DRAFT Salem River Crossing Project EIS Public Involvement Summary
Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation
July 2016
Prepared by
Contents
Section Page
Acronyms ...... v Executive Summary ...... ES-1 1 Prior to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 1-1 1.1 Milestone 1: Management Structure and Decision Process ...... 1-1 1.1.1 Decision-Making Structure ...... 1-1 1.1.2 Agency Coordination ...... 1-1 1.1.3 Public Involvement ...... 1-4 1.1.4 Participating and Cooperating Agency Input ...... 1-5 1.2 Milestone 2: Purpose and Need ...... 1-5 1.2.1 Agency Coordination ...... 1-5 1.2.2 Public Involvement ...... 1-6 1.3 Milestone 3: Establish Evaluation Framework ...... 1-8 1.3.1 Agency Coordination ...... 1-8 1.3.2 Public Involvement ...... 1-8 1.4 Milestone 4: Develop Range of Alternatives ...... 1-9 1.4.1 Agency Coordination ...... 1-9 1.4.2 Public Involvement ...... 1-10 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Phase ...... 2-1 2.1 Milestone 5: Screen Alternatives for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 2-1 2.1.1 Agency Coordination ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Public Involvement ...... 2-2 2.1.3 Key Issues and Themes...... 2-4 3 After the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 3-1 3.1 Milestone 6: Preferred Alternative ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Agency Coordination ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Public Involvement ...... 3-2 3.2 The Selection of the “Salem Alternative” ...... 3-5 3.2.1 Agency Coordination ...... 3-5 3.2.2 Public Involvement ...... 3-6 4 References ...... 4-1
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE III PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Appendixes A Background B Study Area Refinement C Decision-Making Structure and Process D Purpose and Need Statement E Public Involvement Materials (on CD) F Agency Involvement G Evaluation Framework
Tables 2-1 Key Issues/Themes and How They Were Addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 2-4 2-2 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 2-6
Figure 1-1 Decision-Making Structure ...... 1-2
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE IV PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
Acronyms
CD compact disk CETAS Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining CH2M CH2M HILL DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FHWA Federal Highway Administration MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation ODSL Oregon Department of State Lands OR 22 Oregon State Route 22 Oregon DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality SAFETEA-LU 6002 Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SHPO Oregon State Historic Preservation Office SKATS MPO Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE V PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
Executive Summary
Purpose of this Report This summary outlines the public and agency involvement that occurred during the Salem River Crossing Project. It recaps all outreach conducted before and during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) phase of the project, as well as the outreach done after publishing the DEIS on April 20, 2012 (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], Oregon Department of Transportation [ODOT], and City of Salem, 2012). This summary also outlines the selection of the preferred alternative. Public involvement is an ongoing effort for the agencies involved and will continue until construction of the project is completed. Outreach activities are documented and organized by project development milestone and detailed documentation is included in the appendices following the Public Involvement Summary narrative. Location The Salem River Crossing Project is located in the mid-Willamette Valley in northwestern Oregon. The Willamette River bisects the city of Salem and defines the boundary between Marion County on the east side of the river and Polk County on the west side. A portion of Salem is situated on the west side of the Willamette River in Polk County and is referred to as West Salem. Currently, the sole river crossing in this area is the Marion Street/Center Street Bridge complex. The Marion Street Bridge contains four westbound travel lanes, which provide access to the local street system in West Salem via Wallace Road and Edgewater Street and to westbound Oregon State Route 22 (OR 22). The Center Street Bridge contains four eastbound travel lanes, providing access to downtown Salem via Center Street and Front Street. Public Involvement Process To direct community input at key project NEPA milestones (referred to as “decision points”), a structured decision-making process was established at the project outset. An Environmental Justice Outreach Plan (updated in 2012) was developed at the onset of the project to ensure that the public was actively involved during each decision point. These major decisions points are: 1. Management Structure and Decision Process 2. Define Purpose and Need 3. Establish Evaluation Framework 4. Develop Range of Alternatives 5. Alternatives for the EIS 6. Select Preferred Alternative The first four decision points included public notice of input opportunities, public meetings, and stakeholder briefings. This effort is listed under the “Prior to DEIS” section of this Public Involvement Summary.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE ES-1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The last two decision points included all outreach efforts completed after publication of the DEIS and the process that culminated in the identification of the project preferred alternative presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE ES-2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
SECTION 1 Prior to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prior to the development of the DEIS, the Salem River Crossing Project conducted a scoping process, which was focused around the first four decision milestones of the project. Appendix A includes background information, including the Executive Summary of the Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study (Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization [SKATS MPO], 1998) and the Executive Summary of the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study, General Corridor Evaluation (SKATS MPO, 2002). Appendix B includes the Study Area Refinement Memorandum (CH2M HILL [CH2M], 2006). 1.1 Milestone 1: Management Structure and Decision Process This first decision milestone ensured agreement on the process to be used throughout the project, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and membership of the various participating groups. The goal was to create a logical path through a complicated project by establishing major decision points (or milestones), as outlined in the Decision-Making Structure and Process Memorandum (Appendix C). At each decision point, all of the project stakeholder groups had the opportunity to consider the topic, ensuring that quality decisions were made and that they did not have to be revisited later. Structuring the project in this way has allowed the project team to explain to stakeholders what phase the project is in, what has been accomplished, and what is ahead. 1.1.1 Decision-Making Structure Figure 1-1 shows the project’s decision-making structure. The composition, roles, and responsibilities were divided among three primary teams—the Project Management Team, the Oversight Team, and the Task Force. Other agencies, listed subsequently, are also involved in the project. 1.1.2 Agency Coordination The following paragraphs list the stakeholder agencies and their responsibilities. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) FHWA is the lead agency for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process that governs proposed actions requiring federal highway funding, permits, or approvals. FHWA will approve the Final EIS and sign the Record of Decision. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, published on November 13, 2006, in the Federal Register, was the first, formal step for the project at the federal level. It described the proposed action, the project’s Purpose and Need, and opportunities for public comment. The Notice of Intent also announced the initiation of the formal scoping process.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Figure 1‐1. Decision‐Making Structure
Local Elected Officials and Metropolitan Planning Organization The Oversight Team (see subsequent subsection) will make all interim recommendations during the project. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and elected officials of affected jurisdictions will be briefed as needed or upon request. Approvals could take place as part of a vote of the SKATS MPO policy board or as land use or transportation approvals that may be needed to implement the project. Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) CETAS coordinates and streamlines the regulatory review and permitting functions of the participating agencies. Members include representatives from key federal and state agencies responsible for protecting the region’s fish and wildlife; cultural and land use resources; air; and water. This committee must formally concur on Salem River Crossing Project decisions related to the Purpose and Need, the Evaluation Framework, the Range of Alternatives, the Selection Criteria, and the Preferred Alternative. The group was dismantled and no longer exists at the writing of this technical memorandum. Oversight Team The Oversight Team includes elected or appointed officials of local agencies and jurisdictions with regulatory responsibility for, or a strong interest in, this project. Responsibilities of the Oversight Team include the following:
Setting the policy framework for the project
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Representing the interests of their agencies or jurisdictions in group deliberations
Communicating project progress to their fellow elected or appointed officials and to their constituents
Preparing for and participating in approximately 12 two‐hour meetings between September 2006 and the present
Reviewing recommendations from the Task Force (see next subsection) and other background materials, then making decisions or recommendations at the project’s key decision points The Oversight Team, after publication of the DEIS, consisted of:
Sam Brentano Marion County Commissioner
Robert Krebs Salem‐Keizer Transit District, Board President
Dan Clem City of Salem, City Council
Emily Lawton FHWA, Division Administrator (non‐voting member)
Craig Pope Polk County Commissioner
Sonny Chickering Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Region 2 Manager
Cathy Clark City of Keizer, City Council
Task Force The Task Force, which provides a balanced representation of stakeholder interests, affected communities, and geographic areas, serves as a communication link with those interests and communities. Members of the Task Force include the City of Salem; leaders of neighborhood and civic groups on both sides of the Willamette River; the SKATS MPO; representatives of local and regional business groups; the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde; and advocates for different bridge user groups (including commuters, freight users, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists). ODOT and the City of Salem solicited the members of the Task Force. Responsibilities of the Task Force members include the following:
Representing their constituents’ perspectives during group deliberations
Communicating project progress to their constituents
Preparing for and participating in approximately 18 3‐hour meetings between September 2006 and August 2012
Working to develop consensus recommendations to the Oversight Team at each step in the decision process
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
As of the final Task Force meeting on August 15, 2012, the following people were the appointed members:
Professor Russell Beaton/Land Use Manuel Arellano/ Hispanic Community Eric Bradfield/ Grant Neighborhood Association Mark Becktel/City of Salem Public Works Warren Bednarz/Downtown Business Betsy Belshaw/Parks Gary Fish/ Department of Land Conservation & Development Rebecca Engle/ Central Area Neighborhood Development Organization Cindy Callahan/ FHWA Fred Harris/ North Salem Business Association Nathan Wuerch/West Salem Businesses Don Homuth/West Salem Neighborhood Association Leon Fisher/Freight Austin McGuigan/Polk County Community Development Glenn Gross/City of Salem Community Development Stephen Dickey/Salem‐Keizer Transit District Mike Jaffe/Mid‐Willamette Valley Council of Governments and SKATS Mike Karnosh/Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Sam Litke/City of Keizer Jose Lopez/ Hispanic Community Doug Parrow/Bicycle Transportation Alliance Tim Potter/Oregon Department of Transportation Karen Odenthal/Marion County Public Works Darlene Strozut/Highland Neighborhood Association Project Management Team The Project Management Team is comprised of ODOT, City of Salem, Polk County, and consultant project managers, along with other key staff from these agencies and the Mid- Willamette Valley Council of Governments, as needed. 1.1.3 Public Involvement Appendix E (on a compact disk [CD]) contains all records of the public involvement conducted prior to and during publication of the DEIS and the selection of a preferred alternative. Web Site The project Web site (www.salemrivercrossing.org) was first published on September 15, 2006. All Task Force and Oversight Team meeting materials are posted to the Web site. All draft and finalized documents (listed in this summary’s appendixes) are also posted to the Web site. Public comments can be submitted via e-mail through the Web site. The public can also join the mailing list on the Web site. Project managers Dan Fricke/ODOT and Julie
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Warncke/City of Salem have contact information posted on the Web site and in all printed materials, allowing comments to be sent by e-mail, postal mail, or fax. 1.1.4 Participating and Cooperating Agency Input Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU 6002) requires a project’s lead agencies to establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation during the environmental review process. SAFETEA-LU 6002 applies to projects for which an EIS is being prepared and is not optional for such projects. All agencies (participating, coordinating, or those that declined the invitation to participate) are able to comment on the project via the project Web site and during public comment periods. More information is available about these agencies in the Milestone 2 section. A revised SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan is included in Appendix F. 1.2 Milestone 2: Purpose and Need Clarity of purpose and confirmation of need are in themselves sound practices when developing large-scale proposals requiring public expenditure. The Purpose and Need statement sets the stage for consideration of the alternatives. It has three parts:
The Purpose defines the transportation problem that the project will solve The Need provides data to support the problem statement (Purpose) The Goals and Objectives describe other issues that need to be resolved as part of a successful solution to the problem The project’s Purpose and Need statement was recommended by the Task Force on November 15, 2006, and adopted by the Oversight Team on November 21, 2006. The Purpose and Need is provided in Chapter 1 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and in Appendix D of this report. 1.2.1 Agency Coordination SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan In accordance with the requirements of the federal SAFETEA-LU legislation of 2005, invitation letters were sent to government agencies on November 22, 2006, to see who might be interested in participating in the project; this included a number of agencies who are not otherwise involved in the project. Agencies expressing a desire to participate in the project development process can comment at key points in the process. The revised Coordination Plan is provided in Appendix F. Agencies that did not respond or declined the invitation to participate are listed in the revised Coordination Plan (Appendix F). Scoping Meeting A scoping meeting was held for interested government agencies on November 30, 2006, at the ODOT Region 2 Technical Center in Salem, Oregon. During the meeting, the agencies reviewed the Draft Purpose and Need Statement and the Draft SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Most of the agencies with a stake in the Salem River Crossing Project are involved via the Project Management Team, Oversight Team, Task Force, or CETAS. A number of the agencies involved in these groups did not respond to the Agency Scoping Meeting invitation or indicated they would participate through these other opportunities. Relatively few agencies attended the meeting, but those who attended were able to learn about the project and provide input on the Purpose and Need Statement and Coordination Plan. The following agencies attended the scoping meeting:
Salem‐Keizer School District Polk County Marion County Mid‐Willamette Valley Council of Governments Oregon Economic and Community Development Department West Valley Housing Authority Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Review CETAS (no longer in existence at time of publishing this technical memorandum) is a group of state and federal agencies that review transportation construction projects including all EISs, such as the one that will be produced for this project. They identify and implement collaborative opportunities to help each participating agency realize its mission through sound environmental stewardship, while providing for a safe and efficient transportation system. The 10 CETAS agencies are:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL) CETAS reviewed and commented on the Purpose and Need Statement at their January 16, 2007 meeting. Comments related primarily to the wording of natural resources goals and objectives. Subsequent to the meeting, CETAS issued their concurrence with the recommended Purpose and Need Statement. 1.2.2 Public Involvement Web Site The project Web site was updated periodically, including posting project team meeting materials and monthly status reports. Nine unsolicited comments were received through the project Web site between October 1 and November 30, 2006, the timeframe for Milestone 2. The project managers responded to the comments if requested.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The first online survey was completed by 97 individuals between October 3 and November 1, 2006 (Appendix E). The survey asked for general input on people’s concerns and interests related to the project. The project team acquired a better idea of the community, their values, and the issues surrounding transportation over the Marion and Center bridges through the survey responses. The project team used the information during the creation of the Purpose and Need Statement. The second online survey asked for public input on the Draft Purpose and Need. Approximately 76 individuals completed it between November 22 and December 20, 2006. Public Notice and Media Communications Notification in the form of a project newsletter was sent to approximately 1,000 local residents, businesses, and community leaders in mid-November 2006. A display ad promoting the Open Houses appeared in the Statesman Journal on Sunday, December 3, 2006. An article on the project, which included Open House information, was published in the Salem Statesman Journal on Monday, December 4, 2006. Press releases were distributed before each Task Force and public meeting. Three news articles were written about the project in December 2006. In addition, the presentation during the December 7, 2006, Open House was broadcast live on a local cable television station, CCTV. The video footage is available through a link on the project Web site. Public Meetings The first two public meetings (Open Houses) were held on December 6 and 7, 2006 at the Salem City Council Chambers in downtown Salem. Background information was presented during the Open Houses. Topics included project objectives, existing and future travel conditions, the draft Statement of Purpose and Need, and the project Web site. Public input was solicited by the project team on these topics. Each Open House began at 5:00 PM and concluded at 8:00 PM. Members of the public attended at their convenience and had the opportunity to discuss the project and issues surrounding it with project team members. Approximately 90 people attended the December 6 Open House and 45 people attended the December 7 meeting. Comments were received verbally, on the posted Issues Wall, and on written comment forms. The written comment forms included questions from the two previous online surveys, in an effort to gather similar input from people who may not have had access to the Internet. In addition to the large number of verbal comments received, 18 people submitted written comments on the sixth and seventh of December. Additionally, the public was encouraged to submit further comments or questions to the project Web site after the meetings. Environmental Justice Outreach Environmental Justice, which is the fair and equitable treatment of people, regardless of race and income level, is a required component in the NEPA process. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations: Executive Order 12898 (Clinton, 1994) requires special outreach to low-income and minority communities, as well as an analysis and disclosure of disproportionate impacts to these groups.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Outreach is especially important for groups that may not speak English, have the opportunity to attend public meetings, or to read highly technical documents. The activities below are an effort to include as many individuals and organizations from these communities as possible. The Web site can be viewed in Spanish and a fact sheet was translated into Spanish for the first two Open Houses. The project phone line has a greeting recorded in English and Spanish. A Spanish language translator was available at both Open Houses. Other activities for Milestone 2 included distributing information, in both English and Spanish, to the following locations:
Chemeketa GED/HEP Program Migrant Housing in Salem 1.3 Milestone 3: Establish Evaluation Framework The product of this step in the process was an agreed-upon set of goals, objectives, and performance measures (Salem River Crossing Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum [CH2M, 2007]) that would be used to help screen potential alternatives to be studied in the DEIS. The five goals of the project are as follows:
Goal 1: Improve mobility and safety for people and freight across the Willamette River in the Salem‐Keizer Metropolitan Area
Goal 2: Preserve or improve natural and cultural resources
Goal 3: Preserve the quality of life in communities on both sides of the river
Goal 4: Provide a cost‐effective and timely solution
Goal 5: Ensure that any structural solution is aesthetically pleasing. (Goal 5 will not be applicable until the selection and/or design of a preferred alternative, when aesthetic design considerations can be taken into account.) 1.3.1 Agency Coordination The Task Force recommended the Evaluation Framework Memo and the Oversight Team adopted it at their respective meetings in March 2007 (Appendix G). Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Review CETAS reviewed and commented on the Evaluation Framework Memorandum during their May 2007 meeting, although this was not a formal CETAS concurrence point. At this meeting, there were minor changes suggested to the wording of the objective in Goal 2 of the project Goals and Objectives. No written comments were provided to the project team. 1.3.2 Public Involvement Web Site Draft and final versions of the Evaluation Framework were posted on the Web site. Twenty unsolicited comments were collected through the project Web site between December 1, 2006, and January 24, 2007. The project managers responded to the comments, if requested.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
One survey was available online during Milestone 3. However, it was to determine how the public collected information about the project and how the project could effectively communicate with the public, instead of a topic related to this milestone. From this survey, the project team learned that most respondents were first time visitors to the site, but found the Web site to be easy to read and use. Most learned about the Web site from a news article or ad, a few linked there from ODOT’s or the City of Salem’s Web sites. For future events, respondents indicated that they would check the Web site, e-mail announcements, and newspapers for information. Public Notice and Media Communications Press releases were distributed to local media outlets prior to each Task Force meeting. Six news articles were written about the project between January and March 2007. One Salem City Council meeting covering the project was broadcast on a local cable television station, CCTV, was held on January 8, 2007. Public Meetings No general purpose public meetings (that is, Open Houses) were held during this phase; however, all Task Force and Oversight Team meetings were open to the public and provided opportunities for public comment. 1.4 Milestone 4: Develop Range of Alternatives All alternatives or solutions that could potentially solve the identified problem (that is, meet the Purpose and Need statement) were considered during this milestone. The aim was to ensure that stakeholders, including the public, had been consulted and all of their ideas were “put on the table” before beginning the DEIS. 1.4.1 Agency Coordination During Milestone 4, the Task Force had five meetings, covering these topics:
April 18, 2007 – Started the weighting exercise to create a scale showing the importance of each goal and objective
May 16, 2007 – Reviewed the weighting results and reviewed preliminary concepts
June 20, 2007 – Reviewed and revised preliminary concepts
July 18, 2007 – Reviewed the public inputs for concepts
August 15, 2007 – Revised and narrowed concepts down for further consideration During Milestone 4, the Oversight Team had three meetings, covering these topics:
June 26, 2007 – Reviewed preliminary concepts July 27, 2007 – Reviewed the public inputs for concepts August 17, 2007 – Reviewed and concurred with the recommended concepts from the Task Force
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1.4.2 Public Involvement Web Site Initial concepts of alternatives were posted on the Web site in June 2007. The project received 20 comments and responded to those that requested a response. Two online surveys were conducted during this milestone. The fourth online survey was available from April 18 through June 26, 2007, and was completed by 57 individuals. The survey sought to assist the project team in developing concepts; asking participants if improvements were needed on the existing bridges and the local street system; and if new bridges would be necessary. The fifth online survey was available from June 26 through July 10 (to correspond with the Open Houses). Participants were asked their opinions about the preliminary concepts that had been developed by the community Task Force and project management team. Approximately 36 people took the survey. Public Notice and Media Communications Notification in the form of a second project newsletter was sent to approximately 1,100 local residents, businesses, and community leaders in June 2007. An e-mail message announcing the first round of concepts was sent to approximately 375 individuals, who joined the e-mail mailing list, during the same time. A display ad promoting the Open Houses appeared in the Statesman Journal on June 23 and 24, 2007, as well as an editorial in the Statesman Journal that encouraged the public to attend the events. Press releases were sent out prior to the Open Houses (Appendix E). Thirteen news articles were written about the project during this milestone, and links to the articles can be found on the project Web site. In addition, the June Open Houses were announced on radio station KBZY (1490 AM) during a weekday morning and lunchtime slot. Public Meetings Two Open Houses were held on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at the First Baptist Church in downtown Salem and on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at Roth’s Hospitality Center in West Salem from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. These meetings helped gather additional concepts for potential river crossings in the Salem-Keizer area and comments about the preliminary concepts that the project team and Task Force had developed. Members of the public attended at their convenience and had the opportunity to discuss the project and the 13 preliminary concepts with project team members. Preliminary ideas for funding sources were also discussed with the public. Approximately 47 people attended the June 26 Open House and 100 people attended the June 27 meeting. Comments were received verbally, written on flip charts, and written on comment forms. In addition, the public was encouraged to submit further comments or questions to the project Web site after the meetings (Appendix E). Environmental Justice Outreach The Web site continued to be translated into Spanish and the project phone line retained a greeting in English and Spanish, allowing anyone to leave comments or questions. Other
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY PRIOR TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
activities included distributing fact sheets about the project and posters announcing the Open Houses, in both English and Spanish, to the following locations:
St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church YMCA YWCA Saint Joseph’s Catholic Church Fred Meyer’s Salem Senior Center A handout, in English and Spanish, was given to all students at Highland Elementary School to announce the Open Houses. The ODOT and City of Salem project managers and a translator gave an informational interview on a Spanish language radio station (“La Campeona,” KWIP 880 AM). The interview was held during the lunch hour, which has the highest listener rates of the day, about a week before the Open Houses. Announcements for the Open Houses were also made on two other Spanish language radio stations (KSND and KWBY) one week before the events. A Spanish language translator was also available at the Open Houses. Other Involvement Opportunities The project presented information and handouts on June 9, 2007, at the Salem Saturday Market. About 100 newsletters were distributed. The Open House dates were also announced. The Saturday Market had both craft and food vendors (the food vendors accept WIC and Food Stamps), allowing the project to contact individuals from a wide range of economic and age groups.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 1-11 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
SECTION 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Phase
This section summarizes public involvement for the DEIS phase of the project, which includes Milestone 5. The public involvement program conducted for this project exceeds the requirements of a typical NEPA process. Through three rounds of outreach activities during Milestones 1 through 4, the project contacted approximately:
1,000 mailing list addresses 600 stakeholder e‐mail addresses In addition, the project:
Had a cumulative total of 550 public Open House participants Collected online surveys from 445 participants Collected 147 Web site and mailed comments1 Collected public comments at Task Force Meetings 2.1 Milestone 5: Screen Alternatives for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement The fifth decision point applied the evaluation criteria (established in decision point three) to the alternatives (developed in decision point four), screening out those that did not meet the minimum requirements or the project Purpose and Need and identifying those to be studied in the DEIS. 2.1.1 Agency Coordination In December 2007, the Task Force and Oversight Team recommended and approved the alternatives to be included for study in the DEIS. In early 2008, the range of alternatives recommended by the Task Force and Oversight Team was modified to respond to advice from FHWA. During Milestone 5, the Task Force had six meetings, covering these topics:
January 16, 2008 – Began discussing bridge types
February 20, 2008 – Funding discussions and plan for Funding Workshop
May 21, 2008 – Reviewed comments from the public funding survey and discussion of alternatives
1 Some duplication is likely in these numbers. For example, the same person might have attended an Open House, taken the online survey, and submitted a Web comment.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 2-1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PHASE
July 23, 2008 – Discussed modification to Existing Bridges alternative
September 3, 2008 – Recommended addition of Alternative 2B in addition to existing Alternative 2A
March 1, 2011 – Reviewed DEIS alternatives and summarized the Preliminary Technical Findings for Milestone 6 During Milestone 5, the Oversight Team had seven meetings, covering these topics:
January 18, 2008 – Began discussing bridge types
February 22, 2008 – Reviewed alternatives and possible changes
April 4, 2008 – Reviewed updates to alternatives
July 23, 2008 – Discussed modification to Existing Bridges alternative
September 3, 2008 – Recommended addition of Alternative 2B in addition to existing Alternative 2A
August 14, 2009 – Discussed various funding strategy approaches to pursue prior to publishing the DEIS
March 11, 2011 – Reviewed DEIS alternatives and summarized the Preliminary Technical Findings for Milestone 6. Discussed the possibility of conducting opinion research related to project funding Funding Workshop The first Funding Workshop was held on March 5, 2008, for more than 50 local elected officials, business leaders, and senior-level staff from ODOT, FHWA, and local jurisdictions. The purpose of the workshop was to test the online funding tool prior to its public launch on the Web site and to engage these individuals in brainstorming activities related to funding options. The workshop included discussion among the attendees regarding preliminary thoughts on advantages and disadvantages of the various funding sources and potential next steps for continuing the funding discussion with the general public. The Funding Booklet, which was available to elected and agency individuals, was updated in March 2008 and posted to the public Web site. Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Review CETAS reviewed and commented on the Range of Alternatives during their January 2008 meeting. This was a formal CETAS concurrence point and all comments were collected by the middle of February 2008. 2.1.2 Public Involvement Web Site The project managers responded to the 32 comments that were e-mailed and mailed to the project, if requested. Two online surveys were conducted during this milestone.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 2-2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PHASE
The sixth online survey was available from November 1 to December 3, 2007 (to correspond with the Open Houses). Participants were asked their opinions about the 13 preliminary alternatives that were developed by the community Task Force and the project management team. Approximately 100 people took the survey. A funding tool was developed for the Web site as a result of the Funding Workshop, which was held for elected officials and agency staff in March 2008. The Web funding tool allowed the public to explore potential local funding options by examining the trade-offs between local funding sources used to fund transportation projects. The seventh online survey was available from April 10 to May 18, 2008. Participants were asked to use the Web funding tool to explore the funding options and then provide feedback about these options. Approximately 40 people took the survey. Public Notice and Media Communications Notification in the form of a third project newsletter was sent to approximately 1,000 residents, businesses, and community leaders. An e-mail message announcing the Open Houses was sent to approximately 585 people, who joined the mailing list, during the same time. A display ad promoting the Open Houses appeared in the Statesman Journal on Saturday, November 3, and Wednesday, November 7, 2007. Also published in the Statesman Journal, on October 30 was a guest column by Jeff Scheick, ODOT Region 2 Manager and an editorial about the project. A meeting announcement was posted on the Salem River Crossing Web site and a press release was issued to local media on November 5, including the Statesman Journal. Several articles on the project (two on October 29 and 30, 2007), which included Open House information, were published in the Statesman Journal as well. In addition, Project Manager Dan Fricke did a half-hour interview on the Hispanic radio station KWIP on November 5, 2007. Additional presentations were held during this milestone to:
SEDCOR on October 11, 2007 Salem Rotary on October 31, 2007 North Gateway Redevelopment Advisory Board on November 1, 2007 Northgate Neighborhood Association on November 13, 2007 Highland Elementary School principal Olga Cobb sent flyers home with all students. The City of Salem sent Open House announcement postcards to over 5,500 households in the Grant, CAN-DO, Highland, Northgate, and West Salem Neighborhoods. Public Meetings Two Open Houses were on Thursday, November 8, 2007, at Highland Elementary School in the Highland neighborhood and on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at Roth’s Hospitality Center in West Salem from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. These meetings allowed participants to review the 13 preliminary alternatives and identify which ones they felt should be selected for further study in the DEIS. Attendees were encouraged to identify up to 3 of the 13 alternatives that they would like to see advanced for more study in the DEIS. They were also encouraged to comment on which TSM and TDM (Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Management) options would help reduce congestion on existing
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 2-3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PHASE
roads and bridges and which of the funding options should be studied as possible ways to pay for the project. Approximately 120 people attended the November 8 Open House, and
170 people attended the November 14 Open House. Comments were received verbally, written on flip charts, and written on comment forms. In addition, the public was encouraged to submit further comments or questions to the project Web site after the meetings. Environmental Justice Outreach The Web site continues to be translated into Spanish and the project phone line retained a greeting in English and Spanish, allowing anyone to leave comments or questions. A handout, in English and Spanish, was given to all students at Highland Elementary to announce the Open Houses. At the Open Houses, a project factsheet was provided in English and in Spanish and a Spanish interpreter was present to assist with any language needs. 2.1.3 Key Issues and Themes Throughout the public involvement process, hundreds of public comments were received. These comments have directly influenced project decision-making and shaped the range of alternatives at each milestone. Many of the issues were addressed in the DEIS. The issues that are outside the scope of the project were not addressed Table 2-1 lists the most frequently heard issues (comment themes) from public involvement activities, along with the way that this issue was addressed in the DEIS. Table 2-2 lists key comment themes that were outside the scope of the DEIS.
