Task Force Team Meeting

Transcription

1 M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y Task Force Team Meeting ATTENDEES: Manuel Arellano/ Hispanic Community Mark Becktel/City of Salem Public Works Russell Beaton/Land Use Warren Bednarz/ Downtown Business Betsy Belshaw/Parks Eric Bradfield/Grant Neighborhood Association Cindy Callahan/ FHWA Bob Cortright/DCLD Stephen Dickey/ Salem-Keizer Transit District Leon Fischer/Freight Glenn Gross/City of Salem Community Development Fred Harris/North Salem Business Association Mike Jaffe/ MWVCOG/SKATS Mike Karnosh/ Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Jose Lopez/ Hispanic Community Austin McGuigan/ Polk County Community Development Doug Parrow/BTA Tim Potter/ODOT Steve Emerson/ Highland Neighborhood UNABLE TO ATTEND: Tom Clark/West Salem businesses Rebekah Engle/Central Area Neighborhood Development Organization Don Homuth/West Salem Neighborhood Sam Litke/City of Keizer Karen Odenthal/ Marion County Public Works STAFF PARTICIPANTS: GUESTS: DATE: Dan Fricke/ODOT, Rod Thompson/ODOT, Julie Warncke/City of Salem, Dave Simmons/CH2M HILL, Brandy Steffen/CH2M HILL, Michael Hoffmann/CH2M HILL, Diane Kestner, CH2M HILL Scott Bassett/Salem Resident, Gary Fish/DLCD, Sam Brentano/Marion County Commissioner, Cathy Clark/Keizer City Council Wednesday, July 11, 2012, Keizer City Hall, Keizer, Oregon Welcome and Agenda Review Brandy Steffen (CH2M) welcomed the group. She then reviewed the agenda which focused on a pair-wise comparison of the alternatives based on the Purpose and Need statements. Brandy reminded the group that the purpose of the meeting was to narrow down the list of alternatives and ideally drop at least one alternative, thereby leading to the eventual recommendation of a 1

2 preferred alternative or two that would be forwarded to the Oversight Team for their consideration. She reminded the group of the ground rules, including: The Task Force will aim to develop recommendations based on consensus. o If consensus is not possible, a majority and minority report will be written and delivered with the recommendations to the Oversight Team. Once a decision is made, it is frozen and cannot be revisited. Follow up items for the next Task Force meeting are shown below in italic font. Public Comment Scott Bassett presented hard copies of graphics he had previously submitted at the Public Hearings and with his official DEIS comments. One graphic showed the recommended alternative for a new bridge from the 1940s and another graphic displayed the lack of street connectivity in West Salem. The graphics were presented to raise the need for another north/south connection through West Salem. Specifically, Scott talked about how the lack of connectivity in West Salem is what leads to the congestion issues on Wallace Road and how making Wallace Road a wider facility is the wrong approach to addressing this congestion. Scott asked the group to consider the overall implication of a wider Wallace Road without making additional changes to improve connectivity in West Salem s street system. Review General Summary of Public Comments Brandy summarized the public comments received from testimonies given at both of the project s public hearings in the spring, the written comment forms provided at the public hearings (submitted at the hearings and/or mailed to the project team), and DEIS comments received during the DEIS public comment period via the project website and by mail or . Of the 120 individual commenters, 84 stated that they had preference for one of the alternatives: No Build = 26 (31%) No New Bridge = 10 (11.9%) None (do a Non-DEIS Alternative) = 4 (4.8%) Alt 2A = 10 (11.9%) No Build or 2A = 1 (1.2%) Alt 2A or Alt 2B = 3 (3.6%) Alt 2B = 1 (1.2%) Not Alt 2B = 1 (1.2%) No New Northern Bridge = 2 (2.4%) Alt 3 = 2 (2.4%) Alt 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D or 4E = 2 (2.4%) TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 2

