17317 DEIS Comments Public.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Phase B Key Elements • Construct new bridge and ramp connections on both east and west sides of river • Realignment of Front Street and other street modifications in North Salem • Widening of Wallace/Hope Avenue intersection • Widening of Wallace/Orchard Heights intersection Phase M-South Key Elements • Construct southern section of Marine Drive (from Hope Avenue Extension to Glen Creek Road) • Construct Beckett Street (new street opposite Narcissus Court) • Extension of 5th Avenue NW between Cameo Street and Marine Drive Phase M-North Key Elements • Construct northern section of Marine Drive (from Hope Avenue Extension north to River Bend Road) Phase R Key Elements • Construct fly-over ramps from Marine Drive to Highway 22 • Construct Marine Drive at-grade section south from Glen Creek Road to fly-over ramps • Modifications to Highway 22, including closure to westbound off-ramp at Rosemont Avenue (to be coordinated with possible relocation of this exit further west) Per Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance (FHWA, 2014), the SRC Project, as a project with an estimated cost between $100 million and $500 million, would be required to prepare a Financial Plan. An initial Financial Plan would need to be submitted to FHWA prior to FHWA project authorization for construction; however, a Financial Plan is not required to be prepared during the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) process as a prerequisite to the project being issued a Record of Decision (ROD) by FHWA. Funding Options Transportation infrastructure projects such as SRC could be funded through a mix of federal, state, and local sources. However, with limited options for federal and state funds, discussions with the community have focused on identifying potential local sources of revenue. Four local funding sources were identified as the most likely to be applicable to the SRC project: 1) gas tax, 2) vehicle registration fee, 3) property tax, and 4) tolls. The above local funding mechanisms were considered most likely to be applicable to the project based on the following criteria (ECONorthwest, 2014): • Legal authority. A funding source must not be prohibited by State statute, or it must become legal within a desired timeframe. Even for legal funding sources, complicated legal requirements could result in legal challenges, extra administrative costs, and political uncertainty. • Efficiency. An efficient funding source creates and maintains net revenues (net of collection costs) by providing sufficient revenue generating capacity, stability, and flexibility of use while minimizing administrative costs (i.e., the costs of collecting on the source). P3_RESPONSE_DONE.DOCX 2 Page 3 1 SALEM, OREGON, THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012, 3:00 P.M. 2 -o0o- 3 CLARENCE T. HOLMAN: My name is C. T. Holman, 4 Clarence T. Holman, III. I live at 215 Riviera Drive, 5 Northeast, next to River Road Park, just south of the 6 park, and I'm against the proposed bridge joining Tryon 7 Street to West Salem. 8 This will have a major impact on my family's 9 life. We enjoy the peace and serenity of our property, 10 and feel this will be severely compromised by the proposed 11 bridge. The proposed bridge will not only impact our 12 quiet existence, but the wildlife that currently enjoy the 13 area as well. 14 The noise and air pollution is significant, and 15 will be detrimental to what my family I and the wildlife 16 currently enjoy. We are able to observe geese and their 17 goslings, beavers, nesting osprey, and deer drinking from 18 the banks of the Willamette, and feel this will be 19 drastically changed with the building and the use of the 20 proposed bridge. 21 The proposed bridge will also strongly decrease 22 our property value. I agree that the traffic congestion 23 problem needs to be addressed, and I'm in favor of 24 widening the existing bridge. This option is not only in 25 an area that houses a bridge, but is also far less COOK COURT REPORTING, INC. - 503-537-0339 www.cookcourtreporting.com Page 4 1 expensive. 2 Thank you. 3 LISA CHILDERS: Hi. My name is Lisa Childers, 4 and we live at 215 Riviera Drive, Northeast, just about 5 one block away from Tryon Street, and we are against a new 6 bridge coming into Tryon Street. 7 We do believe that something does need to be 8 done, as my parents live over in West Salem, and we have 9 experienced firsthand the heavy traffic over the existing 10 bridge at times. 