TABLE 2-1 Key Issues/Themes and How They Were Addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issue/Theme How this was addressed in the DEIS
Community impacts, particularly in the Highland and The social and environmental justice sections of the Grant Neighborhoods and nearby areas. Concerns DEIS analyzed this concern and disclosed impacts. In include traffic impacts, residential and commercial addition, breadth in the range of alternatives is property impacts, aesthetics, and long-term intended to present a range of impacts. community and economic development.
Impacts on parks, in particular Wallace Marine Park. The alternatives studied in the DEIS were revised to The primary concern relates to potential adverse reduce the impacts to Wallace Marine Park. Further impacts from a bridge crossing above the active use discussion related to this concern was covered in the areas (soccer and softball fields) of the park. Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. The alternatives present a range of impacts and tradeoffs with respect to Wallace Marine Park.
Desire for a direct free-flow transportation While not every alternative connects to either OR 22 or connection between OR 22 and Salem Parkway. Salem Parkway, most connect to one or the other. The concern relates both to the efficiency of regional Reductions to congestion levels for regional and local and through traffic movement and a desire to trips were studied in the DEIS. remove through vehicle trips from downtown.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 2-4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PHASE
TABLE 2-1 Key Issues/Themes and How They Were Addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issue/Theme How this was addressed in the DEIS
Pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations and All of the alternatives accommodate pedestrians and safety. The primary concern expressed was that bicyclists, including the addition of new facilities. wide, high-volume streets would result from the project, creating places that were uninviting and unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Adequate range of alternatives. The concern relates In direct response to this concern, ODOT and the City to studying a range of alternatives with respect to of Salem agreed to study in the DEIS a broad range of size, cost, and impact, and not prematurely alternatives, including some that do not meet adopted eliminating them even though they do not meet mobility standards, in the interest of fully disclosing adopted agency mobility standards. The context for both the benefits and the adverse impacts of those in this includes concerns over how the project would which performance against traffic operations standards be funded and the desire to have a range of cost is sub-standard. solutions.
Alternatives to building a new, large bridge were Improvements to the existing bridges and building a suggested, including widening the existing bridges, bridge between the Marion Street Bridge and the building a new bridge between them, and railroad bridge are both alternatives that were studied considering phasing options. in the DEIS. Phasing options were also discussed, including in the funding plan.
Desire that new bridge connect to the future Marine Many of the alternatives connected to the future Drive on the west side of the river. Marine Drive.
Concerns were raised about the lack of federal and The lack of funding for the project has been discussed state funding sources. Some suggested tolling with the public throughout the process. The DEIS bridge users, increasing the gas tax, or purchasing acknowledges this and addressed potential impacts of property now to reduce expenses later. An local funding. Although the decision on funding will be established target date for funding/cost expectations separate from the decision on a preferred alternative, was desired. Specific funding options were presented and discussed in parallel with the DEIS.
Create a better local street grid for connections and This issue is primarily under the jurisdiction of the City to relieve congestion on existing roads (for example, of Salem, separate from this project. However, the build a road parallel to Wallace Road to take some future Marine Drive is one possible solution for traffic to another location and decrease overall reducing congestion on Wallace Road and its congestion). construction (or portions thereof) are included in many of the alternatives in the DEIS because they help distribute traffic and improve operations on the system.
Improve commute options (add light rail, increase Because improvements to these modes are primarily bus service, offer rubber-tire trolleys, create more under the jurisdiction of non-roadway agencies (e.g., park-and-ride facilities, add carpool lanes, etc.) Salem-Keizer Transit), they are largely beyond the scope of the DEIS to address directly. However, the DEIS assumes the share of alternative mode trips will increase in the future. Specific alternative mode solutions are being addressed in a separate study being conducted in parallel to the DEIS.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 2-5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PHASE
TABLE 2-2 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issue Why it was not included in the DEIS
A new bridge farther north (in Keizer or at This issue was the subject of a refinement effort at the Lockhaven/Chemawa) or south of the existing beginning of the project and the subsequent bridges is needed. development of the project purpose and need. Bridges in these other locations were eliminated from further study based on that work and the fact that they were less effective in removing traffic from the existing bridges. However, there continues to be interest in these other locations from the public.
Signal needed at Michigan City Lane This issue was outside of the project’s study area.
Salem Bypass (near Wheatland Ferry) This issue was the subject of a refinement effort at the beginning of the project and the subsequent development of the project purpose and need. The bypass was eliminated from further study based on that work and the fact that a bridge in this location would be less effective in removing traffic from the existing bridges. However, the public continues to be interested in this solution.
Add more businesses (small or “big box”) in West These efforts are under the jurisdiction of the City of Salem to reduce trips across the river. Manage the Salem, separate from this project. The existing number of residential units built on the west side distribution of jobs across the Salem-Keizer area through the development of a master plan. shows that major changes in this distribution would be needed to reduce trips across the river.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 2-6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
SECTION 3 After the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
This section summarizes public involvement after the publishing of the DEIS, which includes Milestone 6: the selection of a preferred alternative. The DEIS was published on April 20, 2012, and the public comment period lasted through June 18, 2012. 3.1 Milestone 6: Preferred Alternative The sixth decision point involves selecting a preferred alternative from the DEIS. The DEIS findings helped in selecting a preferred alternative and funding strategy. Public comments received throughout the process influenced project decision-making and directly shaped the range of alternatives in the DEIS. 3.1.1 Agency Coordination During, and subsequent to, the DEIS public comment period, the Task Force met on four separate occasions to discuss the results of the DEIS analysis for the project alternatives, covering these topics:
April 26, 2012 (Joint meeting with Oversight Team) – Discussed the findings of the DEIS and the differences between the alternatives with respect to environmental impacts
July 11, 2012 – Reviewed public and agency comments on the DEIS and evaluated alternatives using previously developed evaluation criteria
July 24, 2012 – Developed a preferred alternative recommendation to forward to the Oversight Team and began work on the Task Force Feedback on Alternatives memorandum
August 15, 2012 – Reviewed draft Task Force Feedback on Alternatives memorandum and modified it to reflect the reasons behind identifying alternatives to forward to the Oversight Team for their consideration During Milestone 6, the Oversight Team had four meetings, covering these topics:
April 26, 2012 (Joint meeting with Task Force) – Discussed the findings of the DEIS and the differences between the alternatives with respect to environmental impacts
August 23, 2012 – Reviewed the Task Force Feedback on Alternatives memorandum
July 31, 2013 – Began discussions on the “Salem Alternative” and potential evaluation needs for new alternative
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 3-1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
AFTER THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
October 31, 2013 – Reviewed technical analysis of the “Salem Alternative” and next steps for reaching a decision on a preferred alternative On August 15, 2012, the Task Force took a vote for a preferred alternative recommendation; the voting results were as noted below:
No Build Alternative: 7 Alternative 2A: 1 Alternative 4A: 2 Alternative 4D: 10 Abstained: 2
The recommendation was forwarded to the Oversight Team. The Oversight Team subsequently considered the Task Force feedback, together with the analysis contained in the DEIS and associated public comments received on the DEIS, in their decision making for the identification of a preferred alternative. On August 23, 2012, the Oversight Team voted to recommend Alternative 4D as the preferred alternative. The next step in the project process subsequent to the Oversight Team recommendation was for the local government agencies represented by the Oversight Team members (City of Salem, City of Keizer, Polk County, Marion County, and Salem-Keizer Transit District) to consider endorsement of the Oversight Team’s recommendation. At that time, the Salem City Council, after hearing concerns from city residents about potential impacts caused by Alternative 4D, concluded that it wished to see a scaled-down version of Alternative 4D that would have less overall impacts, most notably to homes and businesses. Accordingly, City of Salem staff developed a concept for a version of Alternative 4D that was subsequently refined by consultant engineering design staff in coordination with ODOT and the City of Salem. The result of this refinement was the “Salem Alternative.” Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Review CETAS had several concurrence points during this milestone. CETAS reviewed and commented on the Selection and Evaluation Criteria during their July 2012 meeting. The also held an evaluation meeting during April 2013. Finally, they reviewed the preferred alternative and provided feedback at their April 2014 meeting. All comments were collected during these meetings and used in the decision making process. Salem City Council Work Session The Salem City Council was updated on the project on several occasions during this milestone. Work session were held on December 17, 2012, January 22, 2013, and February 19, 2013. At these sessions the project team updated the Salem City Council on the project, the preferred alternatives being considered, and next steps. The project team also attend Council public hearing on April 22, 2013 and May 13, 2013. Finally, deliberations with the Council were held on June 24, 2013. 3.1.2 Public Involvement Web Site The Web site was updated in February 2012 to let the public know the DEIS was about to be published. The Web site was also updated on April 20, 2012, to announce the publication of
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 3-2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY AFTER THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
the DEIS. An e-mail message was sent to the project mailing list announcing the Web site updates and publication of the DEIS. The project managers responded to the comments that were e-mailed and mailed to the project, if requested. Public comment on the DEIS was collected from April 20, 2012, to June 18, 2012. During this milestone, an online questionnaire was posted to the project Web site. Approximately 121 people participated in the questionnaire. Public Notice and Media Communications Notification in the form of a mailed postcard was sent to approximately 4,300 residents, businesses, and community leaders on February 10, 2012, letting them know that the DEIS was almost ready for publication. Approximately 120 e-mail messages were also sent to notify the public that the DEIS was almost complete. For the publication of the DEIS on April 20, 2012, notification in the form of a project newsletter was sent to approximately 4,400 residents, businesses, and community leaders. An e-mail message announcing publication of the DEIS and the Open Houses was sent to approximately 385 people. Throughout the study area, publication of the DEIS and the two Open Houses were widely announced and publicized. Signs were posted at the locations with printed reference copies of the DEIS. The printed reference copies of the DEIS were available at the following locations:
Salem Central Library (585 Liberty St SE, Salem) West Salem Library (395 Glen Creek Road NW, Salem) Center 50+ (2615 Portland Road NE, Salem) Salem City Hall (555 Liberty St SE, Rm 305, Salem), Community Development Department Keizer City Hall (930 Chemawa Road NE, Keizer) Keizer Community Library (980 Chemawa Road NE, Keizer) Marion County Board of Commissioners Office (1115 Commercial Street NE, Salem) Polk County Courthouse – Community Development Department (850 Main Street, Dallas) Dallas City Hall (187 SE Court St, Dallas) Monmouth City Hall (151 Main St W, Monmouth) Monmouth Public Library (168 S Ecols Street, Monmouth, Attn: Howard Feltman) Independence City Hall (555 S Main Street, Independence) Independence Public Library (175 Monmouth Street, Independence)
Posters and handouts were also distributed to the following locations:
Fred Meyer, near Salem Parkway San Diego Taco, near Tryon Starbucks, near Tryon Limeberry, near Tryon Speakeasy/bar, near Tryon Starbucks, near Wallace Roth’s, near Wallace US Bank, near Wallace Maps Credit Union, near Wallace Sally Beauty, near Tryon Dollar Tree, near Tryon United Way, near Tryon
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 3-3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY AFTER THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
OK Towing, at Pine Starbucks, at Liberty/Court Coffee in Motion, at Wallace Chevron station, near Wallace State Farm, near Wallace Dairy Queen, near Wallace Several businesses on Edgewater Newspaper ads were taken out in the Statesman Journal, Westside Newspaper, and El Latina de Hoy. Newspaper articles were also written about the project and the Open Houses in the Statesman Journal on May 7 and May 17, 2012. The article on May 7 was also picked up by the Associated Press, and it appeared in papers in Klamath Falls, Medford, Eugene, Albany, Lebanon, and Corvallis, and in the Oregonian on May 8, 2012. An article was also written in the Polk County Itemizer-Observer on May 15 and the Salem Community Connections newsletter on May 12. A guest column by Councilor Dan Clem was published in the Westside News during the month of May. Press releases were sent out prior to the Open Houses. In addition, KWIP Spanish radio station ran eight 30-second ads in Spanish to announce the events from May 8 to May 16. A 30-minute interview in Spanish ran on Sunday, May 13 discussing the project and announcing the event. Project staff members made presentations at some of the neighborhood associations in the study area, including the Highland Neighborhood, Grant Neighborhood, South Gateway Neighborhood, and Northeast Neighborhood. Additional presentations and information booths were held during this milestone at:
Chemeketa Community College on April 26, 2012 Shekina Engelesia Church on April 29, 2012 Salem Center 50+ on April 30, 2012 Jived’s Market on April 30, 2012 Latino Cultural Festival on June 1, 2012 The project flyer was also sent home with students at six local elementary schools (Highland, Grant, Chapman Hill, Harritt, Kalapuya, and Myers Elementary Schools). Public Meetings Two Open Houses were held to collect public comment after publication of the DEIS.
Open House 1 was held on May 8, 2012, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the West Salem High School, Media Center (1776 Titan Drive NW)
Open House 2 was held on May 17, 2012, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Chemeketa Center for Business and Industry (626 High Street NE)
Each event drew roughly 90 visitors, resulting in close to 200 people attending the events.
Both events provided the same information, including an introduction presentation about the project and the nine alternatives, informational display boards, and staff members to answer questions. Comments were collected via written comment forms or verbally to a court reporter or in front of a panel of Task Force members and a court reporter.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 3-4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY AFTER THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Environmental Justice Outreach The DEIS Executive Summary was translated into Spanish, as were flyers, newsletters, and e-mail messages sent to the public. The project phone line retained a greeting in English and Spanish, allowing anyone to leave comments or questions. KWIP Spanish radio station ran ads in Spanish as well as the Spanish newspaper, El Latina de Hoy. A 30-minute interview in Spanish ran on Sunday, May 13, discussing the project and announcing the May 17 event. A handout, in English and Spanish, was given to all students at elementary schools to announce the Open Houses. 3.2 The Selection of the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative, previously referred to as the “Salem Alternative,” included many of the design elements of Alternative 4D, but minimized potential impacts by:
Removing the viaduct above the future Marine Drive in West Salem
Removing the elevated “fly‐over” ramps from the new bridge to Salem Parkway in North Salem
Reducing the size and extent of local road modifications
Reducing the number of lanes on the bridge from three to two in each direction 3.2.1 Agency Coordination During the final selection of the preferred alternative, the Oversight Team had four meetings, covering these topics:
February 6, 2014 – Discussed potential bridge types and funding processes and selected the Salem Alternative as the preferred alternative for the project
June 26, 2014 – Revisited potential bridge types and provided direction for additional study on each
September 18, 2014 – Recommended a preferred bridge type and provided direction on appropriate project construction phases
December 11, 2014 – Reviewed Funding Workshop outcomes and provided comments on the draft Funding Memo for the Financial Plan Public Workshop Two Funding Workshops were held on December 3, 2014. The afternoon workshop was from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. and the evening workshop was from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Willamette Heritage Center. The afternoon workshop was held for elected officials, public agency staff, and interested stakeholders. The public was invited to observe the proceedings of the afternoon workshop. The evening workshop was open to the public and everyone was invited to participate. Approximately 70 people attended the afternoon event and 60 people attended the evening event. The purpose of the workshops was to present
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 3-5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY AFTER THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
information, receive public input on potential funding sources, and gather input on the possible phasing of construction of the preferred alternative. At the workshops, 39 comment forms were submitted. The online survey had 248 respondents, 124 of them submitted comments as part of their survey response. Only two comments were submitted by e-mail, and no comments were received through the postal mail. The Funding Booklet was updated in November 2014 and posted to the public Web site. 3.2.2 Public Involvement Web Site The website was periodically updated to inform the public about the June 2014 Open House and the preferred alternative. The public was encouraged to send in comments through e-mail or postal mail and to attend the Open House. During selection of the preferred alternative, the project managers responded to the comments that were e-mailed and mailed to the project. A funding tool was developed for the Web site as a result of the Funding Workshop. The Web funding tool allowed the public to explore potential local funding options by examining the trade-offs between local funding sources used to fund transportation projects. An online survey was provided on the Web site from December 1, 2014, to December 9, 2014. Participants were asked to use the Web site funding tool to explore the funding options and then provide feedback about these options. Public Notice and Media Communications Notification in the form of a mailed newsletter was sent to approximately 4,600 residents, businesses, and community leaders on May 23, 2014, informing them about the Open House on June 11, 2014. An e-mail message announcing the Open House was sent to approximately 426 people on May 30, 2014. ODOT’s communication staff sent a press release to all major news outlets on May 26, 2014. One article was written about the project in the Salem Weekly, published on May 29, 2014. In addition, a letter to the editor expressing opposition to the project ran the same day in the Statesman Journal. As for the Funding Workshop, notification in the form of invitations to the afternoon workshop were mailed to elected officials, public agencies, and interested stakeholders on November 12, 2014 (Appendix E). Invitations were sent to 188 people. In addition, an e-mail message was sent to over 450 e-mail addresses on November 21 and December 2, 2014, regarding the evening workshop. ODOT’s communication staff sent a press release to all major news outlets on November 21, 2014. One article was written about the Funding Workshop in the Statesman Journal, published on December 5, 2014. In addition to the above, the City of Salem announced the evening workshop via e-mail messages to all neighborhood association chairs, land use chairs, and transportation chairs, and included it in the City’s monthly Community Connection Newsletter, distributed on November 24, 2014.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 3-6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY AFTER THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Public Meetings An Open House was held on June 11, 2014, from 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at Courthouse Square about the recommended preferred alternative for the Salem River Crossing Project. The purpose of the event was to present the recommended preferred alternative to the public, answer questions, and collect comments regarding the recommendation. Approximately 150 people attended the Open House. Comment forms were collected in-person at the Open House, by Web site, e-mail, and postal mail. Fifty-six people submitted comment forms, with an additional 8 comment forms collected online. There were also 17 comments collected by e-mail and 6 comments sent by postal mail. Environmental Justice Outreach The Web site continued to be translated into Spanish and the project phone line retained a greeting in English and Spanish, allowing anyone to leave comments or questions. The Open House newsletter had language in Spanish indicating a translator would be available. Comment forms at the Open House were translated into Spanish.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 3-7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
SECTION 4 References
CH2M HILL. 2006. Study Area Refinement Memorandum. October 20, 2006.
CH2M HILL. 2007. Salem River Crossing Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum.
CH2M HILL. 2010. Salem Willamette River Crossing Alternate Modes Study.
Clinton, Bill. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low‐Income Populations: Executive Order 12898. February 11, 1994.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and City of Salem. 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Salem River Crossing Project (OR 99E‐Business, OR 22, OR 221) (DEIS). April 2012.
Salem‐Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (SKATS MPO). 1998. Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study.
Salem‐Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (SKATS MPO). 2002. Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study, General Corridor Evaluation. June 2002. http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx.
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PAGE 4-1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
Appendixes
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
Appendixes
SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT EIS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY
Appendix A Background
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary goal of the Bridgehead Engineering Study is to devise, test, evaluate, and report on possible solutions (operational and/or physical improvements) to improve traffic conditions and prolong acceptable levels of service for traffic using the Marion Street and Center Street Bridges. In achieving this goal, the study focuses on the bridge ramps and other streets and facilities within the study area.
A secondary goal of the study is to accurately identify and quantify the maximum volume of peak hour traffic that can be accommodated in each direction on the existing bridges and on the bridges after implementing any of the “possible solutions.” Determining these maximum volumes helps planners, policy makers, and the public understand the need for reducing or shifting travel demand, the need for implementing one or more of the possible solutions evaluated in this study, and/or the need for an alternative river crossing.
Two groups were formed to review the study results: a Project Steering Group, consisting of engineers and planners from ODOT, City of Salem, Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments, and Salem Area Transit District; and an 18 member Citizens Advisory Committee, representing business and community interests.
A consultant team was selected to study possible improvements for the bridges, determine their effectiveness for improvement traffic flow over the bridges, and develop a recommended set of improvements with cost estimates. The consultant team produced six reports:
1. Reconnaissance Report of the Study Area
2. Related Planning Studies
3. Task 1 Report - Data Collection
4. Task 2 Report - Capacity Analysis of the Existing System
5. Task 3 Report - Possible Solutions
6. Task 4 Report - Microscopic Simulation Analysis of “Most Promising” Possible Solutions
The study began in September 1997, with the consultant’s field reconnaissance of the study area. The consultant prepared a Reconnaissance Report (January 1998) containing initial observation of problems at specific intersections with the study area, along with a qualitative discussion of the benefits and limitations of potential solutions.
September 30, 1998 E-1 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
The information in this report was used as a starting point for identifying and analyzing possible solutions in the Task 3 report.
Data collection for the study (detailed in the Task 1 report) included traffic counts, accident counts, a sign inventory, and videos of traffic flows across both bridges. For locations where historical data were not available, new turning movement traffic counts were conducted in September 1997, for the three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon.
The A.M.-peak hour traffic flow period occurred between 7:15 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., and the P.M.-peak hour between 4:40 p.m. and 5:40 p.m. The peak hours were used to establish the time to collect origin/destination data and to evaluate intersection and system traffic operations.
A unique Origin-Destination (O/D) study was conducted to collected detail information on traffic patterns, travel times, and weaving across the two bridges. Video cameras in helicopters were used to record O/D information during the P.M.-peak hour. Ground-based video cameras were used to record the entry and exit points of vehicles crossing the bridges during the A.M.-peak hour.
Lane changes, a component of weaving, have a negative effect on capacity. Making a lane change requires a motorist to find a gap in an adjacent lane. Under congested conditions, a motorist may even stop in a lane and wait for someone to let him in. Lane changes, therefore, reduce capacity since traffic typically must slow down, especially under congested conditions. Results of the lane change analysis are shown in below.
• Approximately 60 percent of the vehicles entering the study area during either peak hour make at least one lane change to reach their destination.
• More lane changes occur on the Marion Street Bridge (65 percent) than on the Center Street Bridge (57 percent).
• Combining both peak hours results in the following lane change distribution:
Number of Lane Changes Marion Street Bridge Center Street Bridge
0 35% 43%
1 36% 42%
2 21% 11%
September 30, 1998 E-2 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
3 8% 4%
Before the O/D data was collected, there was some question about whether eastbound Highway 22 traffic was selecting the most appropriate lane to continue either northbound or southbound on Front Street. Ideally, eastbound Highway 22 traffic wanting to continue northbound on Front Street should use the inside (left) lane. Similarly, Highway 22 traffic desiring to continue southbound on Front Street should use the outside (right) lane. Weaving maneuvers and lane changes are reduced if motorists select the appropriate lane. Results indicate that approximately 15 to 16 percent (51 to 64 vehicles/hour) of the Highway 22 traffic destined for northbound Front Street choose an inappropriate lane. Approximately four to five percent (15 to 35 vehicles/hour) of the Highway 22 traffic destined for southbound Front Street choose the wrong lane. Based on this information, it was concluded that most drivers do select the appropriate lane on Highway 22 and that the “braid” design on the west end of Center Street bridge does operate effectively, although a change to the signs further west of the Center St. bridge may be needed.
ODOT supplied collision data for the Willamette River Bridges on State Highway 22 and all study area intersections. The accident search covers five years and four months from January 1, 1992 to April 30, 1997. As shown in Table E-1, 74 of the total 80 accidents occured either on the Center Street bridge or one of the Center Street bridge exit ramps to Front Street bypass, and only six accidents were on the Marion Street bridge. Accidents were not reported on the section where the Wallace Road entrance ramp joins Highway 22 or on the entrance ramp from Front Street. The Task 1 report also gives accident rates for the other intersections within the study area, with the Center @ Liberty and Commercial @ Trade intersections having the highest accident rates. The intersection of State St. and Front St. bypass had a relatively lower accident rate.
Table E-1. Accident Summary for Willamette River Bridges and Ramps1 Location Accident Type Sideswipe Rear-End Fixed Object Total Marion St. Bridge Wallace Rd. – Bridge center 2 1 3 Bridge center – Commercial St. 3 3 Subtotal 2 4 6 Center St. Bridge Wallace Rd. – Bridge center 4 1 2 7 Bridge center – 3 18 21 SB Front St exit ramp.
September 30, 1998 E-3 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
SB Front St. exit ramp – 1 8 1 10 NB Front St. exit ramp Subtotal 8 27 3 38 Exit ramp to SB Front St. 4 4 Exit ramp to NB Front St. 32 32 Total 10 67 3 80
1Accident search period covered January 1, 1992 through April 30, 1997.
Following the data collection task, the Task 2 Report conducted an analysis of the Level of Service (LOS) for individual intersections. The software program used to calculate the intersection degree of saturation and LOS was ODOT’s SIGCAP. For intersections with actuated signals, the consultant used SIGCAP to determine LOS for intersections both with and without pedestrian present at each signal cycle. At the lower end of the range is the LOS assuming no pedestrians during the peak hour. At the upper end is the LOS when pedestrians are assumed to be present each cycle. It is within this range that the true LOS lies for intersections with pedestrian push-buttons. The following list shows intersections where either the A.M. or P.M. has a LOS of D-E (corresponding to a saturation of 86-89%) or higher.
• Wallace Road at Orchard Heights Road, A.M. (LOS F) and P.M. (LOS F) • Wallace Road at Glen Creek Road − without pedestrians, A.M. (LOS D-E) and P.M. (LOS E) − with pedestrians every cycle, A.M. (LOS F) and P.M. (LOS F) • Wallace Road at Edgewater Road − without pedestrians, A.M. (LOS E) − with pedestrians every cycle, A.M. (LOS E) • Front Street at Center Street Bridge Northbound Exit Ramp, A.M. (LOS F) and P.M. (LOS F) • Front Street at Court Street − without pedestrians, A.M. (LOS D-E) − with pedestrians every cycle, A.M. (LOS E-F)
The Task 2 report also evaluated intersection operations within a coordinated system, using TRANSYT-7F software and basing LOS on intersection delay. This allows the analysis to consider the impact that progression has on individual intersection operations. In general, critical intersections identified in the isolated intersection analysis are the same as those identified in the signal system analysis (refer
September 30, 1998 E-4 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study to Table E-2).
September 30, 1998 E-5 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
Table E-2. Critical Intersections1
Isolated Intersection Analysis Signal System Analysis Wallace Rd. at Orchard Heights Rd. Not signalized Wallace Rd. at Glen Creek Rd. Wallace Rd. at Glen Creek Rd. Wallace Rd. at Edgewater St. Wallace Rd. at Edgewater St. Front St. at Center St. Bridge NB Exit Not signalized Ramp Front St. at Court St. Front St. at Court St. 1 Critical intersections are: (1) signalized intersections in the isolated analysis exceeding LOS D-E; (2) stop controlled intersections exceeding LOS D; (3) signalized intersections in the signal system analysis exceeding LOS D; and (4) any intersection not exceeding LOS D in the signal system analysis, but had at least one individual movement operating at LOS F.
Additional findings in the isolated intersection and signal system analyses are highlighted below:
• Current signal timings for the most part appear to be optimal. Adjusting the signal timings does not appear to improve LOS. LOS improvements need to be addressed through either geometric modifications or reduced traffic volumes (i.e., travel demand management strategies).
• Intersection LOS degraded when pedestrians were considered.
• Evaluating intersection operations with and without pedestrians usually resulted in only one letter change in LOS (e.g., LOS B to LOS C). In a few cases, however, the LOS changed by two letters.
• Progression exists, for the most part, on all major roadways within the study area. Minor streets typically have progression through a few signals with progression terminating at higher volume intersecting streets.
• Currently, only Glen Creek Road and 7th Street are coordinated on Wallace Road. With the future installation of a signal at Orchard Heights Road and relocation of the 7th Street signal, consideration should be given to coordinating all signals along Wallace Road.
September 30, 1998 E-6 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
Lastly, the Task 2 report did a quantitative analysis to determine which intersections were the most and least critical to overall bridge capacity. Table E-3 shows the ranking of critical intersections, from most to least critical, for the A.M. and P.M. peak periods.
Table E-3. Ranking of Most Critical Intersections Rank A.M. Period P.M. Period Front St. @ NB Exit Ramp 1 Front St. @ NB Exit Ramp Wallace Rd. @ Glen Creek Rd. 2 Front St. @ Court St. Marion St. @ Commercial St. 3 Wallace Rd. @ Glen Creek Rd. Front St. @ Court St. 4 Wallace Rd. @ Edgewater St. Wallace Rd. @ 7th St. 5 Wallace Rd. @ 7th St. Wallace Rd. @ Edgewater St. 6 Center St. @ Commercial St. Marion St. @ Liberty St. 7 Center St. @ Liberty St. Center St. @ Liberty St. 8 Marion St. @ Commercial St. Center St. @ Commercial St. 9 Marion St. @ Liberty St.