3 Alt 4A = 2 (2.4%) Alt 4B = 1 (1.2%) Alt 4C = 3 (3.6%) Alt 4D = 2 (2.4%) Alt 4E = 2 (2.4%) Alt 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D or 4E = 1 (1.2%) Alt 4C, 4D, or 4E = 8 (9.5%) Alt 4B or Alt 4C = 1 (1.2%) New Bridge to Pine/Hickory and entire Marine Drive = 1 (1.2%) Build a Second Bridge = 1 (1.2%) Results from the informal poll on the project website -- which asked which alternative was the "best alternative", a "good fit, with changes" or the "worst alternative" for the region -- showed that there was no clear preference among the respondents. For "best alternative", the No-Build, Alt 4C, Alt 4E and Alt 3 were the top 4 choices. When "best alternative" and "good fit" are combined, Alt 3, Alt 4E, Alt 4C, and No-Build were the top choices. Most persons had multiple choices for "worst fit", with 2B, 2A 4B, 4A, the top votes for this question. General comments from the public, included: There is not enough funding information in the Draft EIS We should invest in other modes of transportation (choose the no build alternative) Displaced homes and businesses were a big concern Traffic projections were questioned, some thought that there would be less traffic in the future than is anticipated by the modeling No need for a new bridge West Salem is a bottleneck North/south travel options in West Salem are limited (Wallace Road) Bob Cortright said that he was impressed with the quality and detail put in to the comments by the public. He thought it was good input and hoped that more details would come out for making a decision. Send the Alternative Preference numbers above to the Task Force. Review Approach for Pair-Wise Comparison Brandy reviewed the idea behind pair-wise comparison; it is a method that the group will use to narrow down the alternatives by comparing two alternatives at a time against the criteria established in the Purpose & Need statements and Goals of the project (developed in October 2007 by the Task Force). Looking at two alternatives, the Task Force will decide which alternative best meets the Purpose & Need and decide if one alternative can be dropped from consideration. TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 3

4 Dave Simmons explained the Preferred Alternatives First Level Evaluation table. Criteria that are bolded in the table are those that have greater differentiation between the alternatives. Both technical data and objective data are included in the table. Below were some questions raised by the group (and corresponding responses provided): The rows for "Need 1: traffic flow" relates only to motor vehicle traffic. The Purpose & Need also discusses non-motorized traffic. o Discussion of non-motorized traffic is on the back page, 1G. Most of the Needs, however, are related to motor vehicle/freight travel. Is there an easy/simple way to see the impacts per county, i.e. Polk and Marion? o The impacts to residents and businesses are outlined in the Draft EIS by the sides of the river where the impacts would take place (which is equivalent to a breakdown by County boundary). There is not a table that tallies impacts by county, but we can create a table with this information for the next meeting. Create a table with the residential and business impacts, by County. Does saying one alternative is the best automatically make no build the worst? o No, during the pair-wise comparison you are not required to correlate best and worst for all alternatives; rather, you only decide between the two alternatives under discussion which best meets the Purpose & Need of the project. That decision does not mean that you prefer/like one alternative over all the others. Michael Hoffmann then summarized the public comments that were collected for all of the alternatives. Only a few commenters gave reasons why they liked a particular alternative more comments focused on what the commenter did not like about a particular alternative(s). Both the DEIS comments alternatives preference tally (for comments on the Draft EIS where a preferred alternative was explicitly noted) and the informal, online questionnaire don t add up to 100% because respondents didn t answer every question and the summary is only meant to aid the Task Force s decision, not to be a statistically valid survey. Some general comments from the Task Force overall regarding the DEIS comments: Looking for insight from these comments, not finding a theme. The numbers for alternative preference would change if a funding discussion was included. In the absence of a funding strategy, the alternative preference tally numbers are not as helpful. Build alternatives may not pencil out, and are hard to discuss, without funding strategy information. If people knew that they d have to pay a toll on the existing and new bridges that would change the perspective/answers given during the public comment period. Since the beginning of the project in 2006 there have been fewer new developments in West Salem, so there is not an ongoing concern about housing growth and increased traffic prompting cries from the public to build a new bridge; that may mean that more people are in favor of the No Build alternative. Pair-Wise Comparison TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 4