11 We bought our home in 2004 to enjoy the peace, 12 nature, and serenity that the property and the environment 13 has to offer. Our family of three children, 11, 10, and 14 8, and one furry child, a dog, enjoy the safety and quiet 15 of our home. A bridge coming into Tryon Street just a 16 block away would have a major impact on our way of life. 17 This bridge would significantly change our way 18 of life, and not just ours, but the animals in the area as 19 well. We enjoy watching the deer across the river, the 20 osprey in the park right next to us, the beaver, the 21 geese, the ducks, and the ducklings and goslings. 22 A bridge coming into Tryon Street would 23 significantly increase the pollution level in our area. 24 It would lower our property value, and be a major concern 25 for our family. COOK COURT REPORTING, INC. - 503-537-0339 www.cookcourtreporting.com Page 22 1 thinking what the Columbia River Crossing Environmental 2 Studies have cost so far in comparison. That's the 3 total cost of the bridge. So I think we need to, again, 4 not close those ideas off. 5 The last thing I would want to say in terms 6 of a principle is that I really think that the solution 7 needs to take the traffic out of West Salem and into 8 Highway 22. 9 Again, I haven't looked at whether it's 4-C 10 or 4-A, or whatever option it is. But the ones that 11 continue the backup along Commercial Street that backs 12 up at 5:00 way up into North Salem, that's a problem. I 13 think the ideal solution is to somehow connect the Salem 14 Parkway across the river to Highway 22 with options for 15 people to get off in West Salem, but not take it 16 downtown, and not have it go into West Salem. So those 17 are my preferences. Thank you. 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 (Brief recess taken.) 20 MS. STEFFAN: So what I will have you do is 21 just say your name and address, and then I will start 22 the timer. The panel is here to listen and just gather 23 the information to help them with their decision making 24 process. 25 CURT FISHER: My name is Curt Fisher. I am COOK COURT REPORTING, INC. - 503-537-0339 www.cookcourtreporting.com Page 23 1 at 680 Leffelle Street, Southeast, down by Bush Park. 2 Based on the evidence that I see in the DEIS, I am 3 really persuaded that the no-build option is really the 4 intelligent choice. 5 I started my analysis of the information 6 right here with Table 3, Table 3.134, which shows the 7 Operational Analysis of the various intersections in the 8 affected area. Each of these black marks represents an 9 intersection that fails the standards of mobility 10 according to the criteria laid out in the analysis. 11 I have counted the number of intersections 12 that fail. Three of them are actually worse than the 13 no-build option. Two of them offer really no 14 significant improvement. One of them offers some relief 15 of congestion, and some improvement of mobility. That's 16 the 4-C, 4-E option, but still five intersections fail 17 there. 18 When I look at this, it is really a 19 textbook situation of the laws of urban congestion, and 20 induced demand in action. You can see that I really 21 don't see that any of these options satisfactorily 22 address the problem of mobility in the study area. 23 Regarding that 4-C, 4-E alternative, Table 3.128 goes 24 over the travel times through the study area. Most of 25 the travel times, the improvement is only a few minutes COOK COURT REPORTING, INC. - 503-537-0339 www.cookcourtreporting.com Page 24 1 over the no-build alternative. 2 So when measured by that standard, it looks 3 to me like we're spending hundreds of millions to save 4 minutes, which means we're spending millions to save 5 seconds. 6 And even then, I have gone here and looked 7 at the travel times for the status quo and compared them 8 to what we have now. Most of the travel times do not -- 9 aren't any better than what we have now. Some of them 10 are even worse. 11 I think that exposes a flaw in the 12 statement of need when it comes to mobility, because if 13 we actually are going to claim that we have a problem 14 with travel times right now, I think the evidence shows 15 that the alternatives don't address that problem 16 satisfactorily enough. If it doesn't work now, it's not 17 going to work in 2031. If it's good enough in 2031, 18 then we don't have a problem now. So I think you are 19 going to have a real problem justifying the statement of 20 need there.