Improvements should first be considered at the most critical intersections; the ones at the top of the A.M.- and P.M.-peak hour lists. The intersection of Front Street and the northbound exit ramp from the Center Street Bridge is the most critical intersection during both time periods. Increasing capacity at this intersection may cause it to drop out of the list of critical intersections. If this were the case, the second intersection would become the most critical intersection. Therefore, the list of critical intersections is a guide to where improvements need to be made first to increase river crossing capacity. As the most critical intersections are improved, river crossing capacity is increased.
The Task 3 Report began the process of identifying possible solutions for the critical intersections within the study area. The initial list contained 28 solutions, and included solutions such as new on-ramps and off-ramps, changes to intersections, adding lanes to intersections, widening arterials, changing circulation patterns, and changing traffic control at intersections. Each of these were described and illustrated in the draft Task 3 report and reviewed by the Project Steering Group and Citizens Advisory Committee. The initial set was pared down to 18 possible solutions that were examined in more detail, including descriptions, qualitative benefits and limitations of the possible solution, and level of service capacity analysis. The consultant team also
September 30, 1998 E-7 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
prepared preliminary cost estimates for all 18 solutions. The objective of this task was to consider all possible solutions that could increase the capacity of the bridgeheads and determine the most promising of these possible solutions for more detail microsimulation analysis in Task 4.
The Task 4 Report is an analysis of the remaining nine solutions considered most promising at the end of task 3. These “most promising” solutions were at five locations and, except for area 2, consisted of a lower cost (“minimum build”) and higher cost (“maximum build”) possible solution at each location (see table E-4).
Table E-4. Minimum Build and Maximum Build Possible Solutions Area Location Minimum build solution Maximum build solution
1 Center St. Bridge exit ramp Traffic Signal Free flow ramp with third @ northbound Front St. northbound lane on Front
2 Commercial St. @ Marion Exclusive double right Exclusive double right turn St. turn lanes for Commercial lanes for Commercial St. St.
3 Center St. Bridge exit ramp Stepped pedestrian Remove signal, build @ southbound Front/Court crossing bicycle and pedestrian underpass 4 Marion St. bridge exit ramp Option lane for Wallace New ramp from Marion ramp bridge to Glen Creek
5 Wallace Rd./Edgewater Double lanes for Round-about Edgewater on-ramp and off-ramp
To analysis these possible solutions, the consultant used a microsimulation model and combined solutions into five scenarios. Briefly described, a microsimulation model attempts to replicate actual study area traffic conditions, by modeling individual vehicles (cars and trucks) each with their individual origin and destination, travel speed, and driver aggressiveness. In addition, detailed street and intersection geometries are used as well as the signal timing, pedestrian crossing, and signal progression found in the study area. The traffic count and O/D study information was used to create the traffic volumes and traffic patterns in the model. The net result is a model that fairly accurately mimics actual conditions found in the study area, and can be used to test combinations of possible solutions at existing and future traffic volumes. Future traffic volumes came from the SKATS 2015 transportation model.
September 30, 1998 E-8 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
Further analysis of the possible solutions, including some initial microsimulation modeling, demonstrated that three of the nine remaining possible solutions had less benefits than originally conceived.
• Area 3 - The stepped pedestrian intersection at Front and Court Street would significantly improve traffic flow, but instead of the current average pedestrian crossing time of 91 seconds (an average wait of 57 seconds plus 34 seconds to cross), the crossing time (wait plus actual crossing) would between 117 seconds and 203 seconds. This added delay for pedestrians, plus the fact that pedestrians would be waiting on the center median for up to 100 seconds, was unacceptable to the Citizens Advisory Committee.
• Area 4 - The minimum build possible solution was converting one of the lanes on the Marion St. bridge to an option lane, i.e. vehicles could either continue on that lane to eastbound Highway 22 or use that lane to exit to Wallace Road and Edgewater St. The exit ramp would be widened to provide enough clearance for this option lane. It was hoped that this would decrease weaving on the Marion St. bridge, as vehicles coming from Front St. would only have one lane to change to exit to Wallace or Edgewater. During the microsimulation modeling, this option was shown to create additional weaving on the exit ramp itself. In addition, the estimated cost of $1 million to widen the exit ramp was a factor in eliminating this possible solution.
• Area 5 - The roundabout possible solution for the Edgewater Street and Wallace Road intersection was examined by the consultant but eventually dropped from the analysis. A typical 4-legged intersection has 12 turning movements (right, through, and left from each approach); a roundabout was considered at this location because there are only 5 turning movements at Wallace and Edgewater. Although roundabouts are common in Europe, there aren’t many examples in the United States that can be used to calculate their capacity characteristics, especially of two lane roundabouts. The consultant attempted to model a roundabout at this location, but concluded that it was unclear whether or not it improved traffic flow. In addition, ODOT is presently preparing design guidelines for roundabouts with the intention of implementing and testing roundabouts in the near future, and were concerned that a roundabout at this location, if unsuccessful, would set a poor precedent for future roundabout projects.
The consultant prepared simulation models for 1997 No Build, 2015 No Build (which includes any planned projects, such as the improvements to the Glen Creek/Wallace Rd. intersection and moving the traffic signal from 7th/Wallace to
September 30, 1998 E-9 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
6th/Wallace), and five “options” with combinations of six remaining possible solutions at year 2015 volumes. As shown in Table E-5, Option 1 contained the remaining possible solutions for areas 2, 3, and 5. These solutions were tentatively approved by the CAC and Project Steering Group in August. Options 2 to 5 built upon Option 1 by adding either the minimum or maximum solution for area 1 (traffic signal or free flow ramp, respectively), and the maximum solution for area 4 (new exit ramp from Marion St. bridge to Glen Creek Road.)
Table E-5. Summary of Scenario Improvements
Area Improvement 1997 2015 Option No No Build Build -- 1 2 3 4 5 -- Signal @ Wallace/Orchard Heights X X X X X X X -- Median on Front @ Court X X -- Signal @ Wallace/7th relocated X X X X X X -- Wallace Rd. signal coordination X X X X X X -- Extra turn lanes @ Wallace/Glen Creek X X X X X X 2 Dual right @ Commercial/Marion X X X X X 3 Pedestrian underpass @ Court/Front X X X X X 5 Dual Lanes @ Edgewater/Wallace X X X X X 1 Traffic Signal @ exit ramp to northbound X X Front 1 Free flow 3rd lane @ exit ramp to northbound X X Front 4 New westbound ramp from Marion Bridge to X X Glen Creek
The Task 4 report used travel time as the primarily measure of effectiveness (MOE) for comparing the five options to each other and the no build option. To compare travel times, seven routes (4 westbound, 3 eastbound) across the bridges were selected (e.g. from Glen Creek west of Wallace Road to Commercial St. north of Division). A.M. peak and P.M. peak travel times for all scenarios were collected using the microsimulation model. Table E-6 shows travel time savings for each of the scenarios, compared to the 2015 No-Build travel times. In general, each of the options
September 30, 1998 E-10 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
(with the exception of Option 1 during the A.M. period) show travel time savings over the 2015 No-Build option, ranging from 1 minute to almost 5 minutes.
Table E-6. Network Travel Time Savings1 (minutes:seconds)
Peak Period 1997 2015 No Build No Build Option Option Option Option Option 1 2 3 4 5 A.M. 1:452 Baseline -0:07 1:47 1:55 1:47 1:59
P.M. 2:572 Baseline 1:05 2:31 3:05 4:47 4:51
1. All travel time savings values are relative to the 2015 No Build option. A positive time indicates a travel time reduction, “savings”. A negative number indicates an increase in travel time. 2. These numbers reflect the travel time difference between the 1997 No Build and the 2015 No Build baseline, i.e. travel time in 2015 A.M. period will be 1:45 longer than in 1997, and 2015 P.M. will be 2:57 longer than in 1997.
The average travel time savings in Table E-6 is somewhat deceptive, as uncongested travel (such as westbound routes in the A.M. period) will see very little travel time savings but congested travel will see substantial time savings. For example, route 6 (starting on southbound Wallace Road north of Glen Creek, traveling east over the Center Street bridge, and heading north on Front Street past Division Street) will see the substantial differences in travel time (Table E-7). In the A.M. peak, Options 2 and 4 (which contain the signal at the end of the Center Street bridge exit ramp to Front Street) show over a three minute travel time reduction from the 2015 No Build, and Options 3 and 5 (inclusive of the free flow exit ramp from Center St. bridge to northbound Front Street) show a four to five minute travel time reduction. In this example, P.M. peak travel times are also substantially reduced. Other routes show substantial travel time reductions, depending on the direction and time of day.
Table E-7. Travel Times for Route 6 (minutes : seconds) Scenario A.M. Peak P.M. Peak 1997 No Build 7:46 6:52 2015 No Build 9:01 9:42 Option One 9:31 10:33 Option Two 5:51 7:36 Option Three 4:32 4:16
September 30, 1998 E-11 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
Option Four 5:52 6:14 Option Five 4:05 3:58
The final task by the consultant was an analysis for determining the maximum capacity of the bridges with the recommended improvements. A year 2025 model was constructed for the no-build and Option 3 scenario to see if capacity was maximized by 2025. Using the microsimulation model, the consultant reported that the maximum Center Street bridge capacity that includes the Option 3 improvements is approximately 6000 vehicles per hour, which is a 25 to 30 percent increase over the existing capacity.
The maximum Marion Street bridge capacity that includes the Option 3 improvements is approximately 5000 vehicles per hour, which is a 10 percent increase over the existing capacity. The Option 5 improvements, which includes the new exit ramp to Glen Creek Road, would increase the Marion St. bridge capacity to 5900 vehicles per hour, which is a 25 to 30 percent increase over the existing capacity.
CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis of the No Build scenario and five Build options, the consultant recommended the improvement projects proposed under Option 3. This includes the following projects:
• Area 1 - Front Street (northbound) at Center Street Bridge exit ramp: Construct a free flow exit ramp that continues as a third northbound lane on Front Street and Commercial Street. In order to accommodate this additional lane, a considerable amount of construction is needed. The most significant construction impact would occur to the Marion Street Bridge. The columns, adjacent to the east side of Front Street, supporting the Marion Street Bridge would need to be relocated to accommodate the additional lane on Front Street. Relocating these columns may require either two or three spans of the Marion Street Bridge to be rebuilt as well as possibly the entrance ramp from Front Street to the Marion Street Bridge. The past bridge widening and critical column relocations has resulted in minimum standard truck turning movements at this location and any improvements would be a significant impact to the structure. Assuming that at least two spans would be reconstructed, construction staging would become a major issue. Also, assuming that at least two lanes would need to remain open on the bridge, a detour bridge would be required. In order to minimize impacts to right-of- way along Front Street between Union Street and Division Street, some
September 30, 1998 E-12 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
shifting of the Front Street alignment and lane reconfiguration will be required. Estimated cost: $4,425,000. It is further recommended to build a traffic signal at the intersection of the Center Street Bridge exit ramp and northbound Front Street (Estimated cost: $130,000) as an interim, short term solution towards the improvement project proposed above. This traffic signal is predicted to reach level of service F by the year 2012, thus exhibiting a project life of 15 years.
• Area 2 - Commercial Street at Marion Street: Provide two exclusive southbound right turn lanes on southbound Commercial Street. A traffic count found that two-thirds of southbound Commercial St. traffic turn right onto Marion Street bridge. Providing two southbound right turn lanes involves some lane widening and sidewalk improvements along the northwest corner of the intersection. The lane widening is needed to accommodate two trucks making simultaneous right turns from adjacent lanes. Some minor retaining wall improvements will be required as well. Bulbed corners are proposed for the two corners on the south side of the intersection. Estimated cost: $130,000.
• Area 3 - Front Street at Court Street: Construct a pedestrian and bicycle underpass to Riverfront Park beneath Front Street. The proposed solution would provide three structures (two for Front Street and one for the railroad crossing), which would eliminate all conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians crossing Front Street. Slopes along the underpass would be laid back and separation between the structures would be provided to allow for natural light and an “open feeling.” A cul-de-sac at the entrance to the underpass from Court Street would allow vehicles to turn around. The ramp grade along the underpass would meet ADA standards. The final underpass grade will be determined by geological features, water table, utility location, and other geometric design features. Estimated cost: $2,465,000.
• Area 4 - No recommended solution. See discussion below.
• Area 5 - Wallace Road at Edgewater Street: Increase the westbound right turn radius at Wallace Road and Edgewater Street to 250 feet in order to comfortably accommodate traffic speeds up to 25 mph; widen the westbound approach to two lanes; construct two exclusive eastbound right turn lanes; remove the eastbound Edgewater Street to northbound Wallace Road left
September 30, 1998 E-13 SKATS Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study Executive Summary Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study
turn pocket and route vehicles via Murlark Ave. to the relocated signal at 6th Street and Wallace Road. The removal of the left turn phase and the capacity increases to the Edgewater off-ramp and on-ramp will allow adjusting the signal timing to give additional green time for the higher volume southbound Wallace Road traffic. Lane widening will be required along the outer edge of the exit ramp to Wallace Road in order to minimize impacts to the slopes along the embankment for Highway 22 and to provide proper lane alignment with Edgewater Street. A building in the northeast corner where the exit ramp radius is increased will require relocation. Musgrave Lane will also need to be closed. The dual right turn movement from Edgewater Street will require some approach lane widening and retaining wall modification under the Highway 22 grade separation. Estimated cost: $1,325,000.
These projects are expected to significantly improve traffic operations at all critical areas, except for Area 4 (Marion Street exit to Wallace Road). The study clearly identified the need for an improvement project to alleviate congestion on northbound Wallace Road during the P.M.-peak period. The microsimulation analysis shows that Options 4 and 5 (which both include the new exit ramp from the Marion Street Bridge to Glen Creek Road) result in substantial travel time savings for westbound traffic from downtown Salem to West Salem. However, there were several concerns that ODOT had with this possible solution, including the additional weaving that will likely occur on the Marion Street bridge, the impact of additional traffic to Wallace Marine Park and Glen Creek, environmental impacts to Wallace Marine Park, impacts to the pedestrian facilities on the north side of Marion Street bridge, and the potential of the new north- south collector (Marine Drive NW) to become a bypass facility to Wallace Road. The estimated cost of this new ramp ($5.5 million) was also a factor. In addition, there was the opinion that solution alternatives outside the scope of this study (such as a median on Wallace Road between Edgewater and Glen Creek as well as further access management, a new interchange at Eola Drive and Highway 22, a new bridge north of the existing bridges) have not yet been fully explored.
September 30, 1998 E-14 SKATS
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study
General Corridor Evaluation
Executive Summary
Including Purpose and Need and Next Steps
June 2002
SKATS Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS)
Overview
The Willamette River poses a major transportation barrier for east-west travel in the central Willamette Valley. The Marion and Center Street bridges are the only vehicular and pedestrian crossings of the Willamette River within the Salem-Keizer urban area. The two nearest river crossing alternatives are a two-lane bridge at the city of Independence and the Wheatland Ferry.
The issue of providing additional transportation capacity across the Willamette River in or near the Salem-Keizer area has been ongoing for many years. Although the existing Marion and Center Street bridge structures represent a two-fold increase in transportation capacity over what existed prior to 1983, the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) Regional Transportation Systems Plan (RTSP) adopted in 1996 specifically identifies the need to develop additional transportation capacity across the Willamette River as an “outstanding issue” that requires further detailed analysis and consensus building in order to evaluate and select a preferred package of alternatives.
As documented in the General Corridor Evaluation, additional river crossing capacity convenient to the existing and anticipated travel demand will become an increasingly important part of the overall system needed to solve the urban area’s transportation problems. On the one hand, a bridge location without proximity to the core area creates considerable out-of-direction travel, which yields additional costs for energy, time, convenience, and utilization. On the other hand, a bridge location with proximity to the existing bridges may create an unmanageable traffic situation relative to the dispersal of traffic off the bridgeheads, essentially aggravating existing problems on the connecting infrastructure.
The need to examine and identify a third bridge crossing alternative in the Salem-Keizer area has been the subject of various technical studies and related planning efforts for over 30 years. Many of the same basic issues identified in these previous studies, such as continued development in West Salem and peak-hour traffic congestion on the bridges, are still relevant today. The previous efforts have resulted in the completion of several capacity improvement projects that included: 1) the construction of the Front Street bypass (1981); 2) the widening of the Marion Street Bridge from two to four lanes (1982); 3) the complete replacement of the Center Street Bridge from a two-lane structure to a four-lane structure (1983); and 4) the recently completed Bridgehead Engineering Study (BHES), which identifies short-term capacity improvements to extend the useful life of the existing bridge system.
The Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study was initiated to address the long-term capacity issues and to provide the analysis and process necessary to evaluate a wide range of potential solutions, including alternative new bridge corridors. This General Corridor Evaluation is the first step in that process, and documents the evaluation of alternative solutions that could offer some potential to solve the identified problems and recommends promising alternatives for further analysis.
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-1
The analysis conducted as part of the General Corridor Evaluation documents the following findings:
1. That congestion levels on the Willamette River Bridge approaches and connecting infrastructure are significant today (during the peak hours) and will worsen in terms of both magnitude and duration over time.
2. A new bridge in conjunction with aggressive improvements in the use of non-drive alone modes is the only alternative that will provide sufficient river crossing capacity to meet future travel demand.
3. No potential location for a new bridge is perfect; all would have some negative impacts that would need to be ameliorated.
4. The location for a new bridge that best meets the goals related to reducing traffic congestion with the least negative impacts is the Tryon/Pine corridor.
5. The Tryon/Pine corridor should be studied in greater detail to determine whether or not we should begin preserving right-of-way in the next twenty years for the longer- term eventual construction of a new bridge in the corridor.
Subsequent efforts in the planning process will include developing a regional consensus on a preferred solution, the completion of a Locational Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) for any preferred construction alternative, a decision on the preservation of required rights-of-way (if any), and a funding strategy should a “build” option (including right-of-way preservation) be selected as the preferred alternative.
ES-2 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary Purpose
The purpose of a proposed new bridge across the Willamette River within the Salem-Keizer urban area is to provide the additional transportation capacity necessary to relieve congestion on the existing Marion and Center Street bridges.
As identified by the River Crossing Task Force, the specific goals of the new river crossing capacity are to:
1. provide traffic relief to the existing bridges; 2. improve transit service across the river; 3. relieve specific bottlenecks on the connecting infrastructure on both sides of the river; and 4. provide a convenient alternative to the Center and Marion Street bridges should they be closed due to an accident or other emergency.
These goals are intended to be met with the least amount of impact on the community.
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-3 ES-4 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary Need
Population and Employment Growth
Two modern, four-lane bridges—the Center Street Bridge (eastbound) and the Marion Street Bridge (westbound)—have been in service since 1982, functioning as a couplet across the Willamette River in the SKATS area. The population in the SKATS area, however, has grown from 138,700 people in 1980 to 203,300 in 2000, an increase of nearly 47 percent. Furthermore, the area’s population is expected to grow by an additional 26 percent during the next two decades to 255,340 persons in 2020. Of particular note is the fact that the population of West Salem is anticipated to grow by approximately 75 percent over the same period. This represents a growth rate nearly three times as high as the SKATS area as a whole.
SKATS area employment is expected to grow by about 26 percent from the period 1997 to 2015 to a total of 110,620 employees. Over one-half of these new jobs will be located in Central Salem, easily accessible from the east bridgehead.
Two major factors influence these growth patterns:
1. A large portion of the remaining developable residential land within the Salem-Keizer UGB area is located in West Salem. Simultaneously, there is relatively less available, developable commercial and industrial acreage designated in the adopted Salem Comprehensive Plan in the West Salem area. As a result, a majority of the vacant land remaining within the UGB in West Salem is expected to be developed as residential.
2. Jobs tend to locate near already existing employment centers. Since the region’s existing major employment centers—Salem’s central business district and the Capitol Mall area—are already in established locations on the east side of the Willamette River, much of the area’s future job growth will likely remain in or near these locations.
Growth in Travel Demand and Congestion
Since 1980, the average daily traffic (ADT) on the two bridges has increased approximately 70 percent from 45,000 to about 77,000 in 1996. By 2015, traffic volumes on the bridges are expected to increase again by almost 40 percent to 106,500 ADT. The p.m. peak-hour design capacity on the Marion Street Bridge is currently estimated at approximately 4,500 vehicles. The estimated p.m. peak-hour traffic demand on the Marion Street Bridge in 2015 will be approximately 6,700 vehicles, creating a p.m. peak-hour traffic capacity deficit of about 2,200
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-5 vehicles. Similar conditions exist during the a.m. peak hour. Without additional transportation capacity across the river, the levels of service on the bridge system and the connecting infrastructure in both the downtown Salem core area and in near-in West Salem (Table ES-1, Figure ES-1) will continue to deteriorate over time. Not only will the amount of congestion increase significantly, but it will also occur over a longer time frame during the day.
Local trips, i.e., trips where both origins and destinations are inside the Salem-Keizer area, are now and will continue to be the major component of the traffic demand on the bridges. Data from the 1990 U.S. Census shows that about 22 percent of workers who live in West Salem work in the central Salem area and 53 percent work at other destinations on the east side of the river inside the Salem-Keizer area. Therefore, about 75 percent of West Salem workers must use the Marion and Center Street bridges for their work trips. The remaining 25 percent work in other areas of the region, although many must use the existing bridges to access their places of employment.
While traffic originating from areas west of the river outside of West Salem is significant (37 percent of the total traffic) not more than 3.5 percent of these trips are through trips. The overwhelming majority of trips are destined for locations within Salem and Keizer east of the river. Thus, through traffic that would most benefit from a regional bridge directly connecting Highway 99W with I-5 makes up a relatively small portion of the user market for the bridges. Consequently, accommodating the predominant travel pattern of internal trips remains the major criteria for any additional bridge solution and reinforces the need for a local service bridge near the core area. Such a location would maintain accessibility to both the commercial-employment center of Salem as well as the remainder of the Salem-Keizer area, while a bridge outside the Salem-Keizer area would not provide this accessibility.
Table ES-1 No Build - 2015 P.M. Peak-Hour Traffic Data at Selected Locations 1995 2015 Base No Build LOCATION Capacity Volume V/C Capacity Volume Change % V/C in Change Volume in Volume Marion Street Bridge 4500 4600 1.02 4500 6700 2100 46.7 1.49 Center Street Bridge 4500 3400 0.76 4500 4300 900 26.5 0.96 Wallace Road (NB) @ Glen 2400 2400 1.00 2400 3100 700 29.2 1.29 Creek Wallace Road (NB) @ 3300 1400 0.42 1700 2400 1000 71.4 1.41 Orchard Heights Road * Commercial Street SE (SB) N 2300 1900 0.83 2300 2500 600 31.6 1.09 of Mission Street Liberty Street (NB) S of Pine 1600 1700 1.06 1600 1800 100 5.9 1.13 Street Salem Parkway (SB) E of 1700 1300 0.76 1700 1700 400 30.8 1.00 Broadway Street Marion Street (WB) E of 2400 1900 0.79 2400 2800 900 47.4 1.17 Commercial * Capacity change due to installation of a light at the intersection of Wallace Road and Orchard Heights, which improved capacity on Orchard Heights Road without much impact on Wallace Road.
Insert Figure ES-1
ES-6 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-7 Study Design and Process
The Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study was initiated as part of the planning process required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, and in accordance with 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Sections 450.104 and 450.318. The basic premise behind this planning process is that before a community makes a major investment in its transportation facilities, it must first consider other reasonable alternatives for solving identified transportation problems. Before the decision to proceed with the construction of a new bridge can be made, a thorough analysis must be undertaken of alternatives that include:
1. making the existing bridges and connecting transportation system work as effectively as possible; and 2. evaluating non-bridge construction approaches to solving the river crossing capacity problem.
This General Corridor Evaluation attempts to provide the first step in an integrated planning process to examine all the feasible transportation alternatives and to identify those that represent the most viable solution to the identified problems and should be carried forward for more detailed analysis in an EIS process. Significant planning, political education, and consensus- building efforts will be necessary to overcome the hurdles encountered by the previous studies.
The General Corridor Evaluation portion of the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study is designed to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Analyze the travel demand across the river. 2. Identify and document the components and problems associated with river crossing travel demand. 3. Identify a wide range of potential “build” and “non-construction” alternatives. 4. Evaluate the feasibility of the alternatives to meet existing and projected long-term travel demand. 5. Evaluate the impacts of the alternatives on the natural and manmade environment. 6. Present the analysis to the affected public and political entities and elicit comments and concerns. 7. Identify those alternatives that demonstrate "fatal flaws" or offer no indication that they would be the most feasible or viable solutions to the identified problems. 8. Recommend those remaining alternatives for further consideration in a more detailed corridor alignment EIS, which is the next step in the overall planning process.
ES-8 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary Public Involvement
Scoping Meetings
An initial step for a general corridor EIS planning process is to hold a scoping meeting that allows the affected agencies and local jurisdictions to review and comment on the proposed scope of work. The Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS), the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and project sponsor, conducted two scoping meetings on July 30, 1996 and September 16, 1997 to:
1. identify the major issues that need to be addressed; 2. establish an appropriate review committee structure; and 3. determine a process for effective citizen and agency involvement throughout the study process.
Advisory Committees
Because the SKATS Policy Committee recognized that any plan addressing the river crossing issues would need widespread community support, it established two separate citizen advisory committees to review work products and provide a forum for developing broad-based consensus on potential river crossing alternatives and solutions. These committees were: the Bridgehead Engineering Study (BHES) Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study Task Force.
The BHES Citizens Advisory Committee was formed to examine relatively low cost, short- to intermediate-term capacity improvements to the existing bridges. Solutions identified by the BHES were adopted by the SKATS Policy Committee for inclusion in the SKATS RTSP and the appropriate jurisdictional plans.
The Willamette River Crossing Capacity Task Force was established in December 1997 to address longer term river crossing solutions in the Salem-Keizer area. The Task Force was composed of over 30 area citizens who represented a broad range of perspectives and interests. The SKATS Policy Committee asked the Task Force to oversee the study and planning to provide recommendations for subsequent efforts.
Community Involvement
During October 1998, SKATS conducted three public open houses for the purpose of presenting information regarding the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study and receiving public comment. The open houses in Keizer, West Salem, and South Salem were held in a casual setting where the public could feel comfortable, take their time to review display materials, and talk to staff members. The local newspapers and radio stations were notified of the public open houses. The local newspapers published feature articles that, according to the open house questionnaires, were responsible for much of the attendance. A Portland television station also discussed the study and provided open house information during their evening and morning news broadcasts. In addition, an e-mail advertisement was sent to Oregon Public Electronic Network
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-9 (OPEN) members, inviting people to attend the open houses or e-mail their comments to staff. The local community television station ran a notice on their community events billboard advertising the open houses for one week.
Approximately 200 people attended the three events. Each attendee was asked to complete a questionnaire and if desired, provide written and verbal comments. This public input was tabulated and used to form recommendations to the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Task Force and the Policy Committee regarding the selection of corridors and options for further study.
In addition, SKATS staff provided a speakers bureau, which responded to more than a dozen requests from the community for informational presentations. An informational brochure was also produced for the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study. In addition to being available at the open houses, the brochure was widely distributed to neighborhood associations, planning commissions, city councils, boards of county commissioners, and service organizations.
Interagency Review Meeting
On January 20, 2000, SKATS held a day-long meeting to solicit comments and suggestions from state and local agencies regarding the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study process. Copies of the draft Phase I document, as well as summary information, were mailed along with the invitations to the meeting. Specifically, state and local agency representative were asked to identify topics or issues that needed more detailed evaluation in the draft document or that were not covered at all. The comments were used to help guide the process for completing the final version of the Phase I document.
ES-10 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-11 Alternatives Evaluation
Three general “classes” of alternatives were evaluated: No-Build, Non-New-Bridge Construction, and New Bridge Corridors.
No-Build
The performance of the no-build alternative is described in the “Need” portion of this report.
Non-New-Bridge Construction Alternatives
As currently configured, the Center Street Bridge provides an a.m. eastbound peak-hour capacity of about 4,500 vehicles; similarly, the p.m. westbound peak-hour capacity of the Marion Street Bridge is about 4,500 vehicles.
According to the 1994 Origin and Destination Study, ninety-five percent of the existing bridge capacity was utilized by autos, and over sixty percent of those cars were single occupancy vehicles (SOV). Since the major capacity problems on the existing bridges occur mainly during the peak rush hours, certain “non-construction” alternatives, such as shifting some of the demand to times when the bridges are not crowded and/or increasing the overall vehicle occupancy of the vehicles (including buses) using the bridges, could provide some interim congestion relief and prolong the useful life of the existing structures. Non-construction alternatives that can provide an increase in usable transportation capacity include:
1. Increased transit use. 2. Transportation demand management (TDM). 3. Bicycle and pedestrian use. 4. Pricing strategies. 5. Conversion of Union Street railroad bridge. 6. Land use changes.
Non-construction alternatives were evaluated to ensure that the most effective use of the existing investment in bridges is made before any recommendation for significant new construction.