5 Brandy reiterated that during the next part of the meeting, the group is trying to determine which is the best alternative for this category/crossing location they are not choosing which one is the preferred alternative. The objective is to understand and narrow the field of alternatives (looking for high level agreement). Task Force members should identify which alternative in a particular comparison serves the Purpose & Need best. If an alternative is eliminated, we don t revisit it but if it s a tie, they can both advance. 2A and 2B: Existing Crossing Location Dave gave a brief summary of the difference between alternatives 2A and 2B. Looking at the evaluation table, there were distinctions between the alternatives related to: improved motor vehicle/traffic mobility with 2B; more residential/business displacements with 2B; higher cost for 2B; and, unavoidable park impacts with 2B (unable to mitigate the 4(f) impacts at Wallace Marine Park under Alternative 2B). Task Force members had questions about the visual impacts related to each alternative, specifically to Wallace Marine Park. Bring visual simulations to the next Task Force meeting. A Task Force member expressed concern about the transit times shown in the table (see Need 4: transit service) does the transit time reductions assume current bus routes and/or an HOV/bus lane? These travel time savings may not be accurate if they do. o Project staff responded that the project assumed the same current bus route system and no HOV/bus lane. No discrete transit modifications were assumed as part of evaluation analysis, as outlined in the Alternative Modes Study. Michael summarized the DEIS comments related to Alternatives 2A and 2B. Alternative 2A Summary of DEIS Comments Most cost efficient/practical way to address needs Least property impacts/displacements of homes and businesses Least impacts on natural and built environment in general Construct other roadway modifications along with 2A (e.g. construct all of Marine Drive) Alternative 2A is the only non-goal Exception alternative Negative comments included that it doesn t address traffic problems and it doesn t get cars out of downtown Alternative 2B Summary of DEIS Comments Only one comment explicitly for Alternative 2B ( relieves congestion on Wallace Road ); One comment explicitly against it because of its proximity to Union Street Pedestrian Bridge Brandy asked Task Force Members if there were any surprises or additional comments regarding Alternatives 2A or 2B. The following is the list of comments during the discussion: TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 5

6 The Urban Renewal Agency didn t state a preference for alternatives, but 2B would have the most negative impacts to the plans and acquisitions within URA s (Urban Renewal Areas). Comments were staff comments, not from the board. West Salem Redevelopment didn t write letter. They are making investments in West Salem despite potential future changes based on this project. Section 4(f) concerns about 2B because park impacts are significant and the City doesn t think they can be mitigated. It is not a de minimis /minor impact. Alt 2A is a non-goal exception alternative; it does not require a goal exception because it does not go outside the Urban Growth Boundary. There are a lot of build options for the public to wrap their heads around they may not be thinking about the park impacts. Alternative 2A removes bike/pedestrian facilities on the existing bridges o This is mitigated by an overcrossing for bikes/pedestrians over Wallace Road, with a connection to the Union Street Bridge. Anything that gets traffic out of downtown is a good thing. Traffic on Alternative 2B does perform better than Alternative 2A. The cost to the public is a real concern, it will trump people s opinion of what alternative is best. Functionally, Alternative 2A adds capacity, but fails in approach and doesn t solve the major mobility issues. We need to face and address funding constraints. o The project management team acknowledges that all alternatives can be considered expensive, especially in these challenging fiscal times. There is a funding tool available on the website (which illustrates options for generating a local contribution to the project). Funding methods will vary based on the alternative selected and how the project can be phased. It is important to identify a Preferred Alternative, and then develop a funding plan. For the four travel times in the table, travel times stay relatively the same, except they decrease between I-5 and Wallace Road. Build alternatives are too expensive for too little decrease in travel times. The public is interested in funding now, not later. The City is reducing fire stations and police functions now people want to know the bottom line cost for each alternative and what mechanism (tax, toll) will be used to pay for the preferred alternative. The Salem community has a conservative focus. Need to be able to talk about funding with the public. It is disrespectful to not discuss it. Don t need all funding answers, but need to rationalize choice. A Task Force member asked for an explanation of park impacts under Alternative 2B and why it was even included in the DEIS to consider if such impacts were know at the outset. o Impacts a picnic and canoe/kayak launch area in Wallace Marine Park. Originally it was thought that these impacts could potentially be mitigated for and thus the alternative was included in the DEIS. Now the City feels that the impacts are too great to mitigate for and we have received public comment stating that this alternative would greatly impact the aesthetics and views from the Union Street Railroad (bike-pedestrian) Bridge. With Alternative 2A, project staff believes we could minimize or avoid park impacts at Marion Square Park. Remember that we are here to solve the problem to the best of our ability. We did this project to set a base for what needs to be done. Don t compromise the alternatives down TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 6

