives; and ask for a recommendation on whether to request a deviation from WSDOT standards for the shoulder/shy width and whether walkways are needed on one or both sides.
Preferred shoulder standards identified by the two state DOTs are:
- ODOT 8’ plus 2’ “shy distance” next to the barrier
- WSDOT – 8’ minimum
- Both states require minimum of 10’ for combined walk/bike paths
Discussion:
- Why is it important which side the sidewalk is on? There is a better view on the west side for the walkers and bikers who want to see the view.
- Is there a possibility of having a pedestrian platform underneath the bridge for viewing the river? It could be done, but there will be ADA issues.
- Could the old bridge be kept, not all the way across, but just to the middle, to be used as an old pier for recreational use or perhaps a restaurant? Who would pay for that?
Committee Action: Karl Kment moved to recommend that a sidewalk be located on the west side only, with a minimum width of 10’. Roger Kauble seconded and the motion passed.
If the sidewalk is a minimum of 10’ wide, commuter bikes could still use the shoulders. The bridge will need proper access facilities at each end for bikes and pedestrians. They will be incorporated in the design.
The bridge is being designed for a 75 years life. It would have, two 12’ travel lanes, 10’ sidewalk, and the ability for a 12’ reversible lane in 75 years. The proposed bridge would be 56’ wide with a 16’ walkway convertible to a “reversible lane”, two 12’ travel lanes, two 8’ shoulders. To convert to a reversible lane concept, we would need to add on 6’ of additional width and convert some of the walkway to roadway. This feature would have to be incorporated in the design criteria. Building the bridge wide enough now would be expected to save money in accommodating future needs.
Trade off – build the whole width 66’ now or build less width.
- 1 choice) Original 50’
- 2 choice) 56’
- 3 choice) 66’
Committee Action: Cecil Jaksha moved to accept the design for a 56’ bridge. Don Struck seconded and the motion passed.
Next the committee discussed the potential need for a design deviation between ODOT & WSDOT shoulder standards.
Discussion: Does it make any difference if the shoulder is designated as a bike lane? Would eight feet be allowable for WSDOT and six feet for ODOT? The answer is no.
Committee Action: Mike Doke moved to request an ODOT design deviation from a 10’ to an 8’ shoulder. Mike Morenault seconded and the motion passed.
In concluding the meeting, Mike Traffalis noted that the project team is looking at a concrete flyover bridge or tied arched span (Bridge types from Bridge Design Workshop). These design types will be carried forward in the DEIS. Lower bridge arch, one with tight arch would need to be straight between arches.
(Arnold Cogan, Dale Robins)
There will be a combined meeting with this group in late March or April, depending on the timing of the technical studies and their reports.
Michael Ray announced that on Dec. 4,2002 ODOT would conduct a meeting in Hood River at the senior center for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This is one of several meetings that ODOT will have throughout the state on this topic. This is a good opportunity to recommend that the interchange improvements related to the short and medium term improvements to the bridge be added to the STIP. Michael encouraged members of the group to attend the meeting.
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
       
|