In 2015, the p.m. peak-hour traffic demand on the Marion Street Bridge is projected to be about 6,700 vehicles. The peak-hour capacity of the bridge will still be 4,500 vehicles resulting in a capacity deficiency of 2,200 vehicles. It is highly unlikely that any single strategy, by itself, will be successful in removing the excess 2,200 vehicles from the peak-hour demand. For instance, it would require about 44 buses (each with 50 sitting and standing passengers) during the peak hour to carry the 2,200 persons. To expect such a dramatic shift in transportation mode choice is neither reasonable nor useful.
ES-12 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary
An aggressive but more realistic approach would be to assume achievement of the city of Salem’s adopted transportation goals. These goals include an objective to have at least 25 percent of all work trips make use of transit, carpools, vanpools, bicycles, or walking. According to the 1994 Household Survey, 11.2 percent of the workers living in West Salem used an alternative mode (something other than driving alone) to travel to work. Therefore, the adopted city goal represents more than a doubling of the current alternate mode usage in the West Salem area. Achieving an alternative mode usage rate of 25 percent for West Salem work trips would reduce the future peak-hour demand on the Marion Street Bridge by over 700 cars. Therefore, even the achievement of the aggressive 25 percent alternative mode goal leaves us 1,500 vehicles over capacity during the peak hour.
Additional increases in the use of alternative modes might also be achieved through the use of pricing strategies that charge for driving alone on the bridges during the peak hour. The amount of modal shift achieved would depend on the amount of the charge. Such a strategy would be difficult to implement, both legally and socially. Therefore, the concept of using pricing disincentives should only be considered after every other alternative has been offered to encourage changes in mode choice.
Other types of actions, such as encouraging workers to telecommute one day a week, could also help reduce the peak-hour demand. Shifting commute hours to avoid the worst congestion would also be a benefit, as would continued growth in home based businesses. The measurement of these activities is difficult, but if it were optimistically assumed that they provided the means to reach the 25 percent goal discussed above and removed an additional 700 cars from the peak-hour demand, there remains still an over-capacity demand of 800 vehicles in the peak hour.
It should be noted that although some of the new bridge construction alternatives meet the full target goal of reducing the Marion Street Bridge peak-hour volume by 2,200 vehicles, aggressive expansion of alternative modes is both desirable and necessary to meet the future travel demand and sustain quality of life characteristics. A more detailed discussion of the non-construction alternatives follows.
Transit Service
The Salem Area Mass Transit District (SAMTD or Cherriots) provides public transit service for the Salem-Keizer area. The Transit District’s operating charter was established by the 1979 Oregon Legislature, which set the service area to within the 1979 Salem area Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The current transit system consists of 22 bus routes that operate under a fixed-route system through a radial “pulse” route structure which converges in a timed fashion at the central transit station located in downtown Salem. An additional route serving the Lancaster Drive area does not travel downtown. Passengers traveling between any two points in the service area can reach their destination by a transfer at the downtown transit station. There are also three park-and-ride routes—one from Market and Hawthorne in East Salem; one from Wal- Mart and Rite Aid on South Commercial; and one from a State of Oregon lot on Airport Road.
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-13 There are approximately 55 buses in the fleet with an estimated capacity of 50 passengers per bus (35 seated and 15 standing) and 10 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses with an estimated capacity of 35 passengers per bus (25 seated and 10 standing). The buses currently operate from 6:15 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. weekdays and 7:15 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. on Saturdays. The system operates on frequencies ranging from 15 to 60 minutes. Most of the 22 routes accessing downtown are timed to arrive or depart the transit center at either 15 or 45 minutes after the hour. The majority of the routes are on half-hour frequency in the peak hour and allow for transfers. During the midday, eight routes drop to hourly frequency. Eight routes serving the major radial corridors remain on half-hour service throughout the day and serve a major radial corridor every 15 minutes from 6:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. Current bus fares are $0.75 for adults, $0.50 for children, and $0.35 for seniors.
West Salem is currently served by three transit routes: Route 10 (Orchard Heights), Route 12 (Salemtowne), and Route 19 (Glen Creek). The average weekday ridership for the three West Salem routes is about 920 passengers along an estimated 735 average daily transit miles. The average weekday ridership for Routes 10, 12, and 19 is 475, 265, and 180, respectively.
Transit Ridership and System Capacity
According to the SAMTD, the existing transit system serves approximately 15,000 average daily riders on a system comprising an estimated 6,900 average daily transit miles in the Salem-Keizer urban area. Approximately 50 percent of the riders are commuters, the largest segment being state employees, and about 25 percent are students, ranging from grade school through college. The majority of the remaining 25 percent consists of senior citizens and disabled riders.
In West Salem, transit currently accounts for about two percent of the total journey-to-work trips, while SOVs account for about 84 percent. The remaining 14 percent of work trips are composed primarily of carpools, biking, and walking.
The existing peak-hour, peak-direction transit capacity available across the Marion and Center Street bridges is approximately 250 passengers (50 passengers x 5 peak direction trips). This level of service provides 175 seats and room for 75 standees in each direction during the peak hour. According to a 1999 ridership count, the average number of transit riders currently crossing the Center Street Bridge between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. is 55 passengers (just over 18 percent of the total peak-hour/peak-direction transit capacity and about 26 percent of the total peak-hour/peak-direction transit seating capacity). The average number of transit riders crossing the Marion Street Bridge between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. is 137 passengers, or approximately 70 passengers during the peak hour (about 23 percent of the total peak-hour/peak-direction transit capacity and 33 percent of the total peak-hour/peak-direction transit seating capacity).
Decreasing headways on each of the three West Salem transit routes from 30 minutes to 15 minutes would effectively double the existing transit capacity to approximately 500 passengers (50 passengers x 10 peak direction trips), representing 350 seats and 150 standees.
Transit System Improvements
ES-14 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary Peak-hour traffic congestion on the Marion and Center Street bridges could be reduced by shifting SOV trips to transit. The following important factors influence the overall level of transit ridership:
1. Availability of direct and rapid transit routes that require few, if any, transfers. 2. Frequency of transit service (measured in headways). 3. Accessibility and convenience, including transit stop location. 4. Perceived cost of using transit (measured in transit fares and time costs) compared to the automobile.
Consequently, to effectively compete with the automobile, transit service must provide a significant advantage in terms of time and convenience between trip origins and destinations, as well as provide a cost-effective transportation alternative.
Any increase in transit mode split of the magnitude necessary to meaningfully reduce congestion on the existing bridges will require transit service to be more accessible, attractive, competitive, and responsive to identified travel demands and potential transit riders. Transit system alternatives are designed around strategies employed to encourage greater use of transit services, and could include:
1. More frequent transit service on existing routes (shorter headways). 2. Express bus service coordinated with designated park-and-ride lots. 3. Restructure transit service. 4. Additional transit routes. 5. Dedicated "transit only" facilities. 6. Transit fare adjustments/reductions. 7. Expanded transit pass programs.
The following descriptions provide details for various transit strategies and their potential application to reduce peak-hour bridge congestion in the study area:
1. More frequent service on existing routes (shorter headways)
One example of more frequent service would be to provide 15-minute service on the three existing routes in West Salem. If more frequent service were coupled with other service improvements throughout the system, then the system could be more convenient to potential riders.
2. Express bus service coordinated with designated park-and-ride lots
Park-and-ride lots coupled with express bus service, both designed to serve a specific segment of the travel market (such as time-sensitive downtown commuters), can reduce the time for transit trips during peak commuting periods. The estimated travel time from Wallace/Brush College Road to downtown Salem is approximately 10 minutes by private automobile during the a.m. peak period. The same trip using the current transit system takes about 20 minutes. To effectively compete with the private automobile, express bus
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-15 service along Wallace Road (or along other designated park-and-ride corridors) will need to provide a reasonable time advantage between trip destinations.
A 50-space park-and-ride lot, recently completed at the Wallace/Brush College Road intersection, could serve as a staging area for express bus service. Even at full capacity (50 vehicles), this site provides a limited amount of potential express bus transit riders. Converting some of the parking spaces to carpools, vanpools, and adding bicycle storage spaces can add some additional transit rider capacity to this site.
Other potential park-and-ride sites that could serve as express bus staging areas into downtown Salem include the cities of Dallas, Monmouth, and Independence and/or along Highway 22 in Polk County. Transit service to these areas, which represents about 30 percent of the bridge traffic, could be provided by the SAMTD on a “contract basis” through intergovernmental agreements. Another method of serving these park-and-ride sites would be through the use of vanpools.
3. Restructure Transit Service
One example of restructured transit service has been the establishment of a timed-transfer station in West Salem near the intersection of Wallace and Glen Creek Roads. All West Salem transit routes could run on 15-minute headways during the peak demand periods then connect to a 15-minute service between a West Salem transit station and the existing downtown transit station. An alternate would be to link the downtown transit station with a circulative route that connects downtown Salem, Willamette University, and the Capitol Mall area with 15-minute transit service. Additional transit routes from Keizer, Chemeketa Community College, South Commercial Street, and Lancaster Mall could also connect with 15-minute service to provide more timely transit connections system wide.
4. Additional transit routes
Additional routes serving West Salem could make transit more convenient by providing improved access to potential new transit riders. While the three, existing West Salem routes provide good coverage, additional routes could make transit more appealing in West Salem where the hilly terrain may discourage some people from walking even a short distance to a bus stop.
5. Dedicated “transit only” facilities
To make transit more desirable than driving, one method to consider would be to remove the buses from the congested stop-and-go traffic on the existing streets. This effort could be accomplished through the use of transit-only lanes on new or existing facilities.
Since it becomes increasingly unlikely that general travel lanes on existing facilities would be “taken away” as congestion worsens over time, and the Union Street Bridge is being converted to pedestrian and bicycle uses only, the only feasible use of this
ES-16 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary technique in the river crossing environment would be to construct a reversible HOV or “bus only” lane as part of a new bridge. In fact, this option would appear to be the only realistic option in the long term for providing West Salem transit service as a “leg up” relative to the automobile.
A variation on this concept would be to use technology to give preference to transit at signalized intersections and provide selected improvements to allow buses to bypass some of the more congested areas. Unfortunately, due to the highly developed nature of the area and the degree of congestion anticipated, these techniques are both difficult to implement physically, and problematic as to their ability to provide meaningful reduction in vehicle transit times.
6. Transit fare adjustments/reductions
Studies have shown a close correlation between increases in transit fares and a subsequent reduction in transit ridership. Conversely, fare decreases can increase the level of transit ridership if they are coupled with service improvements (i.e., time savings, access to trip destination, convenience, etc.). In October 1998, the Transit District and the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) initiated a state employee transit pass program to provide free transit service for all state employees working in the Capitol Mall area. In the early 1980s, a “no-fare” express park-and-ride service enjoyed a high level of ridership. Fare structures designed to encourage peak-hour use of transit could reduce demand on the bridges, but reduced fares need a subsidized source of revenue. Such a fare structure also needs to be combined with convenient service.
7. Expanded transit pass programs
The State Employee Transit Pass Program started in October 1998 to encourage increased bus ridership by state employees and to improve the existing levels of transit services. From that date, employees in the Capitol Mall area have unlimited use of the transit system at no cost to them. The state subsidizes the full cost of transit passes for all employees working in the Capitol Mall area during the next three years. The fees collected by the Transit District are used toward improving transit frequency on designated routes and will implement express park-and-ride transit service. In addition, the DAS will also increase parking fees in the Capitol Mall area to help encourage increased transit use.
The transit pass program is flexible and should be available to other employers.
Transit Recommendations
While it is recognized that transit, in and of itself, cannot solve existing or anticipated traffic congestion crossing the river, increased transit usage, when focused on peak-hour congestion, can, in combination with other actions, delay the need for an additional bridge and allow better use of the facilities already in place.
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-17 The following recommendations are for the SKATS Policy Committee and the Salem Area Transit District to consider as they continue to develop operational and financial plans for transit service in the Salem-Keizer area:
1. Consider actions that will encourage increased ridership in the West Salem area. These could include, but are not limited to:
a. providing more frequent service, as funding allows; b. restructuring or adding routes to make them more convenient; and c. identifying and correcting physical barriers to the use of transit, such as locations where people may not feel safe walking to and waiting for the bus due to a lack of sidewalks.
2. Continue to work with potential partners to provide reduced or no-fare transit passes, particularly during the peak hours.
3. Explore technology that may make transit more competitive with the car, such as signal pre-emption systems.
4. Explore the possibility of cooperating with outlying cities to provide express bus service into the Salem area.
5. Ensure that transit-enhancing strategies are considered as part of the operation and physical design alternatives of any new bridge.
Transportation Demand Management
Efficient use of the existing transportation capacity on the Marion and Center Street bridges can also be increased by:
1. encouraging alternative travel choices; 2. reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use during peak-demand periods; and 3. providing viable non-SOV transportation options.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternatives are designed to encourage travel behaviors that reduce single occupant automobile trip demand. Such alternatives focus on both short-term actions as a means to mitigate existing congestion problems and long-term solutions to avoid future congestion. TDM strategies include:
1. ridesharing programs (carpool matching, vanpool/buspool referral services); 2. telecommuting options; 3. alternative work schedules (flex time, compressed work weeks, staggered work hours); 4. transit use incentive programs (group transit pass discounts, employer-based transportation allowances); and 5. vanpool formation assistance.
ES-18 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary
In short, a large amount of relatively inexpensive bridge capacity can be created by simply shifting the time that people travel during the peak demand period by 30 or 45 minutes.
Regional methods to accomplish the shift from peak travel periods include:
1. Regional Rideshare Program
The Regional Rideshare program, currently administered by the city of Salem, furnishes services to the Salem-Keizer urban area as well as Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties. The program provides a computerized matching service for carpools and van/buspools that focuses on encouraging the use of transportation modes other than the single- occupant vehicle (SOV). The program also provides for web-based rideshare participation. Other outreach efforts include transportation fairs and booths at employment sites and public events. The Rideshare program also conducts media advertising, and produces and distributes outreach materials throughout Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties. Finally, the Rideshare program serves as a clearinghouse for transportation information, including information on walking, bicycling, telecommuting, park & ride lots, and special transportation services.
Complementary to the carpool and van/buspool referral service, the city of Salem currently gives priority and discounted parking rates to carpoolers at over 300 on-street parking spaces. Carpoolers can also apply for carpool parking spaces located in the Pringle Parkade in downtown Salem.
2. Regional TDM Program
The regional TDM program began in 1994 as a complement and enhancement to the Rideshare Program. It is designed to work with employers and groups of employers to coordinate home-to-work and work-to-home transportation programs that encourage employees to use alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycle, walking, and alternative work schedules (flex time, compressed work weeks, etc.). This program covers Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties and is operated by the city of Salem. TDM staff work with individual employers to identify commuting patterns, design TDM plans, and assist in TDM plan implementation. The program creates customized welcome letters for employers to distribute to new employees. These letters provide carpool, vanpool, and parking information, as well as a coupon for two free bus rides.
The TDM program has also created a network of transportation coordinators from state agencies. The TDM programs hold quarterly training meetings for transportation coordinators and provide them with comprehensive training manuals and outreach materials. The program uses this network of transportation coordinators to distribute information on changes in bus service, park-and-ride lots, road closures, new vanpools, etc. to all state employees.
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-19 As part of a public/private partnership, the TDM program works with area businesses to produce a “Smart Commuting” coupon book. These coupon books are distributed through employers, including the State of Oregon and the city of Salem, who participate in the smart commuting programs for their employees.
TDM Program Participation
The vehicles used in vanpools and buspools can be company-sponsored, third-party, or owner operated. In early 2000, there were 17 vanpools and five buspools registered with the Rideshare Program and available for public use. Vanpools typically carry 8 to 15 passengers and buspools carry 45 to 55 passengers. There are approximately 450 commuters who participated in vanpools and buspools. Successful rideshare matches currently have an average life span of two years, and the city of Salem processes approximately 100 carpool applications a month.
Most ridesharing and other TDM programs are strictly voluntary in nature. Participation in these programs is not likely to be mandated by area employers, public sector agencies, or local political bodies. West Salem residents receive rideshare information through new resident mailings targeted to people who have just moved to the area. These personalized letters welcome them to their new neighborhood and provide them with a rideshare brochure and a coupon for two free bus rides. The idea is that they will consider these options before they become set in a commuting pattern. In addition, current West Salem residents are more likely to receive information on alternative modes through their employment sites, particularly those who work in Downtown Salem or the Capitol Mall. In 2000, the TDM program worked with 18 private employers and over 30 state agencies in Salem.
TDM Program Improvements
There are two distinct travel markets that potential TDM program improvements should address for traffic using the Marion and Center Street bridges during peak traffic hours. TDM strategies designed to capture either segment of the peak-hour travel market will need to provide an advantage that can effectively compete with the SOV in terms of convenience and cost.
The first and largest travel market is for peak-hour commuting trips where one of the trip origins is in the West Salem area. These short-distance trips have relatively short travel times between origins and destinations. Consequently, an appropriate TDM program needs to provide an attractive alternative to driving during the peak commuting hours. Work schedule revisions can provide an appropriate peak-hour travel substitute by permitting the employee to adjust their work schedules to better fit their needs and avoid peak-hour congestion. Telecommuting provides a similar benefit to peak-hour commuting for short travel times.
The second travel market is the peak-hour intercity commuter who has one trip origin outside the Salem-Keizer area (e.g., Dallas to Salem). Intercity commutes are longer distance trips that involve relatively longer travel times compared to those originating in West Salem. Effective strategies for trips that have longer distance lengths include carpools, vanpools, and buspools.
ES-20 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary One of the overall goals of the adopted Salem Transportation System Plan is to have at least 25 percent of all journey-to-work trips in the Salem area to be non-SOV travel modes—transit, bike, pedestrian, vehicle pools, etc. The following strategies and their potential application in the study area are discussed as techniques to achieve the goal of reducing SOV work trips:
1. Alternative Work Schedules
One strategy for reducing the number of short-distance commute trips from West Salem to the downtown/Capitol Mall area is alternative work schedules. Work schedule adjustments might occur through one of the following:
1. compressed work weeks (working an equal number of hours per day for less than a five-day work week) 2. telecommuting 3. staggered work hours
Recent work site surveys conducted through the Regional TDM Program indicate that employees are most interested in both compressing work weeks and telecommuting options. Over 40 percent of the surveyed SOV employees indicated that if they had the option, they would work at home at least one day a week. Just over 20 percent of those persons surveyed stated they would try compressed work weeks.
Based on the 1990 U.S. Census data for journey-to-work, about 1,600 (22 percent) of workers who lived in West Salem worked in the “central city” area bound by Market Street to the north, Mission Street to the south, 12th Street to the east, and the Willamette River on the west. Also, about five percent of West Salem workers worked at home, which accounts for about 400 person trips.
2. Ridesharing Programs
Based on the 1994 Origin and Destination Survey, the automobile occupancy rate on the Marion and Center Street bridges is 61 percent - 1 person, 26 percent - 2 person, and 12 percent - 3+ persons. Consequently, ridesharing strategies directed to increasing carpools and vanpools could be effective to increase travel capacity on the bridges.
The 1994 Origin and Destination Survey also showed that about 41 percent of total bridge traffic could be classified as longer distance commute trips. For the Salem-Keizer area, the longer distance commute trips and their percent of the trips are:
1. western external area - Dallas, Monmouth, Polk County, etc. - 28 percent; 2. northwest external area - McMinnville, Dayton, Amity, Yamhill County, etc. - 6 percent; and 3. through trips - 7 percent.
Vanpools are generally more effective for longer distance commute trips that have defined origin and destination points. Carpooling also has its place for the shorter
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-21 commutes. Currently, twice as many West Salem residents carpool than take the bus. Strategies to encourage carpooling by making it more convenient and cost-effective should be pursued both within West Salem and in outlying communities.
3. Other Supporting Strategies
For alternative work schedules and rideshare programs to be successful, the alternatives to driving alone must be convenient and supported by other policies. Pick-up and drop- off locations for van and bus pools must be convenient to passengers’ home and work locations. Ideally, the vanpools and buspools would have a minimum number of stops in order to provide a travel time competitive with the SOV. Also, preferential parking and reduced parking cost for carpools and vanpools could be provided at trip destinations to encourage participation in these programs.
Recommended TDM Program Improvements
The following TDM program improvements are suggested to encourage greater participation from West Salem, Polk County, and Yamhill County residents who work in Salem-Keizer on the east side of the Willamette River.
1. Expand the level of support for the Regional Rideshare. 2. Expand the level of support for TDM Programs. 3. Increase the participation among state agencies and other employers in the existing Rideshare and TDM Programs. 4. Consider a TDM demonstration project (e.g., two to three years) to provide vanpool and/or express bus service between targeted Polk County communities and the downtown/Capitol Mall area, or other destinations. 5. Identify new commuter travel markets that could benefit from vanpool/buspool service.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Bicycle and pedestrian alternatives include improvements that help facilitate increased bicycling and walking by providing a continuous, direct, and interconnected network of supporting facilities, including bike lanes, multi-use paths, sidewalks, and other related facilities. Peak-hour traffic congestion on the Marion and Center Street bridges could be reduced by providing safe and direct access to local and regional activity centers, which would encourage a shift from SOVs to bicycling and walking.
Levels of Bicycle and Pedestrian Use
Based on the 1990 U.S. Census, bicycle and walking accounted for about one percent and two percent, respectively, of the journey-to-work trips in the West Salem area. These averages are low compared to the rest of the urban area, which is probably a reflection of both the available facilities and the hills in West Salem. A goal of the Salem Transportation System Plan is to
ES-22 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary triple the percentage of bicyclists and double the number of walkers for journey-to-work trips during the next 20 years.
As part of this study, a bicycle and pedestrian survey was conducted on July 21-23, 1997 (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The average number of bicyclists crossing the river was 23 in the morning and 25 in the afternoon. Pedestrian crossings of the river averaged nine in the morning and 12 in the afternoon.
Bicycle and Pedestrian System
The level of bicycle and pedestrian use in West Salem is a direct reflection of the available facilities. In the Salem-Keizer area, the existing bicycle and pedestrian system is composed of a variety of facilities that include bike lanes, shoulder bikeways, multi-use paths, and sidewalks. These facilities are located along both the local and regional street network and are owned and maintained by the cities of Salem and Keizer, Marion and Polk counties, and the state of Oregon. The Regional Bicycle System (RBS) contains approximately 142 miles of bicycle facilities that are, for the most part, associated with the arterial street system. Currently, approximately 80 miles (56 percent of the total regional system) of the RBS is complete. The remaining 62 miles should be complete by the year 2015. The local bicycle systems include those facilities located along the arterial streets system, as well as identified collector and local streets.
Currently, the bicycle system in West Salem is not complete. Approximately 11 miles of the 33- mile West Salem bicycle system is completed. Bike lanes are located along most of the arterial streets in West Salem including Edgewater Street, Highway 22, Glen Creek Road, Orchard Heights Road (between Wallace Road and Mousebird Avenue), and Wallace Road (between Edgewater Street and Michigan City Lane). The adopted 1996 Regional Transportation Systems Plan suggests that revenues will likely be available by 2015 to fund the completion of the regional bicycle system, including the remaining segments of Wallace, Orchard Heights, and Doaks Ferry roads. Bike lanes and/or bicycle routes are also proposed for most of the collector streets in West Salem. The completion of the bicycle system should encourage greater use of these transportation modes. A separated bicycle and pedestrian path on the Marion and Center Street bridges already provides access to downtown Salem and to bike lanes on the Front Street Bypass.
The sidewalk system in West Salem is approximately 60 percent complete. Sidewalks are lacking in the hilly areas north of Edgewater Street just outside the older developed residential and commercial areas. The existing sidewalk system could also connect to a transit/shuttle stop located in West Salem. In 2000, the Transit District opened the West Salem Transit Hub on Calapooia Street between Glen Creek Road and Taybin Road east of Roth’s West Salem grocery. While not directly a pedestrian amenity, transit shuttle service to downtown Salem is now available. The shuttle service to downtown Salem during peak commute times could encourage more people to at least walk to a transit stop in West Salem. Also, the conversion of the Union Street Railroad Bridge into a bicycle/pedestrian commuter recreational facility provides another alternative transportation mode to downtown Salem.
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-23 Another planned system improvement is the conversion of the existing Union Street Railroad Bridge to a bicycle and pedestrian facility. A new at-grade crossing over the Willamette River will enhance the bicycling and walking environment. Such a bike/pedestrian path connection between the Marion and Center Street bridges, a Union Street Bridge bike/pedestrian corridor, and the new collector street - Marine Drive NW - will also provide an important link to Wallace Marine Park.
Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian System Improvements
The following recommendations should be considered by the appropriate jurisdictions. Some of these recommendations will require further study and evaluation:
1. Complete the bicycle and pedestrian systems in West Salem.
2. Provide more frequent bus service to downtown Salem during peak commute times.
3. Provide a bike/pedestrian path connection between the Marion and Center Street bridges, a Union Street Bridge corridor, and the proposed new collector street - Marine Drive NW.
4. Proceed with the conversion of the existing Union Street Railroad Bridge to a bicycle and pedestrian facility.
Pricing Strategies
Pricing strategies are designed to change travel behaviors by charging a fee (or toll) to regulate or meter the use of transportation facilities. Charging a fee during peak demand periods is a strategy known as congestion pricing. Without a pricing strategy, drivers typically ignore the added cost they impose on others in terms of traffic congestion, time delays, and air pollution. The economic rationale behind congestion pricing is to assign the "social cost" of driving during peak demand periods to those who use roadway capacity during these periods. Charging to drive during the peak provides a cost incentive for some to drive during off-peak hours or use alternative transportation modes (i.e., transit, bicycle, walk, carpools, etc.).
Potential Impacts
Few examples of congestion pricing programs exist in the U.S., and there are currently no roadway pricing strategies implemented in Oregon. METRO, the Portland Metropolitan Planning Organization, is currently investigating the possibility of implementing peak-period pricing in the Portland metropolitan area through its Traffic Relief Option Study. Although this study has identified various pricing possibilities, public and political support for implementing peak-period pricing in the Portland area has yet to be determined.
Most models of ongoing congestion pricing programs are in Singapore and Europe. Singapore is the most widely cited example of a long-term congestion pricing system that has been successfully implemented using innovative pricing strategies (e.g., area licensing and automatic
ES-24 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary vehicle identification systems). In 1976, one year after congestion pricing was first implemented, traffic volumes in downtown Singapore were reduced by almost 50 percent.
Other Implementation Issues
1. The Oregon Constitution restricts the use of fees levied on motor vehicles to roadway-related expenditures only. Revenues collected from congestion pricing or other vehicle-use pricing strategies may be restricted to highway-related improvements and not be available to finance transit activities or employer-based commuter assistance programs.
2. Developing support from all sectors of the driving public, the business community, and elected officials is the key factor for implementing pricing strategies. Support basically involves convincing the public that pricing is an equitable means of reducing traffic congestion on the bridges. A large segment of the driving public, however, may likely view any form of pricing as "just another tax" and could be reluctant to support it.
3. Peak-period commuter trips tend to be "inelastic"; that is, they are not flexible regarding when they need to take place. Without the existence of viable transportation alternatives (i.e., public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, ridesharing and telecommuting options, etc.) most drivers will either pay the "fee" or forego the trip altogether. Although these trips would generate additional revenue, they would produce little impact on reducing peak-period congestion on the bridges.
4. Charging commuters during peak-demand periods would be regressive to lower- income drivers who are least able to pay the added costs of commuting to work. As a mitigating measure, programs can be designed to compensate drivers adversely impacted by pricing strategies. Such measures may reduce the overall effectiveness of the strategy in reducing congestion.
Applications
One of the objectives to implementing pricing strategies is to reduce peak-period traffic congestion on the Marion and Center Street bridges by encouraging single-occupancy vehicle drivers to switch to other modes of transportation or travel during non-peak periods. The following describes several potential applications for implementing pricing strategies in the Salem-Keizer area:
1. In general, federal law prohibits tolls on existing federally aided highways, i.e., the Marion and Center Street bridges (Highway 22) and Wallace Road (Highway 221). The Federal Highway Administration, however, does allow some exemptions to promote congestion pricing programs. The state (ODOT) may have the authority to construct new toll bridges on federally aided highways or implement tolls as part of a major reconstruction project for existing federally aided highways and bridges. One strategy would be to apply to the FHWA to allow tolls on the existing Marion and
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-25 Center Street bridges and/or the Highway 22 and Wallace Road corridors. Tolls could be collected electronically by Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) systems and implemented through an Area Licensing Scheme (ALS). Roads can be equipped with electronic detectors and vehicles must carry electronic transponders to use the toll facility.
2. A second strategy would be to construct a new Willamette River toll bridge that provides faster and more convenient access between West Salem and the major employment centers in the downtown/Capitol Mall area. Tolls can be collected as described above and prices can be adjusted by time of day and vehicle type. Buses, carpools, bicyclists, etc. can be given a discount or allowed to cross for free.