7 to something that does not solve the problem. Let the public kill it but at least the alternative is adopted for a later time when there is funding. Brandy asked the group to compare the alternatives and vote using red (no), green (yes), and yellow (maybe) cards to indicate how they felt. The results are below: Does 2A meet the goals better than 2B? 8 green/8 red Does 2B meet the goals better than 2A? 1 green/12 red/1 yellow Do you agree that 2B can be dropped? Yes (15 green) Alternative 2B was dropped from further consideration by the Task Force. Alternative 2A will continue to be evaluated by the Task Force. 3 and 4A: Build Crossing Location Dave explained some of the main differentiators between alternatives 3 and 4A. The biggest differences were to the eastside neighborhoods; these alternatives are virtually the same in West Salem. Alternative 4A is a more direct connection to the eastside neighborhoods and is more costeffective. Alternative 3 is longer would be a more elevated structure, which raises the cost. Michael summarized the DEIS comments related to Alternatives 3 and 4A: Alternative 3 Summary of DEIS Comments Two preference comments explicitly for Alt 3 (no distinction made between reason for preferring the new bridge of Alt 3 over Alt 4A). New bridge needed. Negative comments regarding property and neighborhood impacts in North Salem and West Salem, economic consequences of business impacts, and cost. Negative comments about increased traffic in West Salem Alternative 4A Summary of DEIS Comments We need a new bridge and Alternative 4A has less property/neighborhood impacts than Alternative 3 and is more cost effective. Negative comments regarding property and neighborhood impacts in North Salem and West Salem; economic consequences of business impacts. Below are some of the comments and questions that were raised by Task Force members: Can the Alternative 4 add-ons (e.g. connections to OR 22) be applied to Alternative 3 if it is selected? o The project team said that this is possible. Alternative 3 may displace more homes, but ultimately 4A would have ongoing impacts with increased traffic on Pine and Hickory Streets. TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 7

8 Alternative 3 will be considerably higher and noise will travel farther because bridge is so high up; more noise with Alternative 3 than with Alternative 4A due to this. o Confirmed by noise impacts on Evaluation Table. The traffic maps show that Alternative 3 has less traffic on Pine Street, but not a lot less. You will get more traffic, but most traffic still turning at Liberty Street or Broadway Street to go toward Salem Parkway (not proceeding into neighborhood east of Pine/Hickory couplet). Alternative 4A directs more traffic into neighborhood, more traffic impacts on small neighborhood area. What is the traffic impact to neighborhoods with Alternative 4A? o Cannot do traffic calming on arterial streets (such as Pine Street). o While 4A has more traffic on Pine compared to the No Build, the model volumes shown in the DEIS are moderate (under 700/hour in the PM peak). Bike system connectivity is not a valid rationale/criteria for evaluation. Need to know how many people are crossing the river? Judgments are made for improvement or increase connectivity. Hard to evaluate one alternative over another with regard to bicycle/pedestrian conditions until design is more advanced. How can you know that connectivity is improved? o The project team encouraged the Task Force to include suggestions for improving bike/pedestrian connectivity in the final recommendation. o Hard to choose alternative from bike/ped now without new analysis/information. Many Task Force members had comments about safety for pedestrians/bikes. A new bridge is not a good proxy for safety. Overall safety at intersections (crossing distance on intersection volume) is a better set of data. Could we differentiate by safety, wider crossing distances? The project will provide a map with bike/pedestrian connections/facilities to the Task Force. The project will provide a table showing the increase / decrease of bicycle connectivity with the group. Do Alternatives 3 and 4A intersect with Wallace Road in the same manner? o Yes. Alternative 3 is an expressway design on the east side of the river; bikes/pedestrians would be handled in any expressway design with their own ramps, lanes. Alternative 4 on the other hand, is more of a local bridge with a landing at-grade. o Project includes bridge grades and bicycle/pedestrian facilities that would be compliant with ODOT Standards. Mission Street has inadequate facilities for bicyclists even though it is designed to meet ODOT standards for bike/pedestrian facilities. The ODOT standards are grossly inadequate. The alternatives are not comparable and therefore it isn t easy to say which alternative accomplishes project goals better. Brandy asked the group to compare the alternatives and vote using red (no), green (yes), and yellow (maybe) cards to indicate how they felt. The results are below: Does 3 meet the goals better than 4A? 2 green/8 red/4 yellow Does 4A meet the goals better than 3? 6 green/4 red/5 yellow TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 8