Pricing Strategies Recommendation
Although pricing strategies might have the potential to reduce peak-period traffic congestion on the Marion and Center Street bridges, it is recognized that the inherent problems with implementing these strategies on the existing bridge system make them infeasible at this time. Pricing strategies should be examined, however, as part of the operational concept for any new bridge facility.
Land Use Alternatives
The city of Salem is currently engaged in the Salem Futures Project, which is a comprehensive study of how to manage future growth and maintain the quality of life over the next 50 years. Phase 1 of the project, completed in 1999, includes the development of a vision statement and alternative land use scenarios. Phase 2 is an in-depth analysis of the alternatives that will provide the information needed to craft a preferred alternative. Phase 3 is the formal adoption of changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances to implement the preferred alternative.
To date, three alternatives have been presented for growth over the next 50 years. The alternatives include:
1. Corridors 2. Centers 3. Dispersed growth
In all cases, the intent of the growth alternatives is to encourage viable options to the automobile under a number of different strategies. One step is to provide a greater mix of uses within easy walking distance of where people live. A mix of uses means shopping and services are closer to neighborhoods, within the quarter-mile radius or the five minutes most people are willing to walk. In a walkable environment, streets are a reasonable size and have sidewalks.
Accordingly, newly developing or redeveloping areas could have a mix of shops, services, housing, and offices. Most importantly, good urban design and architecture could make them attractive and interesting places. Even for those who would still choose to drive to these mixed-
ES-26 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary use areas, they should be able to park their cars and walk to accomplish a number of different tasks. The result should produce an overall decrease in the number of vehicle trips.
In addition, a better transit system that offers more frequent service and direct routes is important. The alternatives seek compact development that creates more destinations with a greater concentration of development that is both more attractive to transit riders and more efficient to serve with transit. Increased density along transit routes provides a greater pool of potential riders to support more frequent service.
All the alternatives retain the Salem downtown as the government, commerce, and cultural center for the region. More housing for the downtown area is also anticipated. Each alternative also supports retaining existing industrial areas as exclusive areas for industrial activity. Infill of vacant land and redevelopment of existing properties will be important to better utilize underdeveloped properties as land values increase.
Corridors
The Corridors alternative builds on the concept that transportation corridors are areas where commercial activities have historically been located. Accordingly, this alternative directs a significant amount of growth in mixed use and compact development primarily along arterials and other major roadways. Under this concept, West Salem would have a node of activity along Wallace Road between Edgewater Street and Glenn Creek Road and minor activity nodes along both Edgewater from Wallace Road to Eola Drive and Brush College Road to the west of Wallace Road.
The Corridors Alternative creates more options for moving about Salem than just the automobile. Shops, services, parks, and schools are closer to home, thereby making walking, bicycling, or riding transit more attractive. The activity nodes would be even more conducive to walking or riding transit than similar shopping areas are today. Better pedestrian connections should result in fewer miles driven and more trips by means other than the automobile. The higher density corridors support more transit riders, allowing more frequent service, thereby attracting more riders from surrounding neighborhoods. The through-transportation corridors would provide mobility around the region.
Centers
The Centers alternative expands the center of town as a gathering place for shopping and socializing and adds “new” centers that are a focus for compact development and transportation improvements. For West Salem, this concept includes a major center in the Wallace Road/Glen Creek area, a community center at the intersection of Wallace Road and Brush College Road, and neighborhood centers at the intersections of Doaks Ferry Road with both Orchard Heights and Eola Drive.
The Centers have wider sidewalks and on-street parking wherever possible. The mix of retail and commercial services in the centers provides for the day-to-day needs of local residents, and the centers provide better pedestrian connections, resulting in fewer miles driven and more trips
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-27 by means other than the automobile. More people live closer to shops, services, parks, and schools, making walking, bicycling, or riding transit more attractive. Most people still drive to get around, and traffic congestion will continue to increase, but not as much as would be the case with “business as usual” development patterns, because more viable options to the automobile would exist. Locating higher density housing in closer proximity to a mix of commercial uses and transit service results in higher transit ridership and allows for more cost effective service. Transit service in the centers includes more frequent service and a major transit stop or transfer point that provides express service to downtown and to other centers.
Dispersed Growth
The Dispersed Growth alternative seeks to accommodate future growth with infill and redevelopment within existing neighborhoods and new higher density neighborhoods on the urban fringe.
In the Dispersed Growth alternative, Salem’s roadways would likely become increasingly congested as people continue to rely on the automobile as the primary means to get around. The automobile is the best means of transportation in this alternative because the overall low-density pattern of development continues. Transit services would improve somewhat, but not as much as with other concept alternatives due to the dispersion of residential density.
Land Use Alternative Impacts
For West Salem, all the land use plan alternatives support:
1. infill, which increases the resident density and commercial intensity;
2. a population increase, which adds to the number of people needing to cross the river; and
3. concentrating commercial development in either centers or corridors sited in West Salem, thereby decreasing the overall need to cross the river into downtown.
Land Use Alternative Recommendations
In all of the future alternatives there will be more density, diversity, and better design associated with land uses in West Salem. Some of these will provide an employment or shopping alternative that does not require a resident to cross the river during the peak hour. Others may contribute to reducing reliance on the SOV and an increase in the attractiveness of alternative modes of transportation. Nevertheless, although a reduction in the absolute need to cross the river might be achievable through land use actions, it is anticipated that most West Salem residents will continue to depend upon a bridge crossing to provide access to a majority of their actual employment, shopping, cultural, and other activities. Over time, the implementation of any of the land use alternatives proposed in the Salem Futures project may provide an opportunity for deferral, but not elimination, of the need for a third bridge.
ES-28 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary New Bridge Corridor Alternatives
Overview
The General Corridor Evaluation is designed to provide an "order of magnitude" evaluation of a broad range of considerations to determine if any of the potential solutions are clearly inferior to others and can be reasonably eliminated from further analysis. Only those alternatives that demonstrate a meaningful possibility for solving the identified long-term river crossing capacity problems with minimal community and environmental impact would be recommended for further consideration and detailed analysis during subsequent phases of the study process.
This report summarizes the General Corridor Evaluation segment of the planning process, which documents a systems-level evaluation of the no-build condition, fifteen general new bridge corridors, plus a "beltway" alternative (Figure ES-2). The evaluation included a definition and analysis of traffic-related criteria and a “sensitive site” inventory with a broad indication of possible community, environmental, and Urban Growth Boundary-related impacts associated with the alternative new bridge corridors. For analysis purposes, each corridor assessment identifies a general bridge centerline alignment and a corridor width of 500 feet on both sides of the alignment. This evaluation identified the existence of potential impacts associated with each corridor and evaluated their likely degree of impact. Precise analysis of impacts and specific design options will be produced during the Environmental Impacts Statement (EIS) process for those corridors selected for further analysis.
Most of the bridge corridors identified in this study have been previously proposed in earlier bridge studies and other Salem-Keizer area planning studies. The River Crossing Capacity Task Force added four general bridge corridors (Northern Exurban, Tryon Street, Kuebler Road, and Southern Exurban) for inclusion in the systems-level analysis process.
Evaluation Summary
The General Corridor Evaluation examined the sixteen potential new bridge corridors relative to their performance against nineteen criteria that were determined by the River Crossing Task Force to be important considerations in the selection of a new bridge location. A summarized description of the criteria information related to each corridor is presented in Table ES-2.
For overall ranking purposes, the individual criteria were grouped into four major impact categories: Traffic, Community, Environment, and Non-Urban. Rankings from the four major impact categories were then condensed into the overall corridor rankings. The results of the corridor evaluation and rankings are illustrated in Figure ES-3.
While each potential new bridge corridor demonstrated performance and impact characteristics that served to differentiate it from the others, none of the potential corridors achieved a “perfect” score, i.e., completely solving the problem without engendering any potential negative impacts.
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-29 As a consequence, the comparative corridor evaluations resulted in the conclusions that the Tryon and Pine Street Corridors demonstrated the most promise in terms of solving the identified problems balanced against the likelihood of negative impacts.
ES-30 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary Figure ES-2
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-31 ES-32 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-33 ES-34 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-35 ES-36 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary
Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary ES-37 Next Steps
The General Corridor Evaluation of the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study analyzed the travel demand across the river and identified the components and problems associated with river crossing travel and system capacity in the Salem-Keizer area. It also identified a wide range of potential river crossing transportation capacity alternatives and evaluated their feasibility for meeting existing and projected travel demand, as well as their potential impacts on the natural and manmade environment. Two alternative corridors have been recommended for further study: Tryon/Pine and Kuebler. The Tryon/Pine corridor has been recommended to proceed into additional refinement analyses first. The Kuebler corridor had been included in the draft SKATS Regional Transportation Systems Plan update for public review and comment and is now identified as an outstanding issue in the adopted RTSP.
The next step in the planning refinement process for the Tryon/Pine corridor is to prepare a Locational Environmental Impact Study to gather and analyze appropriate information related to the environmental inventory and potential impacts related to the proposed project in order to proceed to a decision on whether or not to build the improvement (long-term) and to preserve the necessary right-of-way (short-term). The Locational EIS would take approximately two years and cost $750,000.
A key component of preparing an EIS should be public involvement. In order for an effort to identify a bridge location and to eventually build a bridge to be successful, a significant public involvement effort will be required.
If the preparation of the Locational EIS results in a decision to obtain right-of-way for a future bridge, the adopted Regional Transportation Systems Plan anticipates the expenditure of $20 million to purchase and preserve property.
Prior to actual construction of a bridge, the design would need to be prepared and the construction funding secured. A recent estimate by ODOT placed the construction cost at approximately $180,000,000.
ES-38 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study – Executive Summary
Appendix B Study Area Refinement
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
MEMORANDUM
Study Area Refinement
TO: Salem River Crossing Task Force, Oversight Team, and Project Management Team
FROM: Steve Perone/PTV America Sumi Malik/CH2M HILL Dave Simmons/CH2M HILL
DATE: October 20, 2006
A new bridge for the Salem region would need to address traffic problems today and in the future. Part of the planning process is to evaluate how new transportation connections would perform in the future. At this stage, the future performance of new connections have been evaluated, not for the purpose of including or excluding any one solution, but instead as a way to refine the study area. Better performing connections help narrow where potential river crossings would meet travel demand.
This memorandum summarizes analysis that has evaluated the performance of new transportation connections under future year (2030) p.m. peak hour conditions to refine the study area, and to help establish the project purpose and need statement. The p.m. peak hours are 5 to 6 p.m. The corridors used for this analysis were evaluated in the previous study, the Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study General Corridor Evaluation (June 2002), which used a 2015 future year. The analysis presented in this memorandum was conducted using the current land use and transportation model, SKATS EMME/2 model, 2030 land use assumptions and travel demand rates derived from the 1994/95 household travel survey.
The thirteen corridors included in this analysis are listed below and are illustrated in Figure 1.
1. Lockhaven Drive 2. Chemawa Road 3. Tryon Street 4. Pine Street 5. Shipping Street 6. Hood Street 7. Market Street 8. Division Street 9. Union Street 10. Pringle Parkway 11. Mission Street 12. Cross Street 13. Kuebler Road Figure 1 - 2030 Bridge Crossing Corridors
STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 4
In addition to the thirteen corridors listed above, a no-build scenario is included in the analysis to serve as a reference. The analysis presented in this memorandum focuses on two key performance measures: 1). Volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) and 2). Vehicle hours of delay (VHD). The v/c ratio describes the portion of the bridge's capacity that is predicted to be used by the number of vehicles traveling on the corridor during the 2030 PM peak hour. A ratio of 1.0 means traffic volume is equal to the capacity. V/C ratios in the 0.90 to 1.0 range represent conditions that are near or at capacity, where there are very few gaps in traffic and maneuverability is limited. Comparison of the proposed corridor v/c ratio to existing bridge v/c ratio describes how much congestion relief the proposed corridor could be expected to provide the existing facilities. VHD is used to quantify the amount of delay experienced by all the vehicles traveling on the corridor when the facilities are predicted to operate above a v/c ratio of 0.90 during the 2030 PM peak hour. Bridge Volume-to-Capacity Performance The first measure, volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c), evaluates how well each proposed corridor improves performance on the existing bridge by attracting trips to the proposed corridor. Table 1 is grouped into two parts: 1) proposed corridor; and 2) existing bridges. It presents the v/c ratio for the proposed corridor and existing bridges for both eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) directions, and relative rank. The proposed corridors are listed in order of furthest north to furthest south. The best performing corridor has the lowest v/c ratio on the existing bridges and the highest v/c ratio on the proposed corridor, meaning the new corridor attracts the greatest volume of trips off of the existing bridges.
STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 2
Table 1: Bridge V/C Ratio Proposed Corridors Existing Bridge Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Corridor (EB) v/c1 Rank (WB) v/c Rank (EB) v/c2 Rank (WB) v/c Rank No-Build EB 1.07 WB 1.66 1 Lockhaven EB 0.45 9 WB 0.70 11 EB 0.88 13 WB 1.39 12 2 Chemawa EB 0.45 8 WB 0.76 6 EB 0.88 12 WB 1.38 11 3 Tryon EB 0.37 11 WB 0.68 12 EB 0.81 6 WB 1.22 9 4 Pine EB 0.33 13 WB 0.61 13 EB 0.82 8 WB 1.25 10 5 Shipping EB 0.77 2 WB 0.72 9 EB 0.83 9 WB 1.18 7 6 Hood EB 0.89 1 WB 0.71 10 EB 0.83 10 WB 1.19 8 7 Market EB 0.36 12 WB 0.74 8 EB 0.81 7 WB 1.18 6 8 Division EB 0.40 10 WB 0.84 3 EB 0.78 5 WB 1.11 3 9 Union EB 0.47 7 WB 0.91 2 EB 0.74 4 WB 1.07 2 10 Pringle EB 0.66 4 WB 0.99 1 EB 0.62 1 WB 1.01 1 11 Mission EB 0.50 6 WB 0.79 5 EB 0.71 3 WB 1.13 5 12 Cross EB 0.52 5 WB 0.80 4 EB 0.70 2 WB 1.13 4 13 Kuebler SB 0.70 3 NB 0.75 7 EB 0.84 11 WB 1.41 13
1 For proposed corridors, higher v/c ratios receive a higher rank 2 For the existing bridges, lower v/c ratios receive a higher rank STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 4 3
As shown in Table 1, none of the proposed corridors relieves congestion enough to reduce performance on the existing bridges below capacity or a v/c of 1.0 in the westbound direction during the PM peak. All of the corridors provide sufficient eastbound capacity to meet the forecasted demand; therefore, corridors are evaluated based on westbound performance. Overall, the Pringle corridor provides the best v/c ratio performance on the bridges (proposed corridor WB v/c 0.99 and existing bridge WB v/c 1.01). The next two best performing corridors are connections just north of the existing bridges (Union and Division), indicating that demand for travel is in these areas. The most obvious pattern evident from the v/c result is that the furthest south (Kuebler) and northern two (Lockhaven and Chemawa) corridors do the poorest job improving river crossing demand in the peak westbound direction. Facility VHD Performance The bridge v/c analysis, while critical, only provides a preliminary measure of system performance. The analysis was broadened to examine VHD performance on key State Highways in the central downtown study area. The facilities analyzed included:
OR 221 (Wallace Road) – between River Bend Road and Edgewater Street OR 22 - Just west of Rosemont to eastside bridgeheads OR 99E – Salem Parkway intersection with Liberty and Commercial Street (northern couplet) going south including Front Street, the Trade/Ferry Couplet, continuing east to 12th/Pringle Parkway
Vehicle hours of delay is a better measure of congestion than purely v/c ratio because it quantifies the hours of congestion over a given v/c ratio threshold based on the travel demand for a given corridor. When calculated on a facility basis, the VHD measure quantifies impacts the ability of any one facility to handle the flow of trips generated by the proposed bridge corridor. This is a more in depth measure than v/c, because it does not merely measure the traffic volume coming off of the existing bridges and going to the proposed corridor, but quantifies the district and the overall system’s ability to handle the resulting traffic flow. The VHD reported in the Table 2 below (and in subsequent tables) uses a v/c ratio of 0.9 as the threshold for calculating VHD. Under the No-build scenario both OR22 and OR221 have approximately 300 vehicle hours of delay per facility. Table 2 presents VHD for each facility and in total. The table also provides an order ranking of each corridor for each measure.
STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 4
Table 2: Vehicle Hours of Delay by Facility Highway/Facility Corridor Rank Corridor OR22 OR221 OR99E Total OR22 OR221 OR99E Overall VHD No-Build 289.3 309.8 50.2 649.4 1 Lockhaven 107.9 140.9 30.6 279.5 12 7 4 12 2 Chemawa 99.7 147.0 32.5 279.2 11 8 5 11 3 Tryon 42.0 74.7 25.4 142.0 9 4 1 3 4 Pine 50.7 82.0 59.1 191.7 10 5 12 6 5 Shipping 35.7 52.6 64.4 152.6 7 2 13 4 6 Hood 36.8 51.7 51.4 140.0 8 1 10 2 7 Market 35.0 94.3 55.1 184.4 6 6 11 5 8 Division 21.6 63.2 44.2 129.0 5 3 8 1 9 Union 20.7 161.6 45.3 227.6 4 9 9 9 10 Pringle 15.8 207.8 39.2 262.8 3 13 7 10 11 Mission 15.7 177.8 26.8 220.3 2 11 2 8 12 Cross 15.4 172.2 30.4 218.1 1 10 3 7 13 Kuebler 113.6 182.8 33.8 330.2 13 12 6 13
The table shows that the top six performing corridors (numbers 3 through 8) are all corridors with a new bridge north of the existing bridges. This is because the new bridge in these corridors provides significant congestion relief to both OR22 and OR221. Among the six top performing corridors, the average VHD is 157 hours, the best corridor south of the bridges is Cross with a total of 218 vehicle hours of delay, nearly a 40% increase. District VHD Performance A set of seven districts were created to isolate and measure VHD impacts on specific areas of the region and to better understand overall benefits by considering system-wide impact on both State and local facilities. Analyzing VHD impact on a district-by-district basis and system-wide helps determine the ability of a district and the system to handle traffic volumes resulting from each proposed corridor. Figure 2 displays the seven district boundaries.
STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 5
STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 6
VHD was summarized by district and is presented below in Table 3.
Table 3: Total VHD by District District Downtown West Keizer South Mid East N. Downtown Corridor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VHD No-Build 399.3 610.5 76.9 485.5 130.3 220.7 67.6 Lockhaven 199.6 238.1 94.3 456.9 105.2 203.2 35.8 Chemawa 192.2 237.4 85.8 453.5 106.3 202.7 36.4 Tryon 121.0 131.6 75.2 436.9 100.9 210.3 75.1 Pine 137.0 141.4 73.5 447.1 103.9 211.7 118.0 Shipping 141.5 116.3 72.6 447.5 103.3 212.8 88.2 Hood 141.8 118.0 72.9 445.9 104.8 211.8 69.1 Market 148.6 158.2 72.7 447.2 105.2 215.9 67.0 Division 120.7 124.7 72.8 444.7 103.6 210.0 64.8 Union 111.7 247.8 73.3 451.1 105.9 212.2 66.1 Pringle 110.5 300.8 74.1 450.5 107.3 212.0 67.6 Mission 86.2 259.1 73.9 488.2 104.9 208.1 68.4 Cross 80.0 249.3 72.9 419.0 80.2 189.1 69.9 Kuebler 185.6 291.3 72.1 309.5 76.2 174.6 67.0
Table 3 shows that in the No-build scenario there are more than 1,000 vehicle hours of delay downtown (#1) and west Salem (#2). The total delay in these two districts is greater than the total delay in the remaining districts. VHD does not change significantly among districts such as east of I-5 (#6) and Keizer (#3) between corridors, indicating that the demand for travel over the river is mainly between downtown and west Salem. A few corridors have large impacts on specific districts, for example the Kuebler scenario reduces VHD in district #4 (south Salem) from 486 hours in the No-build to 310 hours.
STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 7
Table 4: Total Downtown and west Salem VHD
VHD District Corridor 1 & 2 Rank No-Build 1010 1 Lockhaven 438 12 2 Chemawa 430 11 3 Tryon 253 2 4 Pine 278 5 5 Shipping 258 3 6 Hood 260 4 7 Market 307 6 8 Division 245 1
9 Union 359 9 10 Pringle 411 10 11 Mission 345 8 12 Cross 329 7 13 Kuebler 477 13 Figure 3 - 2030 Bridge Crossing Corridors The greatest impact in terms of system performance results from corridors that reduce VHD in districts #1 and #2, downtown and west Salem. Table 4 presents VHD for downtown and west Salem as well as the ranking by least VHD. Similar to the results presented in Table 2, the top six performing corridors are north of the existing bridge locations and have an average delay of 267 hours. The next best corridor (Cross Street) has over twenty percent more VHD. A rough comparison of VHD on facilities verses districts in Tables 2 and 4 indicate that about sixty-five percent (649/1010) of the VHD of delay occurs on State verses local facilities.
STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 8
Conclusions The analysis presented in this memorandum demonstrates that from both a State and local system perspective, corridors that provide the most system benefit are serving demands in west Salem and downtown. Table 5 summarizes the data from Table 2 and Table 4 to compare the results of the VHD analysis for both facilities and districts. By either analysis method, the top 6 performing corridors are geographically clustered between Tryon Street and the existing bridges and would therefore be proposed as the northern and southern boundaries for the project study area. The future performance of new connections has been evaluated at a coarse level, not for the purpose of selecting any one solution, but instead as a way to define the study area. With a defined study area and a project Purpose and Need, the next step in evaluating potential solutions will be to develop alternatives within the study area.
Table 5: Comparison of District Level VHD and Facility VHD Total VHD for VHD District 1 District VHD OR22, OR221 Overall Facility Corridor & 2 Rank & OR99E VHD Rank No-Build 1010 649.4 1 Lockhaven 438 12 279.5 12 2 Chemawa 430 11 279.2 11 3 Tryon 253 2 142.0 3 4 Pine 278 5 191.7 6 5 Shipping 258 3 152.6 4 6 Hood 260 4 140.0 2 7 Market 307 6 184.4 5 8 Division 245 1 129.0 1 9 Union 359 9 227.6 9 10 Pringle 411 10 262.8 10 11 Mission 345 8 220.3 8 12 Cross 329 7 218.1 7 13 Kuebler 477 13 330.2 13
STUDY AREA REFINEMENT MEMO 9
Appendix C Decision-Making Structure and Process
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
MEMORANDUM
Decision-Making Structure and Process
This memo, which was adopted by the Oversight Team during their September 27, 2006 meeting, describes the decision-making structure and process for delivering the Salem River Crossing project.
Underlying Assumptions The Oregon Department of Transportation and City of Salem are committed to an approach that:
• Delivers a “transparent” alternatives analysis and environmental review process that provides ongoing, inclusive, and meaningful two-way communication between the project team and the public.
• Meets the regulatory requirements and intent associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice (EJ); and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Meets Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) laws, regulations, policies, and procedures.
• Encourages active participation of stakeholders—those agencies, interest groups, and individuals with particular “stakes” in the outcome of the project—in accordance with the FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions guidance.
• Results in completion of the NEPA process by Spring 2009. A key element of the approach is a structured decision-making process and well-defined decision-making organization. The aim of a structured decision process is to create a logical path through a complicated project by establishing major decision points. Thorough and thoughtful consideration of issues at each decision point by all of the project stakeholder groups helps to ensure quality decisions that will not have to be revisited later in the project. The aim is to avoid going “back to square one” because something of significance has been omitted or improperly addressed. Structuring the process in this way enables the project team to explain to stakeholders where we are in the process, what we have accomplished, and what lies ahead. The clear identification of decision points creates an expectation in stakeholder groups for meeting the deadlines and staying on schedule as a way to avoid more and more meetings. Defining the decision structure—groups that will be involved and how they will participate—provides a “level playing field” for all stakeholders and answers questions typically asked by stakeholders:
• Who will make the decisions? • How can I influence the decisions? • When will I have an opportunity to participate? • Who will consider my input?
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 1
DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
Proposed Decision Process The decision process for the Salem River Crossing project will be organized into the following seven decision points as shown on Figure 1 and described below:
• Management Structure and Decision Process • Purpose and Need • Evaluation Framework • Range of Alternatives • Alternatives for EIS • Preferred Alternative • Record of Decision
FIGURE 1 Decision Milestones
Management Structure and Decision Process This first decision step ensures agreement about the process, and the roles, responsibilities, and membership of the various participating groups.
Purpose and Need The second decision step establishes the need for the project and defines the transportation problems the project is expected to address.
Evaluation Framework The third decision step creates a tool to assist in evaluating alternatives. The evaluation framework will set criteria and quantitative performance measures for gauging the effectiveness of alternatives—how well they solve the identified problems and how well they perform against the broad range of stakeholder values.
Range of Alternatives The fourth point in the decision process determines the range of alternatives to be considered. At this point, all alternatives or solutions that could potentially solve the
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 2
DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS identified problem are considered. The aim is to ensure stakeholders have been consulted and all of their ideas get put “on the table”.
Alternatives Screening The fifth decision point applies the evaluation criteria (established in decision point three) to the alternatives (developed in decision point four), screening out those that do not meet the minimum requirements or the project Purpose and Need. A small number of alternatives are selected for detailed evaluation in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Preferred Alternative In the sixth decision point, data developed for the draft EIS is used to re-evaluate the remaining alternatives against the evaluation criteria. A locally preferred alternative is then selected based on the evaluation results and input from public and agency stakeholders.
Record of Decision The seventh decision point is FHWA’s approval of the Environmental Impact Statement, including the preferred alternative. All local land use actions must be complete by this time and the funding and mitigation plans must be in place.
Proposed Decision-Making Structure The proposed decision-making structure for the Salem River Crossing Project is shown on Figure 2. The composition, roles, and responsibilities of each group are described below.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 3
DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
FIGURE 2 Decision-Making Structure
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The FHWA is the lead agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that governs proposed actions requiring federal highway funding, permits, or approvals. FHWA will sign the Final Environmental Impact Statement and approve the Record of Decision.
Local Elected Officials The Oversight Team (see below) will make all interim decisions during the project. Elected officials of affected jurisdictions will be briefed as need or upon request. The elected officials will approve the preferred alternative.
Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) CETAS has been established to coordinate and streamline the regulatory reviews and permitting functions of the participating agencies. Members include representatives from key federal and state agencies responsible for protecting the region’s air, water, fush and wildlife, and cultural and land use resources. This committee must formally concur on Salem River Crossing decisions related to Purpose and Need, Evaluation Framework, Range of Alternatives and Preferred Alternative.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 4
DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
Oversight Team The Oversight Team (OT) includes elected or appointed officials of local agencies and jurisdictions with regulatory responsibility for or strong interest in the project. Responsibilities of the OT include:
• Set the policy framework for the project.
• Represent the interests of their agencies or jurisdictions in group deliberations.
• Communicate project progress to their fellow elected or appointed officials, and to their constituents.
• Prepare for and participate in approximately 10 2-hour meetings between September 2006 and December 2008
• Review recommendations from the Task Force and other background materials and make decisions at the six decision points in the project. Members of the OT will represent their organizations in making the first five of these decisions. For the sixth decision point (Preferred Alternative), the OT will recommend a preferred alternative to the Polk and Marion County Boards, Salem City Council, and SKATS for formal approval. The group will be comprised of:
• Sam Brentano, Marion County, County Commissioner • Lloyd Chapman, Salem-Keizer Transit District, Board Chair • Dan Clem, City of Salem, City Councilor • Dave Cox, FHWA, Division Administrator (non-voting member) • Tom Ritchey, Polk County, County Commissioner • Jeff Scheick, ODOT, Region Manager • Kathy Clark, City of Keizer
Task Force The Task Force (TF) will provide a balanced representation of stakeholder interests, affected communities, and geographic areas as well as a communication link with those interests and communities. Members will include leaders of neighborhoods on both sides of the river as well as representatives of local and regional business groups and advocates for different bridge user groups, including commuters, freight and transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists. Members will be appointed by ODOT and the City of Salem. Responsibilities of the TF members include:
• Represent their constituents’ perspectives during group deliberations
• Communicate project progress with their constituents
• Prepare for and participate in approximately 16 3-hour meetings between October 2006 and December 2008
• Attend four public outreach events between fall of 2006 and December 2008
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 5
DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
• Working to develop consensus recommendations to the OT at each step in the decision process The TF members will include representatives of the following organizations/interest groups:
Agencies: • Tim Potter, ODOT • Bob Cortright, Department of Land Conservation and Development • Mike Jaffe, Mid-Willamete Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG)/Salem- Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) • Aaron Geisler, Polk County Public Works • Cindy Schmitt, Marion County Public Works • Mark Becktel, City of Salem Public Works • Glenn Gross, City of Salem Community Development • Chris Eppley, City of Keizer • Glen Hadley, Salem-Keizer Transit District Neighborhoods and Civic: • Scott Erickson, Chair of West Salem Neighborhood Association • Darlene Strozut, Highland Neighborhood Association Board Member • Lorraine Pullman, Grant Neighborhood Association Board Member • Tom Clark, West Salem Business Interest Groups: • Warren Bednarz, BAR Industries (Metro Area/Downtown Business) • Doug Parrow, Bicycle Transportation Alliance • Russell Beaton, PhD., Retired (Land Use Interest) • Mark Brown, Bureau of Land Management (Natural Resource Interest) • Leon Fisher, Siletz Trucking (Freight Interest) • Mitch Teal, Commercial Investment Associates (Economic Development Interest) • Ismael Perez, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce • Betsey Belshaw, (Parks Interest)
Project Management Team The Project Management Team (PMT) will be comprised of ODOT, City of Salem and consultant project managers, with participation from other key staff resources from these agencies and the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments as needed. The PMT’s responsibilities include:
• Management of project scope, schedule and budget
• Direction, production, and quality assurance of technical and public/agency involvement work
• Assurance of an open, transparent process that incorporates full consideration of public input
• Staff support to the OT and TF
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 6
DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
PMT members include:
• Dan Fricke, ODOT • Julie Warncke, City of Salem • Rod Thompson, ODOT • Dave Simmons, CH2M HILL • Marcy Schwartz, CH2M HILL • Tim Burkhardt, CH2M HILL • Jay McRae, CH2M HILL
Public Involvement Public outreach prior to each of the project decision points will be used to provide the public with meaningful opportunities to affect project outcomes. People will be provided an opportunity to comment on issues that will shortly be decided, so it should be easy to understand why it is important to respond and to believe the input will matter. Planned outreach activities will include a mailing list that will be developed and updated periodically. It will include all those who participated in previous related studies, as well as those who indicate interest in the current project. A series of newsletters will provide updates on project progress to those on the mailing list. Public open houses and workshops, an interactive project website, on-line surveys, and a speakers’ bureau will provide opportunities for information exchange. Specifically, interested persons will be asked to provide input on the:
• Purpose and need for the project • Alternatives evaluation criteria • Alternatives to be considered • Alternatives to be forwarded for detailed analysis in the Draft EIS • Preferred alternative Public input will be actively considered by the TF in making recommendations at each decision point. The public also will have opportunities to provide input to decision-makers throughout the project. Documentation of the public involvement process will be provided in a technical report, including discussion of ways public input influenced the project outcome.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 7
Appendix D Purpose and Need Statement
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
MEMORANDUM
Statement of Purpose and Need This memo, which was adopted by the Oversight Team during their November 11, 2006 meeting after being recommended by the Task Force on November 15, describes the purpose and need for the Salem River Crossing project. Project Purpose The proposed action would improve mobility and safety for people and freight for local, regional, and through travel across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer metropolitan area while alleviating congestion on the Marion and Center Street bridges and on the connecting highway and arterial street systems. Project Need Statements
• Improve existing and future mobility and safety of passenger vehicles
• Improve existing and future mobility and safety of freight vehicles
• Improve existing and future reliability of public transportation
• Improve existing and future mobility and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists
• Minimize traffic disruptions and enable emergency vehicle response in the event of restricted access to and/or closure of the existing bridges due to an emergency or other incident
• Develop a financial strategy for implementation
FINAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED 1
Supporting information for the needs to be addressed by the proposed action includes the following.
Project Need Background / Details Statements
Improve existing Increasing congestion across the river has negatively and future mobility affected vehicle mobility and safety for local, regional, and and safety of through trips. Travel demands are expected to increase in passenger vehicles the future, which will further deteriorate vehicle mobility and safety on the bridges. The Marion and Center Street bridges are among the most critical transportation links in Salem. A little over half of the bridge traffic (54 percent) originates in West Salem, indicating that the bridges are a critical link not only between West Salem and the remainder of Salem but also for regional travel within the Willamette Valley. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on the two bridges is 84,400, higher than the ADT on I-5 at Market Street. Local trips (within the Salem-Keizer urban area), regional trips (between the urban area and outside the urban area), and through trips (originating from a point outside the urban area, through the urban area, ending at another point outside the urban area) represent the three major types of travel demand across the bridges. The region’s growing population and employment has increased travel demand across the river. Between 1995 and 2004, the average annual growth in ADT on the bridges was 1.8 percent. Performance at key intersections is at or exceeds state or local mobility standards. Existing afternoon peak hour traffic exceeds capacity at the Commercial Street/Marion Street, Front Street/Center Street, Liberty Street/Ferry Street intersections in downtown Salem, and the Wallace Road/Glen Creek Road intersection in West Salem. Afternoon peak period traffic volumes are forecasted to double by 2030, which will increase the duration of the peak period considerably. The adopted Oregon Highway Plan mobility standard for the bridges is a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.80. Year 2030 volume-to-capacity ratios for the bridges are forecasted to be 1.07 eastbound and 1.66 westbound during the afternoon peak hour, with approximately 300 vehicle hours of delay, indicating significantly congested conditions. Without additional transportation capacity across the river, the mobility and safety conditions on the bridge system and the connecting infrastructure east and west of the river will continue to deteriorate over time. Increasing congestion has negatively affected safety conditions on the bridges. The 5-year average crash rate on the Center Street Bridge is more than two times higher than the average statewide crash rate. A majority of crashes were rear-end property damage only crashes, indicating congested conditions.
FINAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED 2
Project Need Background / Details Statements
Improve existing Increasing congestion across the river has negatively and future mobility affected freight mobility and safety for local, regional, and and safety of freight through trips. Travel demands are expected to increase in vehicles the future, which will further deteriorate freight mobility and safety on the bridges. Truck mobility and circulation across the bridges is critical to the local, regional, and state economy. The existing bridges are designated as Freight Routes in the Oregon Highway Plan and Regional Freight Roadways in the Regional Transportation System Plan, which recognize their importance to serve as an access and circulation route for the delivery of goods and services into, out of, and within the Salem-Keizer urban area. Truck trips accounted for 4.3 percent of traffic flow across the bridges in 2005. Because of the region’s growing population and employment, freight travel demand across the river has increased an average of 1.8 percent per year between 1995 and 2004. High traffic levels are resulting in increasing levels of delay. The efficiency of freight movement on the bridges is jeopardized by increasing congestion. Performance at key intersections is at or exceeds state or local mobility standards, and existing afternoon peak hour traffic exceeds capacity at several intersections. Therefore, there is a need to maintain and improve the efficiency of freight movement across the river. Increasing congestion has negatively affected safety conditions for trucks on the bridges and afternoon peak period traffic volumes are forecasted to double by 2030, which will increase the duration of the peak period considerably. For more information, see the previous background/details column for the previous need statement.
Improve existing Existing afternoon congestion negatively affects transit and future reliability service reliability across the river today. Congestion is of public forecasted to get worse in the future. transportation Existing afternoon congestion negatively affects transit service reliability between West Salem and the remainder of Salem. During afternoon and early evening hours, 36 percent of the trips on Cherriots Route 25 (connecting West Salem and downtown Salem) are more than 5 minutes late as a result of congestion. Because this route is also dependent upon transfers from other routes, schedule adjustments to account for congestion on the bridges cannot easily be made. Afternoon peak hour congestion is forecasted to double by Year 2030. With no other options to cross the river in the Salem area, congestion will occur over a longer periods of the day. The reliability of existing and any planned improvements to transit FINAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED 3
Project Need Background / Details Statements service between West Salem and the remainder of Salem will be negatively affected by increased congestion, which will negatively affect transit ridership across the river.
Improve existing The existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the and future mobility bridges are minimally adequate or sub-standard, and and safety of connections to and from downtown are indirect and pedestrians and unmarked. bicyclists Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the Marion and Center Street bridges are minimally adequate and in some cases sub- standard. Improvements to these facilities would make walking and bicycling more feasible travel options in Salem. The planned conversion of the Union Street Railroad bridge to a pedestrian and bicycle facility will only partially address these needs. The primary pedestrian and bicycle facility across the river is a two-way 10-foot wide barrier-separated concrete path on the north side of the Center Street Bridge. ODOT standards for a two- way multi-use facility with barriers on both sides call for a minimum 14-foot width. Best practices recommend placement of the path further from the roadway. The Marion Street Bridge has a 5-foot sidewalk on the north side of the bridge separated from traffic lanes by a railing and no on- street bicycle facilities. This width is significantly below standards (see above) and as a result may present safety hazards to users, such as from two-way or mixed pedestrian-bicycle traffic. Pedestrian and bicyclist connections to and from the bridges are unmarked and indirect. On the east side, the two ramps from the barrier-separated path on the Center Street Bridge terminate at Front Street and Water Street and do not provide direct connections to the downtown Salem street system. The west side connection at the Wallace Road intersection is indirect and awkward, in particular for users traveling to and from the west side of Wallace Road. Minimize traffic disruptions and Limited options to cross the river require long detours enable emergency should either bridge be closed. Past events have closed one vehicle response in or both bridges causing traffic disruptions for emergency the event of response, vehicles, and freight. restricted access to The Marion and Center Street bridges are critical east-west and/or closure of the transportation links for local travel, regional travel, and emergency existing bridges due vehicle response. The bridges are designated by Polk County as to an emergency or Priority 1 Lifeline Routes, which means they are considered other incident essential for emergency vehicle response during the first 72 hours after an event. Within the Salem-Keizer urban area, there are no parallel connections across the Willamette River to function as an
FINAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED 4
Project Need Background / Details Statements emergency response route. Past emergencies and other events have closed one or both bridges causing traffic disruptions for vehicles and freight. The only hospital in the Salem-Keizer urban area, the City of Salem Police Department, and nine of the ten City of Salem fire stations are located east of the river. Should either bridge be restricted or closed due to an emergency or other event, there are limited options requiring long detours. The next nearest bridge across the river requires an approximately 25-mile detour south to Independence via OR 51 and River Road South. The nearest bridge across the river to the north is an approximately 60-mile detour through Dayton, Dundee, and Newberg. The Wheatland Road Ferry northwest of Keizer, an approximately 30-mile detour and the Buena Vista Ferry south of Independence, an approximately 40-mile detour, are other river crossing options, provided the ferries are operating. The Wheatland Road Ferry operates 16 hours per day year-round, except holidays and times of high river flow (16 feet or higher). The Buena Vista Ferry only operates 5 days a week, 10 hours per day April through October.
Develop a financial Major bridges are critical links in the transportation system strategy for and are expensive to construct and maintain. A funding plan implementation must be in place before any river crossing solution is constructed. Existing funding sources are not adequate to pay for anticipated project costs. Costs for major transportation projects are frequently funded with a mix of federal, state, and local funds. Existing funding sources are not adequate to pay for anticipated project costs. Therefore, public-private partnerships and user fees are potential sources of funding for this project. Federal and state regulations require that long-range regional transportation plans exhibit "financial constraint," meaning funding must be available to adequately maintain and operate existing transportation facilities and services before calling for the expenditure of resources to expand those systems. Plans must also identify which improvement projects can be implemented using existing and "reasonably anticipated" funding, and which projects require the development of new revenue sources. If new revenue sources are required, a plan must present the actions to be taken to acquire the new funding. A funding plan must be in place before any river crossing solution proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement will be approved for construction.
FINAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED 5
Appendix E Public Involvement Materials
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
APPENDIX E Public Involvement Materials
Appendix E (available on CD) contains Adobe® Acrobat® files with the following titles: ♦ AppE_2006_01_PressRelease_10.25.06.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_02_PressRelease-TF-11.21.06.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_03_salem_newsletter_11_26_06.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_04_SurveyResults_11.2006.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_05_PressRelease-OpenHouses-11.28.06.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_06_12.06_ColoringSheet.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_07_12.06_DisplayBoards.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_08_12.06_FactSheet.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_09_12.06_factsheet_Spanish.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_10_12.06_Orientation_Open House.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_11_12.06_MeetingSummary.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_12_SurveyResults_OpenHouseSummary.pdf ♦ AppE_2006_13_SurveyResults_12.2006.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_01_SurveyResults_01.2007.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_02_PressRelease_2.14.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_03_PressRelease-TF-03.21.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_04_highlandNewsletter_April2007.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_05_PressRelease_4.18.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_06_PressRelease-6.20.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_07_Survey_4.18.07-6.26.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_08_06.07_OpenHouse_Summary.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_09_06.07_ConceptDevelopment_FactSheet-English.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_10_06.07_ConceptDevelopment_FactSheet-Spanish.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_11_06.07_OpenHouse_DisplayBoards.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_12_06.07_openhouse_poster.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_13_06.07_OpenHouse_Presentation.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_14_Survey_6.26.07-7.10.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_15_SurveyResults_6.26.07-7.10.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_16_August2007_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_17_PressRelease_TaskForceMeetings_10.15.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_18_11.8.07_AlternativeHandouts.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_19_11.8.07_DisplayBoards.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_20_11.8.07_Presentation.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_21_Blue+RedAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_22_Survey_November2007.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_23_ForestAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_24_OpenHouseSummary_November2007.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_25_Green+RedAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_26_Orange+RedAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_27_OrangeAlternative_Handout.pdf
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT E-1 ♦ AppE_2007_28_Pink+RedAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_29_PinkAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_30_PressRelease_11.5.07_OpenHouses.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_31_PurpleAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_32_TSM.TDM.LowBuildAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_33_White+RedAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_34_White+RedLightAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_35_WhiteAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_36_Yellow+RedAlternative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_37_YellowAtlernative_Handout.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_38_PressRelease_TaskForce_12.13.07.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_39_December2007_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_40_EmailCommentSummary_DP2.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_41_EmailCommentSummary_DP3.pdf ♦ AppE_2007_42_EmailComment Summary_DP4.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_01_January2008_projectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_02_February2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_03_March2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_04_FundingToolGlossary.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_05_April2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_06_May2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_07_SurveyResults_May2008_Funding.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_08_FundingFAQ.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_09_June2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_10_July2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_11_August2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_12_September2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_13_October2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_14_November2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2008_15_December2008_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_01_January2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_02_March2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_03_April2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_04_May2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_05_June2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_06_July2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_07_August2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_08_September2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_09_October2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2009_10_November2009_ProjectUpdate.pdf ♦ AppE_2010_01_Email Comment Summary.pdf ♦ AppE_2011_FactSheet.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_DecisionMakingProcess-3.26.12.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_Handout_Tabloid.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_newsletter_041212.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_NewsletterSpanish_041212.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_NewsletterSpanish_041212.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_OpenHouse_Presentation_5.4.12.pdf
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT E-2 ♦ AppE_2012_OpenHouse_Presentation_5.4.12.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_Postcard-1.27.12.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_TaskForce_EvaluationTable-082212.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_TaskForce_FeedbackMemo.pdf ♦ AppE_2012_UpdatedOutreachPlan.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_BridgeSummaryTable_062614.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_Funding_Presentation.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_FundingAgenda.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_FundingParticipantGuide.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_FundingWorkshopInvite.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_Newsletter_051414.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_OpenHouse_Boards.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_OpenHouse_CommentForm.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_OpenHouse_SPANISHCommentForm.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_OpenHousePressRelease.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_OT_BridgeTypeProfiles_062514.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_PolicyStatements_012814.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_Pressrelease_FundingWorkshop.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_StatesmanJournal_Article.pdf ♦ AppE_2014_WillametteLive_Article.pdf
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT E-3
Appendix F Agency Involvement
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan
Prepared for
Revised March 10, 2015
Prepared by
Final Report CONTENTS
Section Page Introduction ...... 1-1 Background ...... 1-1 Project Description ...... 1-1 Coordination Plan Execution and Outline ...... 1-15 Agency and Public Participation ...... 2-1 List of Agencies, Roles, and Responsibilities ...... 2-1 Agency Participation ...... 2-1 Lead Agencies ...... 2-1 Cooperating Agencies ...... 2-2 Participating Agencies that are not Cooperating Agencies ...... 2-2 Agencies that Declined or Did Not Respond to the Invitation ...... 2-3 Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) Agency Contact Information ...... 2-4 Agency Contact Information (Last Updated 03/25/14) ...... 2-5 Public Participation ...... 2-9 Coordination Points and Responsibilities...... 3-1 Oversight Team ...... 3-2 Task Force ...... 3-2 Project Management Team ...... 3-3 Project Schedule ...... 4-1 Revision History ...... 5-1 References ...... 6-1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU 6002) requires a project’s lead agencies to establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation during the environmental review process. SAFETEA-LU 6002 applies to projects for which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared and is not optional for such projects. SAFETEA-LU 6002 may be applied to projects being advanced through Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Categorical Exclusions (CEs) at the discretion of the Project’s lead agencies. The purposes of the SAFETEA-LU 6002 coordination plan are to facilitate and document the lead agencies’ structured interaction with the public and other agencies and to inform the public and other agencies of how the coordination plan will be accomplished. The coordination plan is meant to promote an efficient and streamlined process and good project management through coordination, scheduling, and early resolution of issues. SAFETEA-LU 6002 coordination plans should be developed early in the environmental review process after project initiation and should outline the points for review and comment by the participating and cooperating agencies, as well as by the public. This revision to the Coordination Plan for the project updates the following: • Project description to reflect publication of the Salem River Crossing DEIS; • Coordinating and Participating Agencies for the project and agency contact list; • Oversight Team, Task Force, and Project Management Team member lists; and • Project schedule PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Salem River Crossing project will address mobility across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer urban area and on the connecting arterial street system. The Marion and Center Street bridges in Salem (Oregon Highway 22) are the only vehicular crossings of the Willamette River within the Salem-Keizer urban area. Increasing traffic volumes and continued population growth are causing congestion levels on the bridges and the connecting infrastructure to exceed Oregon Highway Plan mobility standards. Without mobility improvements, congestion is forecast to worsen in the future. A reasonable range of alternatives will be considered in the environmental impact statement (EIS), including alternatives identified in the 2002 Willamette River Crossing Study General Corridor Evaluation that are still valid and meet the project purpose and need. A No Build alternative also will be studied. Figure 1-1 shows the project vicinity. The Build alternatives discussed in the DEIS are located at three separate bridge crossing locations, with associated local street system improvements and connections. The Build alternatives at two of the three crossing locations have more than one possible configuration, resulting in eight Build alternatives (see Figure 1-2). The Build alternatives
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-1
would construct a new bridge, improve the existing bridges, or construct a new bridge and improve the existing bridges. The Salem River Crossing DEIS alternatives are discussed in brief below. Additional information on the Salem River Crossing project can be found on the project Web site at http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/. Alternative 1 – No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) examines how the transportation system will operate in the future without building another bridge or modifying the existing bridges. The No Build Alternative will be used as a baseline to compare and measure the other alternatives. Alternative 2A – Widen Existing Bridges Alternative 2A (see Figure 1-3) adds two new lanes to the Marion Street Bridge (plus a connection to the future Marine Drive NW) and one new lane to the Center Street Bridge as well as local street system modifications on the east and west sides of the Willamette River. Alternative 2B – New Bridge from OR 22/Marine Drive to Commercial Street Alternative 2B (see Figure 1-4) includes a new 5-lane bridge to be located north of the Marion Street Bridge (between the Marion and Union Street Bike/Pedestrian bridges) as well as local street system modifications on the east and west sides of the Willamette River. Alternative 3 – New Bridge from Hope to Tryon Alternative 3 (see Figure 1-5) includes a new 6-lane bridge with connections to the Wallace Road NW/Hope Avenue NW intersection on the west and to Tryon Avenue NE and Salem Parkway NE on the east. Alternative 3 would include entrance and exit ramps with the Commercial/Liberty couplet as well as local street system modifications on the east and west sides of the Willamette River. Alternative 4A – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet Alternative 4A (see Figure 1-6) includes a new 6-lane bridge with connections to the Wallace Road NW/Hope Avenue NW intersection on the west and to Pine and Hickory Streets NE at Commercial Street NE on the east. Alternative 4A would also include local street system modifications on the east and west sides of the Willamette River. Alternative 4B – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet and Widen Existing Bridges Alternative 4B (see Figure 1-7) includes the construction elements described for Alternative 4A plus the construction elements described for Alternative 2A as well as local street system modifications on the east and west sides of the Willamette River. Alternative 4C – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet and Direct Connections to Salem Parkway and OR 22; Couplet Extends to 5th Street Alternative 4C (see Figure 1-8) includes a new bridge (same as described for 4A), but the Pine/Hickory Street NE couplet would extend to Broadway Street NE; would include an elevated viaduct on the west side that would provide a direct connection to OR 22; would also include a direct connection to Salem Parkway NE on the east side as well as local street system modifications on the east and west sides of the Willamette River.
PAGE 1-2 COORDINATION PLAN
Alternative 4D – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet and Direct Connections to Salem Parkway and OR 22; Couplet Extends to Liberty Street Alternative 4D (see Figure 1-9) is the same as Alternative 4C but the Pine/Hickory Street NE couplet would extend only to Liberty Street NE (not Broadway Street NE); Alternative 4D would also include local street system modifications on the east and west sides of the Willamette River. Alternative 4E – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet; Direct Connections to Salem Parkway and OR 22; Avoids Direct Impact to West Side of Wallace Marine Park Alternative 4E (see Figure 1-10) is the same as Alternative 4C but the westside elevated viaduct connector to OR 22 would be located slightly farther west, thereby minimizing impacts to Wallace Marine Park; Alternative 4E would also include local street system modifications on the east and west sides of the Willamette River. Locally Preferred Alternative – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet; Couplet Extends to Liberty Street The “Salem Alternative,” now referred to as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), was developed by the Salem City Council after hearing concerns from city residents about potential impacts associated with Alternative 4D. The initial Salem Alternative concept included many of the design elements of Alternative 4D, but minimized potential impacts by: • Removing the viaduct above the future Marine Drive in West Salem; • Removing the elevated “fly-over “ramps from the new bridge to Salem Parkway in North Salem; • Reducing the size and extent of local road modifications, and; • Reducing the number of lanes on the bridge from three to two in each direction.
The project team then refined the initial alternative concept so that it could function efficiently from a traffic engineering perspective, while respecting the policy input provided by the Salem City Council regarding minimizing project footprint. Based on this analysis, a detailed alternative description and map was developed and subsequently recommended as the LPA by the Oversight Team in February 2014. The LPA is shown on Figure 1-11.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-3
Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity
PAGE 1-4 COORDINATION PLAN
Figure 1-2. Project Area: Bridge Crossing Locations
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-5
Figure 1-3. Alternative 2A – Widen Existing Bridges
PAGE 1-6 COORDINATION PLAN
Figure 1-4. Alternative 2B – New Bridge from OR 22/Marine Drive to Commercial Street
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-7
Figure 1-5. Alternative 3 – New Bridge from Hope to Tryon
PAGE 1-8 COORDINATION PLAN
Figure 1-6. Alternative 4A – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-9
Figure 1-7. Alternative 4B – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet and Widen Existing Bridges
PAGE 1-10 COORDINATION PLAN
Figure 1-8. Alternative 4C – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet and Direct Connections to Salem Parkway and OR 22; Couplet Extends to 5th Street
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-11
Figure 1-9. Alternative 4D – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet and Direct Connections to Salem Parkway and OR 22; Couplet Extends to Liberty Street
PAGE 1-12 COORDINATION PLAN
Figure 1-10. Alternative 4E – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet; Direct Connections to Salem Parkway and OR 22; Avoids Direct Impact to West Side of Wallace Marine Park
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-13
Figure 1-11. Locally Preferred Alternative – New Bridge from Hope to Pine/Hickory Couplet; Couplet Extends to Liberty Street
PAGE 1-14 COORDINATION PLAN
COORDINATION PLAN EXECUTION AND OUTLINE
The Salem River Crossing Project has organized a variety of project teams to be involved in project milestone decisions. These teams include representatives of most of the participating agencies in this coordination plan. The coordination points for participating agencies in this coordination plan are the same as the coordination points for the project teams involved in project milestone decisions. The project teams listed below are involved in decisions for Salem River Crossing Project. These teams are described in Section 2 of this Plan.
• Project Management Team • Task Force • Oversight Team In addition, the project will be tracked by signatory agencies of the Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS)1 group. To keep coordination points as simple as possible, the Salem River Crossing Project Team will execute this plan in the following manner.
• The Salem River Crossing Project Management Team will provide information on and discuss coordination points with all project teams (listed above) before seeking comment from CETAS on the coordination point. Involvement of cooperating and participating agencies in these collaborative activities will be documented through meeting notes. • At the time coordination point materials are sent to CETAS for comment, Rod Thompson/ODOT will notify participating agencies of the availability of draft coordination point materials (see Table 2-6). This notification will initiate the 30 day maximum comment period. Participating agencies may provide comments on the coordination point materials in one of three ways: • Notify Rod Thompson/ODOT through e-mail • Notify a member of the agency who belongs to one of the project teams (The fourth column of Table 2-3 identifies individuals within agencies who belong to one or more Salem River Crossing project teams). • Provide your comments on the project web site: www.salemrivercrossing.org • Rod Thompson/ODOT will respond by e-mail that the project team has received the comments. This coordination plan is divided into the following sections:
• Lead/Cooperating/Participating Agencies (Section 2) • Coordination Points and Responsibilities (Section 3) • Project Schedule (Section 4) • Revision History (Section 5)
1 In response to federal directives, CETAS was created as a process to coordinate review of transportation construction projects. The process establishes a working relationship between ODOT and ten federal and state transportation, natural resource, cultural resource, and land-use planning agencies. ODOT uses the CETAS process for all environmental impact statements. For more information, see Appendix A. COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-15
SECTION 2 AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
LIST OF AGENCIES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The agencies below (except for the lead agencies) have been invited by letter to participate in the Salem River Crossing project in the roles identified below. All cooperating and participating agencies will be responsible for the following: • Participate in the scoping process • Provide comments on purpose and need, methodologies, and range of alternatives • Identify any issues of concern regarding the project’s environmental or socioeconomic impacts • Provide timely input on unresolved issues Additional responsibilities are to be determined. AGENCY PARTICIPATION Lead Agencies
TABLE 2-1 Lead Agencies Agency Name Role Responsibilities
Federal Highway Administration Joint Lead Agency Manage 6002 process; prepare EIS; provide (FHWA) opportunity for public & participating/cooperating agency involvement
Oregon Department of Joint Lead Agency Manage 6002 process; prepare EIS; provide Transportation (ODOT) opportunity for public & participating/cooperating agency involvement
City of Salem Joint Lead Agency Manage 6002 process; prepare EIS; provide opportunity for public & participating/cooperating agency involvement
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-1
Cooperating Agencies
TABLE 2-2 Cooperating Agencies Salem River Crossing Agency Name Role Responsibilities Project Team
National Park Service Cooperating Agency 6(f) Review
Polk County Cooperating Agency Jurisdiction west of the Willamette Oversight Team, River Task Force
US Coast Guard Cooperating Jurisdiction over navigable Agency waterways, vertical and horizontal clearance of river crossings
US Corps of Engineers Cooperating Agency Section 404 permit jurisdiction CETAS
Participating Agencies that are not Cooperating Agencies
TABLE 2-3 Participating Agencies Salem River Crossing Agency Name Role Responsibilities Project Team
Federal Emergency Participating Agency Jurisdiction of floodplain and CETAS Management Agency2 floodway of the Willamette River
Federal Transit Participating Agency Compatibility with public transit Administration2
Mid-Willamette Valley Participating Agency Transportation Modeling, Task Force Council of Metropolitan Transportation Governments/SKATS Improvement Plan (MTIP), validity of project modeling, consistency of project with MTIP
National Marine Fisheries Participating Agency ESA jurisdiction on listed species. CETAS Service3 Signs Biological Opinion.
Oregon Department of Participating Agency Land and water use planning for Agriculture state lands
Oregon Department of Fish Participating Agency Input to USACE on 404 permit, input CETAS and Wildlife to USFWS, NMFS on Biological Opinion
Oregon Economic and Participating Agency Economic development, community Community Development development, and cultural Department enhancement
Oregon Water Resources Participating Agency Water supply, water resource Department protection, water resource restoration
2 Invited to be a cooperating agency but no response received; per SAFETEA-LU 6002, federal agencies that do not respond to cooperating agency invitation are automatically designated participating agency status 3 Declined cooperating agency invitation, requested participating agency status PAGE 3-2 COORDINATION PLAN
Salem River Crossing Agency Name Role Responsibilities Project Team
Salem-Keizer School District Participating Agency Project compatibility with school bus travel, student bicycle and pedestrian travel
Salem-Keizer Transit Participating Agency Project compatibility with public Oversight Team, transportation Task Force
Salem Urban Renewal Participating Agency Project compatibility with urban Agency renewal
US Environmental Participating Agency Review of EIS CETAS Protection Agency2
Agencies that Declined or Did Not Respond to the Invitation The following agencies were invited by letter on October 24, 2006, to be cooperating or participating agencies. These agencies either did not respond to the invitation, or sent a response declining involvement as a participating or cooperating agency. Although these agencies will not be designated cooperating or participating agencies for this project, they will be involved as needed throughout the project and some agencies are part of the Salem River Crossing Project Team. Additionally, these agencies are able to comment on the project via the project website and during public comment periods.