9 The Task Force agreed to not eliminate either alternative at this time. 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E: Build Add-Ons Dave explained the differences between Alternatives 4C, 4D, and 4E. The difference between 4C and 4D is that 4D doesn t have a long couplet onto Pine/Hickory these two alternatives are the same otherwise. 4E was developed for consideration early in the process to reduce potential impacts to Wallace Marine Park under Alternatives 4C and 4D. However, DEIS analysis revealed that park impacts under Alternatives 4C and 4D were minor. Because of this, project staff recommends dropping Alternative 4E, since 4E would have a greater impact on residences (at Pioneer Village, an environmental justice population) and businesses (such as Courthouse Athletic Club). Comments from Task Force members: What is the viaduct elevation for 4C and 4D, above Marine Drive (in relation to park)? o For vehicle clearance, need the viaduct to be about feet above the current ground level. There were many comments about concerns regarding increased traffic adjacent to Wallace Marine Park (due to the viaduct and Marine Drive), There was a comment questioning whether Alternatives 4C and 4D impacts at Wallace Marine Park were really de minimis [minor] at Wallace Marine Park. o City came to the conclusion that 4(f) impacts at Wallace Marine Park under alternatives 4C and 4D were de minimis [minor]. Brandy asked the group if we can drop 4E? Yes (agree to drop) Alternative 4E was dropped from further consideration by the Task Force. Michael summarized the DEIS comments related to Alternatives 4B through 4E: Alternative 4B Summary of DEIS Comments Only one comment explicitly for Alternative 4B. New bridge needed. Negative comments regarding property and neighborhood impacts in North Salem and West Salem; economic consequences of business impacts. Negative comments about increased traffic in West Salem on Wallace Road. Alternatives 4C, 4D, 4E Summary of DEIS Comments Traffic is bad, and 4C/4D/4E do the best job of addressing congestion. New bridge needed. Direct connection from OR 22 to Salem Parkway/I-5 needed: for economic reasons (marketing of industrial sites; efficient truck movement through Salem; reduction in travel times for outlying area residents). Negative comments regarding property and neighborhood impacts in North Salem and West Salem; economic consequences of business impacts TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 9

10 Negative comments about increased traffic in West Salem and North Salem. Task Force members raised the following concerns related to Alternatives 4B through 4D: Right now Wallace Marine Park is a quiet place that is close in, but you get a sense that you are away from things. Noise and intrusion of roadway would change that. How important is Marine Drive? If Marine Drive is not that important of a street, could you lower the viaduct? o Marine Drive is very important from a traffic distribution perspective, as it provides a parallel north-south route to Wallace Road and a connection between Glen Creek Road and Orchard Heights Road. The viaduct could not likely be lowered significantly as it needs to stay elevated to go over the park access road at Glen Creek Road and the Union Street, Marion and Center Street bridge approaches. Does Alt 4C or 4D impact the possibility of doubling the size of ball fields in the future? Does it limit the potential to grow? o The Master Plan is adopted to increase by 3 additional ball fields. However, due to flood plain, the City is looking in a different area (outside the current park area) to expand the ball fields, unless parks department gets better interpretation on flood plains. o Build alternatives do not impact Wallace Marine Park Master Plan expansion plans. What do you gain with extending Alternative 4C, along Pine/Hickory? o A one-way street system results in a more efficient, higher capacity intersections with Broadway, Liberty and Commercial Streets. o The couplet is in a neighborhood. On Pine Street there would be 3 lanes of oneway traffic between Front and Liberty streets and 2 lanes of one-way traffic between Liberty and 5 th streets; on Hickory Street there would be 2 lanes of oneway traffic between Front and 5 th streets o Considering quality of life, Alternative 4C has more impacts. Alternative 4D would minimize neighborhood impacts (compared to Alternative 4C). The existing couplet on Commercial/Liberty wiped out business, homes, and apartments in the 1960s. Keep that in mind while considering these two alternatives. Brandy asked the group to compare the alternatives and vote using red (no), green (yes), and yellow (maybe) cards to indicate how they felt. The results are below: Does 4C meet the goals better than 4D? 6 green/7 red/1 yellow Does 4D meet the goals better than 4C? 7 green/3 red/4 yellow Do you agree that we should drop Alternative 4C? Yes (10 green, 5 yellow) Alternative 4C was dropped from further consideration by the Task Force. Alternatives 4B and 4D will continue to be evaluated by the Task Force. Since Alternative 4B is a different situation than the others, we will hold the discussion on this alternative until the next meeting. TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 10

11 It is important for documentation on transit needs under Alternative 4B to show that the improved connection to Glen Creek Transit Center has great district-wide value to the north. Public Comments No public comments were raised at this point. Next Steps/Remaining Questions Brandy thanked the group for coming and confirmed that the following decisions were accurate based on the night s discussion. No objections were raised. Alternatives Dropped: 2B, 4E, 4C Alternatives Remaining: 2A, 3, 4A, 4B, 4D As the Task Force left (as well as at the beginning of the meeting and during the break), they had the option to add dots to a flip chart to indicate their top three alternatives. Nineteen of the twenty-four Task Force members attended this meeting; of these nineteen members, thirteen placed dots on a preferred alternative: there were 6 dots for No Build, 3 dots for Alternative 2A, 2 dots for Alternative 3 and 1 dot each for Alternative 4C and 4D. The Next Task Force meetings will be on Tuesday, July 24 th at Pringle Hall and Wednesday August 15 th (location to be determined). TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY 11