TABLE 2-4 Agencies that Declined or did not Respond to the Invitation Agency Name Role Salem River Crossing Project Team
City of Keizer Did not respond Oversight Team, Task Force
City of Keizer Fire District Declined participating agency None invitation
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Did not respond Task Force
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Did not respond None
Federal Aviation Administration Declined participating agency None invitation
Housing and Urban Development Declined participating agency None invitation
Marion County Did not respond Oversight Team, Task Force
Oregon Department of Aviation Did not respond None
Oregon Department of State Lands Declined participating agency CETAS invitation
Oregon Department of Environmental Declined participating agency CETAS Quality invitation
Oregon Department of Land Conservation Did not respond CETAS, and Development Task Force
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-3
Oregon Department of Geology and Did not respond None Mineral Industries
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Did not respond None
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Did not respond CETAS
Salem Housing Authority Did not respond None
West Valley Housing Authority Did not respond None
COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT FOR STREAMLINING (CETAS) AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
CETAS consists of most of the primary state and federal permitting and regulatory agencies. CETAS consists of the following organizations: • Federal: Federal Highway Administration; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and; National Marine Fisheries Service.
• State: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Oregon State Historic Preservation Office; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Oregon Department of State Lands; Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and; Oregon Department of Transportation. CETAS is scheduled to meet monthly and serves as a working group of federal and state resource agencies that provide regulatory guidance and concurrence during major transportation project development. For ODOT projects, CETAS provides concurrence on four project milestones: Purpose and Need, Range of Alternatives, Evaluation Criteria, and the Preferred Alternative. Two of the project’s lead agencies (FHWA and ODOT) and two of the project’s Cooperating Agencies (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are members of CETAS. Three of the project’s Participating Agencies are members of CETAS ( Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). The CETAS Major Transportation Projects Agreement (MTPA) applied to NEPA Class 1 and Class 3 projects has four points at which ODOT needs concurrence from regulatory agencies signatory to the MTPA. These are (1) Purpose and Need (2) Range of Alternatives (3) Criteria for Selection, and (4) Preferred Alternative. CETAS members have elected to participate in the MTPA process and these four concurrence points for the Salem River Crossing project.
PAGE 3-4 COORDINATION PLAN
AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION (LAST UPDATED 03/25/14)
Table 2-5 provides contact information for each of the lead, cooperating, and participating agencies.
TABLE 2-5 Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies (Last Updated 02/24/15) Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Michael Karnosh (503) 879-5211 [email protected] Ceded Lands Coordinator Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 10 Grand Ronde, OR 97347 City of Keizer Cathy Clark (503) 390-3700 [email protected] Mayor City of Keizer P.O. Box 21000 Keizer, OR 97307-1000 Nate Brown (503) 856-3437 [email protected] Community Development Director Community Development P.O. Box 21000 Keizer, OR 97307-1000 City of Salem Anna Peterson [email protected] Mayor 555 Liberty St SE, Room 220, Salem OR 97301 Julie Warncke (503) 588-6211 [email protected] Transportation Planning Manager 555 Liberty Street SE, Room 325 Salem, OR 97301 Federal Emergency Management Agency Joe Weber (425) 487-4657 [email protected] Regional Representative, Region X Federal Regional Center 130 - 228th Street, Southwest Bothell, WA 98021-8627 Kenneth D. Murphy (425) 487-4604 [email protected] Regional Administrator, Region X Ext. 22251 Federal Regional Center 130 - 228th Street, Southwest Bothell, WA 98021-8627 Mark Eberlein (425) 487-4613 [email protected] Regional Environmental Officer, Federal Regional Center Region X 130 - 228th Street, Southwest Bothell, WA 98021-8627 Federal Highway Administration Phillip Ditzler (503) 399-5749 [email protected] Oregon Division Administrator 530 Center Street NE, Suite 420 Salem, OR 97301 Cindy Callahan (503) 399-5479 [email protected] Environmental Specialist/Biologist 530 Center Street NE, Suite 420 Salem, OR 97301 Federal Transit Administration
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-5
Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Richard F. Krochalis (206) 220-7954 [email protected] Regional Administrator, Region 10 Jackson Federal Building 915 Second Avenue, Ste 3142 Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Ned Conroy (206) 220-4318 [email protected] SKATS Liaison Jackson Federal Building 915 Second Avenue, Ste 3142 Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Marion County Sam Brentano (503) 588-5212 [email protected] County Commissioner P.O. Box 14500 Salem, Oregon 97309-5036 Alan Haley (503) 588-5036 [email protected] Public Works Director 5155 Silverton Road NE Salem, OR 97305 Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments/SKATS Mike Jaffe (503) 588-6177 [email protected] MPO Program Manager 105 High Street SE Salem, OR 97301 Nancy Boyer (503) 540-1601 [email protected] Executive Director 105 High Street SE Salem, OR 97301 National Marine Fisheries Service Tom Loynes (541) 957-3380 [email protected] Natural Resources Management [email protected] Specialist (ODOT Liaison) NOAA Fisheries (ODOT) 2900 Stewart Parkway NW Roseburg OR 97470 National Park Service Chris Lehnertz (415) 623-2101 [email protected] Pacific West Region 333 Bush Street, Suite 500 Regional Director San Francisco, CA 94104-2828 Oregon Department of Agriculture Jim Johnson (503) 986-4706 [email protected] Land Use and Water Planning Coordinator Natural Resources Division 635 Capitol Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Dick Pedersen (503) 229-5300 [email protected] Director 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Sally Puent (503) 229-5379 [email protected] 401 Water Quality Certification 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 100 Specialist Portland, OR 97201 Program, Policy, and Project Assistance Division
PAGE 3-6 COORDINATION PLAN
Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Curt Melcher (503) 947-6044 [email protected] Director 4034 Fairview Industrial Dr. SE Salem, Oregon 97302 Art Martin (503) 947-6070 [email protected] Statewide ODOT Transportation 17330 SE Evelyn Street Coordinator; Acting Conservation Clackamas, OR 97015 Program Manager Jon Germond (503) 947-6088 [email protected] Habitat Resources Program Manager 3406 Cherry Avenue Salem, OR 97303 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Gary Fish (503) 373-0050 [email protected] Land Use & Transportation Planning ext.254 635 Capitol Street NE Salem, OR 97303 Oregon Department of State Lands Louise Solliday (503) 986-5224 [email protected] Director 775 Summer St. NE Salem, OR 97301-1279 Russ Klassen (503) 986-5244 [email protected] ODSL-ODOT Liaison 775 Summer Street NE Salem, OR 97301-1279 Oregon Department of Transportation Sonny Chickering (503) 986-2631 [email protected] ODOT Region 2 Manager 455 Airport Road, Bldg B Salem, OR 97301-4989 Dan Fricke (503) 986-2663 [email protected] Project Manager 455 Airport Road SE, Building B Salem, OR 97301 Anna Henson (541) 774-6376 Anna. [email protected] Environmental Project Manager 100 Antelope Road White City, OR 97503 Darlene Weaver (503) 986-4335 [email protected] Senior Environmental Policy 4040 Fairview Industrial Blvd. Analyst/CETAS Coordinator Salem, OR 97302 Oregon Business Development Department (formerly Oregon Economic and Community Development Dept.) Tim McCabe (503) 986-0110 [email protected] Director 775 Summer Street, NE Suite 200 Salem, OR 97301 Oregon Water Resources Department Phil Ward (503) 986-0900 [email protected] Director 725 Summer Street, NE Suite A Salem, OR 97301 Bill Ferber (503) 986-0893 [email protected] Regional Manager 725 Summer Street, NE Suite A Salem, OR 97301
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-7
Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Mike McCord (503) 986-0889 [email protected] Water Master - District 16 (Salem) 725 Summer Street, NE Suite A Salem, OR 97301 Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Matthew Diederich (503) 986-0577 [email protected] 725 Summer Street NE, Suite C Salem, OR 97301 Polk County Craig Pope (503) 623-8173 [email protected] Chair, Board of Commissioners 850 Main Street Dallas, OR 97338 Austin McGuigan (503) 623-9237 [email protected] Community Development Director 820 Ash Street Dallas, OR 97338 Sheriff Robert Wolfe (503) 623-9251 [email protected] 850 Main Street Dallas, OR 97338 Salem-Keizer School District Sandy Husk (503) 399-3001 [email protected] Superintendent PO Box 12024 Salem, OR 97309 Jim Jenney (503) 399-3290 [email protected] Interim Director, Facilities Services 3630 State Street Salem, OR 97301 Salem-Keizer Transit (Cherriots) Robert Krebs, Salem-Keizer Transit (503) 375-2821 [email protected] Board Salem-Keizer Transit 925 Commercial Street SE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97302-4173 Stephen Dickey, Transportation (503) 588-2424 [email protected] Development 555 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 Salem Urban Renewal Agency Linda Norris (503) 588-6255 [email protected] Executive Director 555 Liberty Street SE, Room 220 Salem, OR 97301 John Wales (503) 588-6178 [email protected] Director, Urban Development ext. 7586 350 Commercial Street NE Salem, OR 97301 Doug Rux (503) 588-6178 [email protected] Assistant Director, Urban Development ext. 7498 350 Commercial Street NE Salem, OR 97301 US Coast Guard Steve Fischer (206)220-7282 Federal 13th Coast Guard, Bridge Program 915 2nd Avenue, Room 3510 Bridge Program Administrator Seattle, WA. 98174-1067
PAGE 3-8 COORDINATION PLAN
Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses John J. Greene, PMP (206) 220-7277 [email protected] Environmental Policy Analyst, ECS Federal 13th Coast Guard District Waterways Management, Bridge Program 915 2nd Avenue, Room 3510 Seattle, WA. 98174-1067 US Army Corps of Engineers Col. Thomas E. O’Donovan (503) 808-4500 Thomas.E.O'[email protected] Commander/ District Engineer 333 SW First Avenue Portland District P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208 Dominic Yballe (503) 808-4392 [email protected] ODOT-Corps Regulatory Liaison 333 SW First Avenue P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208 US Environmental Protection Agency Yvonne Vallette (503) 326-2716 [email protected] Wetlands/Watershed Coordinator 811 SW 6th Avenue 3rd Floor Portland, OR 97204 Anthony Barber (503) 326-6890 [email protected] Director, Oregon Operations Office 811 SW 6th Avenue (OOO) 3rd Floor Portland, OR 97204 US Fish and Wildlife Service Robyn Thorson (503) 231-6118 [email protected] Pacific Regional Director Pacific Region 911 NE 11th Ave Portland, Oregon 97232 David Leal (503) 231-6179 [email protected] Fish and Wildlife Biologist 2600 SE 98th Ave, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97266
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Starting during Phase 1 of the project (development of a management structure and decision process, definition of the roles of the participants, and development of a process to make decisions process), the public involvement program for the Salem River Crossing project has been used to educate and involve the public and stakeholders, and to give them an opportunity to become active participants in shaping the project. There have been many activities available for the public to become involved in the Salem River Crossing project. Activities include open houses and workshops, newsletters, and a project website. Section 3, Coordination Points and Responsibilities, provides specific information on activities for coordination with the public.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-9
SECTION 3 COORDINATION POINTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Table 3-1 provides a list of key coordination points and agencies responsible for activities during that coordination point.
TABLE 3-1 Responsibilities of Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies Coordination Agency Agency Point Information Out Responsible Information In Responsible
Notice of Intent Publish notice Federal FHWA Comments on Notice All cooperating Register; invite agencies and ODOT of Intent within 30 and participating public to public scoping City of Salem days of information agencies meeting out
Purpose and Notify participating agencies FHWA Comments on All cooperating Need1 and public of availability of ODOT Purpose and Need and participating draft purpose and need City of Salem within 30 days of agencies statement; solicit comments; information out hold scoping meeting
Range of Notify participating agencies FHWA Comments on All cooperating Alternatives1 and public of availability of ODOT Range of and participating information regarding alter- City of Salem Alternatives within agencies natives being considered; 30 days of solicit comments information out
Collaboration on Notify participating agencies FHWA Comments on Cooperating impact of availability of draft impact ODOT impact assessment Agencies assessment assessment methodologies; City of Salem methodologies within methodologies1 solicit comments. 30 days of information out
Circulation of Provide draft EIS to FHWA Comments on the All cooperating Study Committee participating agencies ODOT Study Committee and participating Draft EIS City of Salem Draft EIS within 30 agencies days of information out
Identification of Notify participating agencies FHWA Comments on the All cooperating Preferred of the preferred alternative ODOT Preferred Alternative and participating Alternative City of Salem within 30 days of agencies information out
1 For CETAS signatory agencies, comments at these coordination points will be solicited through the CETAS Technical Team meetings for this project.
The project teams that are involved in decisions for Salem River Crossing Project (Project Management Team, Task Force, and Oversight Team) are described below.
• Project Management Team • Task Force • Oversight Team
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-1
OVERSIGHT TEAM
The Oversight Team (OT) includes elected or appointed officials of local agencies and jurisdictions with regulatory responsibility for or strong interest in the project. Responsibilities of the OT include:
• Set the policy framework for the project. • Represent the interests of their agencies or jurisdictions in group deliberations. • Communicate project progress to their fellow elected or appointed officials, and to their constituents. • Prepare for and participate in approximately 10 2-hour meetings between September 2006 and December 2008 • Review recommendations from the Task Force and other background materials and make decisions at the six decision points in the project. Members of the OT represent their organizations in making the first five of these decisions. For the sixth decision point (Preferred Alternative), the OT will recommend a preferred alternative to the Polk and Marion County Boards, Salem City Council, and SKATS for formal approval. The group will be comprised of:
• Sam Brentano, Marion County, County Commissioner • Robert Krebs, Salem-Keizer Transit District, Board President • Dan Clem, City of Salem, City Councilor • Emily Lawton, FHWA, Division Administrator (non-voting member) • Craig Pope, Polk County, County Commissioner • Sonny Chickering, ODOT, Region 2 Manager • Cathy Clark, City of Keizer, City Councilor The above list was updated March 25, 2014. TASK FORCE
The Task Force (TF) provides a balanced representation of stakeholder interests, affected communities, and geographic areas as well as a communication link with those interests and communities. Members will include leaders of neighborhoods on both sides of the river as well as representatives of local and regional business groups and advocates for different bridge user groups, including commuters, freight and transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists. Members will be appointed by ODOT and the City of Salem. Responsibilities of the TF members include:
• Represent their constituents’ perspectives during group deliberations • Communicate project progress with their constituents • Prepare for and participate in approximately 16 3-hour meetings between October 2006 and December 2008 • Attend four public outreach events between fall of 2006 and December 2008 • Working to develop consensus recommendations to the OT at each step in the decision process The TF members include representatives of the following organizations/interest groups:
PAGE 3-2 COORDINATION PLAN
Agencies: • Tim Potter, ODOT • Bob Cortright, Department of Land Conservation and Development • Mike Jaffe, Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG)/Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) • Austin McGuigan, Polk County Community Development • Cindy Schmitt, Marion County Public Works • Mark Becktel, City of Salem Public Works • Glenn Gross, City of Salem Community Development • Sam Litke, City of Keizer • Steve Dickey, Salem-Keizer Transit District • Cindy Callahan, FHWA Neighborhoods and Civic: • Don Homuth, Co-Chair of West Salem Neighborhood Association • Darlene Strozut, Highland Neighborhood Association Board Member • Eric Bradfield, Grant Neighborhood Association Board Member • Warren Bednarz, West Salem Business (West Salem Redevelopment Advisory Board) • Tom Clark, West Salem Businesses Interest Groups: • Warren Bednarz, BAR Industries (Metro Area/Downtown Business) • Doug Parrow, Bicycle Transportation Alliance • Russell Beaton, PhD., Retired (Land Use Interest) • Mark Brown, Bureau of Land Management (Natural Resource Interest) • Leon Fisher, Siletz Trucking (Freight Interest) • Jose Lopez and Manuel Arellano, Residents (Hispanic Community Interest) • Betsey Belshaw (Parks Interest) • Mike Karnosh, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde • Fred Harris, North Salem Business Association The above list was updated March 25, 2014. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM
The Project Management Team (PMT) will be comprised of ODOT, City of Salem and consultant project managers, with participation from other key staff resources from these agencies and the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments as needed. The PMT’s responsibilities include:
• Management of project scope, schedule, and budget • Direction, production, and quality assurance of technical and public/agency involvement work COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-3
• Assurance of an open, transparent process that incorporates full consideration of public input • Staff support to the OT and TF PMT members include:
• Dan Fricke/ODOT • Julie Warncke/City of Salem • Anna Henson/ODOT • Mike Jaffe/MWVCOG • Austin McGuigan/Polk County • Dave Simmons/CH2M HILL • Michael Hoffmann/CH2M HILL The above list was updated February 24, 2015. The CETAS Major Transportation Projects Agreement (MTPA) applied to NEPA Class 1 and Class 3 projects has four points at which ODOT needs concurrence from regulatory agencies signatory to the MTPA. These are (1) Purpose and Need (2) Range of Alternatives (3) Criteria for Selection, and (4) Preferred Alternative. CETAS members have elected to participate in the MTPA process and these four concurrence points for the Salem River Crossing project. The decision-making structure for the Salem River Crossing Project is shown on Figure 3-2. The composition, roles, and responsibilities of each group are described below.
PAGE 3-4 COORDINATION PLAN
FIGURE 3-2 Decision-Making Structure
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-5
SECTION 4 PROJECT SCHEDULE
TABLE 4-1 Schedule of Key Project Milestones Milestone Actual Date Anticipated Date
Notice of Intent November 13, 2006
Purpose and Need November 22, 2006
Range of Alternatives for Preliminary Evaluation August 2007
Alternatives for EIS December 2007
Collaboration on Impact Assessment Methodologies January 2008
Circulation of Study Committee DEIS April 20, 2012
Identification of Preferred Alternative February 6, 2014
Circulation of FEIS September 2015
Issue Record of Decision Early 2016
.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 4-1
SECTION 5 REVISION HISTORY
As the Salem River Crossing Project progresses, revisions to this Coordination Plan will be documented in Table 5-1.
TABLE 5-1 Coordination Plan Revision History Version Date Document Name Revision Description and Why Necessary
1 10/18/06 DRAFT SAFETEA-LU 6002 First Draft Coordination Plan
2 01/26/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan Updated to included responses to invitations to requests to be cooperating or participating agencies and to reflect comments from Agency Scoping Meeting on November 30, 2006
3 03/19/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan Updated point of contact information and clarified agencies that declined the cooperating or participating agency invitation, but said would participate through CETAS
4 04/18/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan Updated cooperating agency table to reflect Polk County as a cooperating agency
5 05/21/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated Table 2-4 and Appendix A to Coordination Plan include Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde on the Task Force as of May 2007. Also updated the format of the document.
6 8/3/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated participating agency table to Coordination Plan reflect Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde (Table 2-3) as a participating agency, updated FEMA point of contact information (Table 2-5), and updated the project schedule (Table 3-1)
7 9/18/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated contact information for the FHWA Coordination Plan Division Administrator
8 9/21/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated status of US Army Corps of Coordination Plan Engineers from Participating to Cooperating status after receiving their acceptance letter.
9 01/14/08 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan Updated agency contact information in Table 2-5 (FHWA, USFWS, NMFS, USCG, FTA, ODFW, ODSL, and DEQ contact information), revised Table 2-6 to include the identification of a preferred alternative as a coordination point, and revised Table 3-1 to illustrate project schedule of coordination points.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 5-1
10 10/9/09 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan Updated agency contact information to include the National Park Service and alphabetized the contacts.
11 04/19/10 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan Updated agency contact information (FHWA), Task Force and Oversight Team information, and schedule.
12 04/12/12 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan Updated the project description to reflect publication of the Salem River Crossing DEIS, agency contact list for project Coordinating and Participating Agencies, member list for the project Oversight Team, Task Force, and Project Management Team, and project schedule.
13 03/25/14 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan Added the Salem Alternative description and map. Updated footnotes and contact list for Coordinating and Participating Agencies; member list for project Oversight Team and Task Force; and project schedule.
PAGE 5-2 COORDINATION PLAN
SECTION 6 REFERENCES
• AASHTO Practitioner’s Handbook 09, January 2008
• FHWA Final Guidance, SAFETEA-LU Environmental Review Process, November 15, 2006
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 6-1
SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan
Prepared for
April 22, 2010
Prepared by
Final Report CONTENTS
Section Page Introduction ...... 1-1 Coordination Plan Execution ...... 1-1 Organization...... 1-2 Lead/Cooperating/Participating Agencies ...... 2-1 List of Agencies, Roles, and Responsibilities ...... 2-1 Lead Agencies ...... 2-1 Cooperating Agencies ...... 2-1 Participating Agencies ...... 2-2 Agencies that Declined the Invitation ...... 2-3 Agency Contact Information ...... 2-4 Coordination Points and Responsibilities ...... 2-9 Project Schedule ...... 3-1 Revision History ...... 4-1 Appendix ...... A-1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE COORDINATION PLAN Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU 6002) requires a project’s lead agencies to establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation during the environmental review process. SAFETEA-LU 6002 applies to projects for which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared and is not optional for such projects. SAFETEA-LU 6002 may be applied to projects being advanced through Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Categorical Exclusions (CEs) at the discretion of the Project’s lead agencies. The purposes of the SAFETEA-LU 6002 coordination plan are to facilitate and document the lead agencies’ structured interaction with the public and other agencies and to inform the public and other agencies of how the coordination plan will be accomplished. The coordination plan is meant to promote an efficient and streamlined process and good project management through coordination, scheduling, and early resolution of issues. SAFETEA-LU 6002 coordination plans should be developed early in the environmental review process after project initiation and should outline the points for review and comment by the participating and cooperating agencies, as well as by the public.
PROJECT BACKGROUND The Salem River Crossing project will address mobility across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer urban area and on the connecting arterial street system. The Marion and Center Street bridges in Salem (Oregon Highway 22) are the only vehicular crossings of the Willamette River within the Salem-Keizer urban area. Increasing traffic volumes and continued population growth are causing congestion levels on the bridges and the connecting infrastructure to exceed Oregon Highway Plan mobility standards. Without mobility improvements, congestion is forecast to worsen in the future. A reasonable range of alternatives will be considered in the environmental impact statement (EIS), including alternatives identified in the 2002 Willamette River Crossing Study General Corridor Evaluation that are still valid and meet the project purpose and need. A No Build alternative also will be studied. Additional information on the Salem River Crossing project can be found on the project Web site at www.salemrivercrossing.org. Figure 1 shows the project vicinity.
COORDINATION PLAN EXECUTION The Salem River Crossing Project has organized a variety of project teams to be involved in project milestone decisions. These teams include representatives of most of the participating agencies in this coordination plan. The coordination points for participating agencies in this
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 1-1
coordination plan are the same as the coordination points for the project teams involved in project milestone decisions. An appendix is attached to this plan that explains the composition and role of each of these teams. The following are the project teams involved in decisions for Salem River Crossing Project:
Project Management Team Task Force Oversight Team In addition, the project will be tracked by signatory agencies of the Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS)1 group. To keep coordination points as simple as possible, the Salem River Crossing Project Team will execute this plan in the following manner.
The Salem River Crossing Project Management Team will provide information on and discuss coordination points with all project teams (listed above) before seeking comment from CETAS on the coordination point. Involvement of cooperating and participating agencies in these collaborative activities will be documented through meeting notes.
At the time coordination point materials are sent to CETAS for comment, Rod Thompson/ODOT will notify participating agencies of the availability of draft coordination point materials (see Table 2-6). This notification will initiate the 30 day maximum comment period. Participating agencies may provide comments on the coordination point materials in one of three ways:
Notify Rod Thompson/ODOT through e-mail Notify a member of the agency who belongs to one of the project teams (The fourth column of Table 2-3 identifies individuals within agencies who belong to one or more Salem River Crossing project teams). Provide your comments on the project web site: http://www.salemrivercrossing.org
Rod Thompson/ODOT will respond by e-mail that the project team has received the comments.
ORGANIZATION This coordination plan is divided into the following sections:
Lead/Cooperating/Participating Agencies (Section 2) Coordination Points and Responsibilities (Section 3) Project Schedule (Section 4) Revision History (Section 5)
1 In response to federal directives, CETAS was created as a process to coordinate review of transportation construction projects. The process establishes a working relationship between ODOT and ten federal and state transportation, natural resource, cultural resource, and land-use planning agencies. ODOT uses the CETAS process for all environmental impact statements. For more information, see Appendix A. PAGE 1-2 COORDINATION PLAN
Figure 1 Salem River Crossing Project 99 219 5 Project Vicinity 99 221 D R
E L A D Y R R ZENA RD E
P B
R GR AZEL U H S CHEMAW A RD H
C O L Keizer L E 22 GE RD
99 D
R
RIVER RD RIVER N
O
D
R
Y O K C P M E L A O S R D C 213 H R PORTLAND RD A R D D Y R HEIGHTS RD ON R S ERT Highways R LANA AVE IL V
T
E S F
Y
S
A
T
K
S
A W
O D Y Major Arterials
T D A
R W O
E R A B B L I L L SUNNYVIEW RD A C Urban Growth E RKET ST MA R
D
CAPITOL ST D
R
Boundary
N
45TH AVE
Y O W ER ST D H CENT S R SALEM HWY LL A ELLENDALE RD DA STATE ST O
C 22 County Boundary Dallas M IS S IO City Limits N r ST Y 99 e W H v i E 99 MACLEAY RD C R
N 12TH ST E e D t
25TH ST N t E e CULVER DR P GAFFIN RD E D m IN a VE l MADRON A A l 5 51 i A Salem IR W W AUMSVILLE HWY D D A R R Y GANO R D E Y R IV T R R E B I L . . o o
C C K B T UE A U k n LVD T R l B LER B T N COMMERCIAL ST o L E o i E R r C P R a R D E
E D K M R
D S S R E R N G N U D SPRI LI E N VITA Y K N S Y
S I D E
R Independence D
024 Miles
99
File Path: \\Rosa\proj\ODOT\346520\GIS\mxds\Figure1_Project_Vicinity.mxd, Date: September 20, 2006 6:57:21 AM
SECTION 2 LEAD/COOPERATING/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
LIST OF AGENCIES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES The agencies below (except for the lead agencies) have been invited by letter to participate in the Salem River Crossing project in the roles identified below. All cooperating and participating agencies will be responsible for the following: Participate in the scoping process Provide comments on purpose and need, methodologies, and range of alternatives Identify any issues of concern regarding the project’s environmental or socioeconomic impacts Provide timely input on unresolved issues Additional responsibilities are to be determined. Lead Agencies
TABLE 2-1 Lead Agencies Agency Name Role Responsibilities
Federal Highway Administration Joint Lead Agency Manage 6002 process; prepare EIS; provide (FHWA) opportunity for public & participating/cooperating agency involvement
Oregon Department of Transportation Joint Lead Agency Manage 6002 process; prepare EIS; provide (ODOT) opportunity for public & participating/cooperating agency involvement
City of Salem Joint Lead Agency Manage 6002 process; prepare EIS; provide opportunity for public & participating/cooperating agency involvement Cooperating Agencies
TABLE 2-2 Cooperating Agencies Salem River Crossing Agency Name Role Responsibilities Project Team
National Park Service Cooperating Agency 6(f) Review
Polk County Cooperating Agency Jurisdiction west of the Willamette Oversight Team, River Task Force
US Corps of Engineers Cooperating Agency Section 404 permit jurisdiction CETAS
US Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperating Agency ESA jurisdiction. Provide comments CETAS on listed species and wildlife impacts. Signs Biological Opinion.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 2-1
Participating Agencies
TABLE 2-3 Participating Agencies Salem River Crossing Agency Name Role Responsibilities Project Team
Confederated Tribes of Participating Agency Project compatibility with Tribes’ Task Force Grand Ronde mission and interests
Federal Emergency Participating Agency Jurisdiction of floodplain and CETAS Management Association3 floodway of the Willamette River
Federal Transit Participating Agency Compatibility with public transit Administration2
Mid-Willamette Valley Participating Agency Transportation Modeling, Task Force Council of Metropolitan Transportation Governments/SKATS Improvement Plan (MTIP), validity of project modeling, consistency of project with MTIP
National Marine Fisheries Participating Agency ESA jurisdiction on listed species. CETAS Service3 Signs Biological Opinion.
Oregon Department of Participating Agency Land and water use planning for Agriculture state lands
Oregon Department of Fish Participating Agency Input to USACE on 404 permit, input CETAS and Wildlife to USFWS, NMFS on Biological Opinion
Oregon Economic and Participating Agency Economic development, community Community Development development, and cultural Department enhancement
Oregon Water Resources Participating Agency Water supply, water resource Department protection, water resource restoration
Salem-Keizer School District Participating Agency Project compatibility with school bus travel, student bicycle and pedestrian travel
Salem-Keizer Transit Participating Agency Project compatibility with public Oversight Team, transportation Task Force
Salem Urban Renewal Participating Agency Project compatibility with urban Agency renewal
US Coast Guard3 Participating Agency Jurisdiction over navigable waterways, vertical and horizontal clearance of river crossings
US Environmental Participating Agency Review of EIS CETAS Protection Agency3
2 Invited to be a cooperating agency but no response received; per SAFETEA-LU 6002, federal agencies that do not respond to cooperating agency invitation are automatically designated participating agency status 3 Declined cooperating agency invitation, requested participating agency status PAGE 2-2 COORDINATION PLAN
Agencies that Declined or Did Not Respond to the Invitation The following agencies were invited by letter on October 24, 2006, to be cooperating or participating agencies. These agencies either did not respond to the invitation, or sent a response declining involvement as a participating or cooperating agency. Although these agencies will not be designated cooperating or participating agencies for this project, they will be involved as needed throughout the project and some agencies are part of the Salem River Crossing Project Team. Additionally, these agencies are able to comment on the project via the project website and during public comment periods.
TABLE 2-4 Agencies that Declined or did not Respond to the Invitation Salem River Crossing Project Agency Name Role Team
City of Keizer Did not Respond Oversight Team, Task Force
City of Keizer Fire District Declined participating None agency invitation
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Did not respond None
Federal Aviation Administration Declined participating None agency invitation
Housing and Urban Development Declined participating None agency invitation
Marion County Did not respond Oversight Team, Task Force
Oregon Department of Aviation Did not respond None
Oregon Department of State Lands4 Declined participating CETAS agency invitation
Oregon Department of Environmental Declined participating CETAS Quality4 agency invitation
Oregon Department of Land Conservation Did not respond CETAS, and Development5 Task Force
Oregon Department of Geology and Did not respond None Mineral Industries
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Did not respond None
Oregon State Historic Preservation Did not respond CETAS Office5
Salem Housing Authority Did not respond None
West Valley Housing Authority Did not respond None
4 Declined cooperating agency invitation, but agency will track the project through CETAS 5 Did not respond to participating agency invitation, but agency will track the project through CETAS COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 2-3
AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION The following provides contact information for each of the lead, cooperating, and participating agencies.
TABLE 2-5 Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies Salem River Crossing Project Agency Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Team
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Point of Michael Karnosh (503) 879-2383 [email protected] Task Force Contact: Ceded Lands Coordinator g Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 10 Grand Ronde, OR 97347 City of Keizer Point of (503) Contact: Keizer, OR 97 City of Salem Point of Julie Warncke (503) 588-6211 [email protected] PMT Contact: Transportation Planning 555 Liberty Street SE, Room 325 Manager Salem, OR 97301 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Letter Dennis Hunsinger (425) 487-4735 [email protected] mailed to: Acting Regional Director, 130 228th Street SW Region X Bothell, WA 98021
Point of Susan Reinertson (425) 487-4610 [email protected] Contact: Regional Administrator 130 228th Street SW Region X Bothell, WA 98021
Point of Mark Eberlein (425) 487-4735 [email protected] Contact: Regional Environmental 130 228th Street SW Officer, Region X Bothell, WA 98021
Federal Highway Administration Phillip Ditzler, Oregon (503) 399-5749 [email protected] Division Administrator 530 Center Street NE Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301 Point of Chris Woods (503) 587-4703 [email protected] Contact: Planning and Program 530 Center Street NE, Suite 100 Development Salem, OR 97301
Federal Transit Administration
Letter Richard F. Krochalis (206) 220-7954 915 Second Avenue, Suite 3142 mailed to, Regional Administrator, Seattle, WA 98714 Region 10
PAGE 2-4 COORDINATION PLAN
Salem River Crossing Project Agency Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Team
Point of Ned Conroy (206) 220-7954 [email protected] Contact: SKATS Liason 915 Second Avenue, Suite 3142 Seattle, WA 98714
Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments/SKATS Letter Richard Schmid, Interim (503) 588-6177 [email protected] mailed to: Executive Director 105 High Street SE Salem, OR 97301 Point of Mike Jaffe, MPO Program (503) 588-6177 [email protected] Task Force Contact: Manager 105 High Street SE Salem, OR 97301 National Marine Fisheries Service Letter Bob Lohn (206) 526-6150 7600 Sand Point Way NE mailed to: Regional Administrator Seattle, WA 98115 Northwest Region Point of Devin Simmons (503) 231-2313 [email protected] CETAS Contact: National Marine Fisheries 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd. Suite 1100 Service (CETAS Member) Portland, OR 97232 National Park Service
Point of Gloria Shinn (206) 220-4126 [email protected] Contact: Pacific West Region 909 1st Avenue, 5th Floor LWCF/UPARR Project Seattle, WA 98104-1060 Manager
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Point of Jim Johnson (503) 986-4706 [email protected] Contact: Natural Resources Division Land Use and Water 635 Capitol Street NE Planning Coordinator Salem, Oregon 97301
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Letter Stephanie Hallock, (503) 229-5300 [email protected] mailed to: Director 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Point of Barbara Cisneros, (503) 229-5696 [email protected] CETAS Contact: Program, Policy, and 811 SW Sixth Avenue Project Assistance Portland, OR 97204 Division (CETAS Member) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Letter Roy Elicker, Director (503) 947-6044 Roy.Elicker.state.or.us mailed to: 3406 Cherry Ave. NE Salem, Oregon 97303
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 2-5
Salem River Crossing Project Agency Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Team
Point of Art Martin, Statewide (503) 947-6070 [email protected] CETAS Contact: ODOT Transportation 17330 SE Evelyn Street Coordinator (CETAS Clackamas, OR 97015 Member) Oregon Department of State Lands Letter Louise Solliday, Director (503) 378-3805 [email protected] mailed to: ext. 224 775 Summer St. NE Salem, OR 97301-1279 Point of Russ Klassen, ODSL- (503) 986-5244 [email protected] CETAS Contact: ODOT Liaison 775 Summer Street NE (CETAS Member) Salem, OR 97301-1279 Oregon Department of Transportation Point of Dan Fricke (503) 986-2663 [email protected] PMT Contact: Project Manager 455 Airport Road SE, Building B Salem, OR 97301 Point of Rod Thompson (503) 986-2690 [email protected] PMT Contact: Environmental Project 455 Airport Road SE, Building B Manager Salem, OR 97301 Oregon Economic and Community Development Letter Bob Repine (503) 986-0110 [email protected] mailed to: Director 775 Summer Street, NE Suite 200 Salem, OR 97301 Point of Ann Hanus [email protected] Contact: 775 Summer Street, NE Suite 200 Salem, OR 97301
Oregon Water Resources Department Letter Phil Ward, Director (503) 986-0910 [email protected] mailed to: 725 Summer Street, NE Suite A Salem, OR 97301 Point of Bill Ferber (503) 986-0893 [email protected] Contact: 725 Summer Street, NE Suite A Salem, OR 97301 Polk County Letter Mike Propes, (503) 623-8173 [email protected] mailed to: Chair, Board of 850 Main Street Commissioners Dallas, OR 97338 Received Gene Clemens (503) 623-9237 [email protected] a Copy: Acting Director 850 Main Street Community Development Dallas, OR 97338 Point of Austin McGuigan (503) 623-9237 [email protected] Task Force Contact: Community Development 820 Ash Street Director Dallas, OR 97338
PAGE 2-6 COORDINATION PLAN
Salem River Crossing Project Agency Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Team
Received Sheriff Robert Wolfe (503) 623-9251 [email protected] a Copy: 850 Main Street Dallas, OR 97338 Salem-Keizer School District Letter Sandy Husk (503) 399-3001 [email protected] mailed to: Superintendent PO Box 12024 Salem, OR 97309 Point of Ron DeWilde (503) 399-3097 [email protected] Contact: Director, Facilities 3630 State Street Services Salem, OR 97301 Salem-Keizer Transit Letter Lloyd Chapman (503) 588-2424 555 Court Street, NE Oversight mailed to: President, Board of Salem, OR 97301 Team Directors Point of Glen Hadley (503) 588-2424 [email protected] Task Force Contact: Transportation Planner 555 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 Salem Urban Renewal Agency Letter Robert G. Wells (503) 588-6255 [email protected] mailed to: Executive Director 555 Liberty Street SE, Room 220 Salem, OR 97301 Point of Rick Scott, Director (503) 588-6178 [email protected] Contacts: ext. 7498 350 Commercial Street NE Salem, OR 97301 Dan Riordan, Senior (503) 588-6178 [email protected] Project Manager ext. 7552 350 Commercial Street NE Salem, OR 97301
US Coast Guard
Letter Captain Patrick Gerrity (503) 240-9314 6767 N. Basin Avenue mailed to, Sector Portland Portland, OR 97217
Point of William (Austin) Pratt (206) 220-7282 [email protected] Contact: Chief, Bridge Section Thirteenth Coast Guard District 915 Second Avenue, Room 3510 Seattle, WA 97174-1067
US Army Corps of Engineers Letter Col. Thomas E. (503) 808-4500 Thomas.E.O'[email protected] mailed to: O’Donovan, Commander/ 333 SW First Avenue District Engineer P.O. Box 2946 Portland District Portland, OR 97208 Point of Dominic Yballe, ODOT- (503) 808-4392 [email protected] CETAS Contact: Corps Regulatory Liaison 333 SW First Avenue (CETAS Member) P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 2-7
Salem River Crossing Project Agency Contact Person/Title Phone E-mail and Mailing Addresses Team
US Environmental Protection Agency Letter Ron Kreizenbeck, Acting (206) 553-1234 U.S. EPA, Region 10 mailed to: Regional Administrator 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Point of Yvonne Vallette, (503) 326-2716 [email protected] CETAS Contact: Wetlands/Watershed 811 SW 6th Avenue Coordinator (CETAS 3rd Floor Member) Portland, OR 97204 US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter Ren Lohoefener, Acting (503) 231-6828 911 NE 11th Ave mailed to: Pacific Regional Director Portland, OR 97232 Point of David Leal (503) 231-6179 [email protected] Contact: 2600 SE 98th Ave, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97266
PAGE 2-8 COORDINATION PLAN
COORDINATION POINTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
TABLE 2-6 Responsibilities of Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies Coordination Agency Agency Point Information Out Responsible Information In Responsible
Notice of Intent Publish notice Federal FHWA Comments on Notice All cooperating Register; invite agencies and ODOT of Intent within 30 and participating public to public scoping City of Salem days of information agencies meeting out
Purpose and Notify participating agencies FHWA Comments on All cooperating Need1 and public of availability of ODOT Purpose and Need and participating draft purpose and need City of Salem within 30 days of agencies statement; solicit comments; information out hold scoping meeting
Range of Notify participating agencies FHWA Comments on All cooperating Alternatives1 and public of availability of ODOT Range of and participating information regarding alter- City of Salem Alternatives within agencies natives being considered; 30 days of solicit comments information out
Collaboration on Notify participating agencies FHWA Comments on Cooperating impact of availability of draft impact ODOT impact assessment Agencies assessment assessment methodologies; City of Salem methodologies within methodologies1 solicit comments. 30 days of information out
Circulation of Provide draft EIS to FHWA Comments on the All cooperating Study Committee participating agencies ODOT Study Committee and participating Draft EIS City of Salem Draft EIS within 30 agencies days of information out
Identification of Notify participating agencies FHWA Comments on the All cooperating Preferred of the preferred alternative ODOT Preferred Alternative and participating Alternative City of Salem within 30 days of agencies information out
1 For CETAS signatory agencies, comments at these coordination points will be solicited through the CETAS Technical Team meetings for this project.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 2-9
SECTION 3 PROJECT SCHEDULE
TABLE 3-1 Schedule of Key Project Milestones Milestone Actual Date Anticipated Date
Notice of Intent November 13, 2006
Purpose and Need November 22, 2006
Range of Alternatives for Preliminary August 2007 Evaluation
Alternatives for EIS December 2007
Collaboration on Impact Assessment January 2008 Methodologies
Circulation of Study Committee DEIS Summer 2010
Identification of Preferred Alternative Winter/Spring 2011
Circulation of FEIS TBD
Issue Record of Decision TBD
.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 3-1
SECTION 4 REVISION HISTORY
As the Salem River Crossing Project progresses, revisions to this Coordination Plan will be documented in the table below.
TABLE 4-1 Coordination Plan Revision History
TABLE 4-1 Coordination Plan Revision History Revision Description and Why Version Date Document Name Necessary
1 10/18/06 DRAFT SAFETEA-LU First Draft 6002 Coordination Plan
2 01/26/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated to included responses to Coordination Plan invitations to requests to be cooperating or participating agencies and to reflect comments from Agency Scoping Meeting on November 30, 2006
3 03/19/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated point of contact information and Coordination Plan clarified agencies that declined the cooperating or participating agency invitation, but said would participate through CETAS
4 04/18/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated cooperating agency table to Coordination Plan reflect Polk County as a cooperating agency
5 05/21/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated Table 2-4 and Appendix A to Coordination Plan include Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde on the Task Force as of May 2007. Also updated the format of the document.
6 8/3/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated participating agency table to Coordination Plan reflect Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde (Table 2-3) as a participating agency, updated FEMA point of contact information (Table 2-5), and updated the project schedule (Table 3-1)
7 9/18/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated contact information for the FHWA Coordination Plan Division Administrator
8 9/21/07 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated status of US Army Corps of Coordination Plan Engineers from Participating to Cooperating status after receiving their acceptance letter.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE 4-1
TABLE 4-1 Coordination Plan Revision History Revision Description and Why Version Date Document Name Necessary
9 01/14/08 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated agency contact information in Coordination Plan Table 2-5 (FHWA, USFWS, NMFS, USCG, FTA, ODFW, ODSL, and DEQ contact information), revised Table 2-6 to include the identification of a preferred alternative as a coordination point, and revised Table 3-1 to illustrate project schedule of coordination points.
10 10/9/09 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated agency contact information to Coordination Plan include the National Park Service and alphabetized the contacts.
11 04/19/10 SAFETEA-LU 6002 Updated agency contact information Coordination Plan (FHWA), Task Force and Oversight Team information, and schedule.
PAGE 4-2 COORDINATION PLAN
APPENDIX
This appendix provides a description of the project teams described by acronym in the tables of the Coordination Plan. The decision-making structure for the Salem River Crossing Project is shown on Figure 2. The composition, roles, and responsibilities of each group are described below.
FIGURE 2 Decision-Making Structure
Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) CETAS has been established to streamline the environmental process among 10 state and federal agencies. This collaborative process is an effort to reduce redundancy and to identify solutions to resource constraints. The agencies include: the Oregon Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the US Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Oregon Department of State Lands. The CETAS Major Transportation Projects Agreement (MTPA) applied to NEPA Class 1 and Class 3 projects has four points at which ODOT needs concurrence from regulatory agencies signatory to the MTPA. These are (1) Purpose and Need (2) Range of Alternatives (3) Criteria for Selection, and (4) Preferred Alternative.
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE A-1
CETAS members have elected to participate in the MTPA process and these four concurrence points for the Salem River Crossing project. Oversight Team The Oversight Team (OT) includes elected or appointed officials of local agencies and jurisdictions with regulatory responsibility for or strong interest in the project. Responsibilities of the OT include:
Set the policy framework for the project. Represent the interests of their agencies or jurisdictions in group deliberations. Communicate project progress to their fellow elected or appointed officials, and to their constituents. Prepare for and participate in approximately 10 2-hour meetings between September 2006 and December 2008 Review recommendations from the Task Force and other background materials and make decisions at the six decision points in the project. Members of the OT will represent their organizations in making the first five of these decisions. For the sixth decision point (Preferred Alternative), the OT will recommend a preferred alternative to the Polk and Marion County Boards, Salem City Council, and SKATS for formal approval. The group will be comprised of:
Sam Brentano, Marion County, County Commissioner TBD, Salem-Keizer Transit District, Board Chair Dan Clem, City of Salem, City Councilor Dave Cox and his successor, Phillip Ditzler (beginning September 4, 2007), FHWA, Division Administrator (non-voting member) Tom Ritchey, Polk County, County Commissioner Jeff Scheick, ODOT, Region Manager Richard Walsh, City of Keizer Task Force The Task Force (TF) will provide a balanced representation of stakeholder interests, affected communities, and geographic areas as well as a communication link with those interests and communities. Members will include leaders of neighborhoods on both sides of the river as well as representatives of local and regional business groups and advocates for different bridge user groups, including commuters, freight and transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists. Members will be appointed by ODOT and the City of Salem. Responsibilities of the TF members include:
Represent their constituents’ perspectives during group deliberations Communicate project progress with their constituents Prepare for and participate in approximately 16 3-hour meetings between October 2006 and December 2008 Attend four public outreach events between fall of 2006 and December 2008 Working to develop consensus recommendations to the OT at each step in the decision process
PAGE A-2 COORDINATION PLAN
The TF members will include representatives of the following organizations/interest groups:
Agencies: Tim Potter, ODOT Bob Cortright, Department of Land Conservation and Development Mike Jaffe, Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG)/Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) Austin McGuigan, Polk County Community Development Cindy Schmitt, Marion County Public Works Mark Becktel, City of Salem Public Works Glenn Gross, City of Salem Community Development Sam Litke, City of Keizer Steve Dickey, Salem-Keizer Transit District Neighborhoods and Civic: Don Homuth, Co-Chair of West Salem Neighborhood Association Darlene Strozut, Highland Neighborhood Association Board Member TBD, Grant Neighborhood Association Board Member Warren Bednarz, West Salem Business (West Salem Redevelopment Advisory Board) Interest Groups: Warren Bednarz, BAR Industries (Metro Area/Downtown Business) Doug Parrow, Bicycle Transportation Alliance Russell Beaton, PhD., Retired (Land Use Interest) Mark Brown, Bureau of Land Management (Natural Resource Interest) Leon Fisher, Siletz Trucking (Freight Interest) TBD, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Betsey Belshaw (Parks Interest) Mike Karnosh, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Project Management Team The Project Management Team (PMT) will be comprised of ODOT, City of Salem and consultant project managers, with participation from other key staff resources from these agencies and the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments as needed. The PMT’s responsibilities include:
Management of project scope, schedule, and budget Direction, production, and quality assurance of technical and public/agency involvement work Assurance of an open, transparent process that incorporates full consideration of public input Staff support to the OT and TF PMT members include:
Dan Fricke/ODOT Julie Warncke/City of Salem
COORDINATION PLAN PAGE A-3
Rod Thompson/ODOT Mike Jaffe/MWVCOG Todd Whitaker/Polk County Dave Simmons/CH2M HILL Michael Hoffmann /CH2M HILL Tim Burkhardt/CH2M HILL
PAGE A-4 COORDINATION PLAN
Appendix G Evaluation Framework
SALEM WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
MEMORANDUM
Resolution of Evaluation Framework/Threshold Criteria
TO: Salem Willamette River Crossing Project Management Team
FROM: Dan Fricke, Project Manager
DATE: April 16, 2007
As discussed at the Task Force and Oversight Team meetings of March 21, 2007, and April 2, 2007, respectively, representatives of ODOT, DCLD, City of Salem, and Oregon Department of Justice met on April 13, 2007 to resolve the outstanding issue regarding a threshold measure for mobility. Attendees included:
• Dan Fricke, ODOT Region 2, River Crossing Project Manager • Terry Cole, ODOT Region 2 • Julie Warncke, City of Salem, River Crossing Project Manager • Rob Hallyburton, DLCD • Bob Cortright, DLCD, River Crossing Task Force Member • Bonnie Heitsch, Department of Justice
The issue for discussion was selection of a threshold measure for mobility. Two proposals have been under consideration, one developed by the Task Force through its Fall meetings, and a second recommended by the Project Management Team at the March Task Force meeting. DLCD supports adoption of the proposal prepared by the Task Force, while ODOT supports adoption of a measure based on the mobility standards contained in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) or locally adopted transportation system plans. This includes the volume/capacity ratio used in the OHP. After significant discussion, it was decided that a threshold measure for mobility will be established but will be deferred until we have more information. As concept packages are created, information will be developed to evaluate the packages against all of the other thresholds to establish the “range of alternatives”. At that point, the Project Management Team will use the additional information to propose a mobility threshold measure. This measure will ensure that we meet the NEPA requirement for analyzing a reasonable range of alternatives while assuring that any alternative package that is forwarded into the EIS for analysis meets the adopted purpose and need statement. ODOT, DLCD, and Project staff are satisfied that this approach will allow the process to move forward in a manner that meets our mutual goals of evaluating a wide range of alternative concepts while assuring that any alternatives advanced into the EIS will meet the project purpose and need. A related issue was raised at this meeting regarding how this deferral of threshold measure development may impact the refined study area. The concern is what happens if an
THRESHOLD MEMO.DOC 1
alternative concept is proposed that meets the threshold and falls outside the “box” that defines the refined study area. The following points were raised in this discussion:
• The Study Area Refinement memo documents the methodology that was used to create the “box” which defines the area where potential river crossings best meet the adopted purpose and need for the project.
• The study area refinement analysis validated the results of the SKATS Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study General Corridor Evaluation that resulted in the designation of the Tryon/Pine alignment as the locally preferred alternative.
• The results of the Corridor Evaluation have been incorporated into the various local agency comprehensive plans and the SKATS Regional Transportation System Plan. This is strong validation of the “box” – the practical result being we can limit our development of alternative concepts to the area identified in the study area refinement memo. DLF: cc: Salem Willamette River Crossing Task Force Salem Willamette River Crossing Oversight Team
THRESHOLD MEMO.DOC 2
MEMORANDUM
Project Evaluation Framework - Revised 04/16/07 This memorandum outlines the process for screening Salem River Crossing concepts and evaluating alternatives. The outcome of this evaluation process will be the selection of a few alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS).
Screening and Evaluation Process The proposed evaluation framework includes two parts: screening and evaluation. The first part screens concepts against the minimum requirements of the project purpose and need. Threshold criteria represent this set of minimum requirements. In this screening process, if concepts do not meet the thresholds, they are considered infeasible and are dropped from further consideration. Concepts that meet the threshold criteria are considered potentially feasible and are developed into project alternatives. The second step of the framework compares the project alternatives against a set of goals and objectives. Goals and objectives are used to compare the alternatives with one another to determine how they perform against a broad range of stakeholder values. The performance of each of the project alternatives will be rated by technical staff for each objective. The Task Force (TF) will set a weighting factor for each objective to establish its level of importance in relation to the other objectives. A total score (the sum of all the performance ratings times the weighting factors) will be calculated for each alternative, and an associated ranking of alternatives prepared. The higher the score, the more successfully the alternative matches the stated TF values for the project. The ranking will be used by the TF in developing its recommendation of alternatives to be evaluated further as part of the environmental documentation process. The evaluation framework serves three purposes. First, it ensures that all project alternatives address the project’s purpose and need. The threshold criteria determine the minimal requirements in relation to the Purpose and Need Statement. Second, it helps frame a discussion with a wide variety of stakeholders about what project features are most valuable. These values are reflected in the goals and objectives and the weighting factors. Third, it establishes the relative advantages and disadvantages of potentially feasible alternatives to support selection of a few for further analysis in the Draft EIS. Costs for major transportation projects are frequently funded with a mix of federal, state, and local funds. Existing funding sources are not anticipated to be adequate to cover anticipated project costs for the Salem River Crossing project. Therefore, alternative funding sources such as increases in property taxes, gas taxes, vehicle registration fees and/or implementation of user fees (tolling) will be considered. Financing options will be developed in parallel with development of project alternatives and screened through the relevant goals and objectives. The most suitable financing options will be paired with alternatives selected for study in the Draft EIS and evaluated for their impacts. Results of
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 1
this analysis will assist decision makers in approving a financial strategy for implementation of the project. The evaluation process for the Salem River Crossing project contains the following tasks:
• Develop threshold criteria • Develop goals and objectives and performance measures • Identify a broad range of concepts • Evaluate concepts for feasibility and remove infeasible concepts from further consideration • Develop alternatives from potentially feasible concepts • Collect performance data for each objective for each alternative • Evaluate alternatives • Select alternatives for more detailed analysis in the Draft EIS
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 2
FIGURE 1 – Screening and Evaluation Process
Screening of Concepts Using Threshold Criteria The first tier of alternative evaluation is to compare a wide variety of concepts against a set of threshold criteria. Concepts will be multimodal, including transportation system efficiency improvements, traffic demand reductions, and roadway capacity improvements. Threshold criteria serve as a set of minimum requirements for project concepts before they can be developed into full-fledged alternatives. Concepts either meet the threshold criteria or they do not, and those that meet these criteria are deemed potentially feasible. A concept must pass all the threshold criteria to be considered further. Threshold criteria are based on existing or readily available data, and may reflect regulatory or policy imperatives. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 3
Threshold criteria are used throughout the evaluation process to eliminate concepts or alternatives as more information becomes available.1 Threshold criteria are directly linked to project needs specified in the Purpose and Need statement, as shown below.
No. Identified Project Need, from Threshold Criteria Project Purpose and Need Statement
1, 2, 3, 4 Improve existing and future − Mobility threshold to be developed following development of mobility and safety of passenger range of alternatives (see “Resolution of Evaluation vehicles Framework/Threshold Criteria” memo) 2 Improve existing and future − Concept must be designed to enhance safety by meeting the mobility and safety of freight applicable geometric requirements for passenger vehicles, vehicles transit vehicles, trucks, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, as outlined in the project’s design criteria2. Improve existing and future reliability of public transportation
Improve existing and future mobility and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists
5 Minimize traffic disruptions and − Concept must improve emergency access across the enable emergency vehicle Willamette River response in the event of restricted access to and/or closure of the existing bridges due to an emergency or other incident
Regulatory Mandates3 − Alternative must be able to satisfy Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) financial constraint requirements for inclusion in the Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)4 − Alternative must be able to satisfy Section 4(f) and 6(f) requirements (impacts to parks, recreation, and historic resources) − Alternatives outside the urban growth boundary must be able to satisfy Statewide Planning goal requirements for exceptions
1 The threshold criteria identified here are intended to determine alternatives that are potentially feasible. Under the Statewide Planning Goals, additional thresholds will be required if the potentially feasible alternatives include alternatives located outside the Urban Growth Boundary. See OAR 660-012-0070(6). 2Design criteria are attached in Appendix B. 3 There are many regulatory requirements with which a project must demonstrate compliance. In most cases, regulatory compliance can be achieved through modifying the design or developing mitigation to address an impact. The regulatory areas noted here are more rigid and it may become apparent during the alternatives development process that an alternative does not conform with one of these requirements and must be removed from consideration. 4 A project of the anticipated size of the Salem River Crossing must have an approved funding strategy before project construction will be approved. If it becomes apparent during the alternatives development or EIS process that a viable funding strategy is not possible for a given alternative, then that alternative will be removed from consideration. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 4
Evaluation of Potentially Feasible Alternatives Using Identified Goals and Objectives Goals and objectives are used to differentiate and identify trade-offs among alternatives and financing options. To be most effective, an objective must be measurable and well-defined. This ensures a common understanding of each objective’s meaning, and allows for a clear comparison among alternatives.
Goal 1: Improve mobility and safety for people and freight across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer Metropolitan area
Objectives Performance Measures
1. Improve vehicle and freight mobility Qualitative scale that considers reduction in vehicle hours of for local travel delay (VHD) during the 2031 p.m. peak within the Downtown and West Salem traffic districts, reduction in volume to capacity ratio on existing west bound (Marion Street) bridge during the 2031 p.m. peak hour, and average travel time during PM peak hour for the following pairs of local trips:
From: • Broadway/Salem Parkway • High/Center • Silverton/Lancaster • Commercial/Fairview To:
• Brush College/Wallace • Glen Creek/Wallace • Highway 22/Doaks Ferry 2. Improve vehicle and freight mobility Qualitative scale that considers reduction in vehicle hours of for regional travel delay (VHD) during the 2031 p.m. peak within the Downtown and West Salem traffic districts, reduction in volume to capacity ratio on existing west bound (Marion Street) bridge during the 2031 p.m. peak hour, and average travel time during PM peak hour for the following pairs of regional trips:
From: • I-5/Salem Parkway • High/Center • Silverton/Lancaster • Commercial/Fairview To:
• Highway 22/Highway 51 • River Bend/Wallace 3. Improve vehicle and freight mobility Qualitative scale that considers reduction in vehicle hours of for through travel delay (VHD) during the 2031 p.m. peak within the Downtown and West Salem traffic districts, reduction in volume to capacity ratio on existing west bound (Marion Street) bridge during the 2031 p.m. peak hour, and average travel time during PM peak hour for the following pairs of through trips:
From:
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 5
• I-5/Salem Parkway • I-5/Mission To:
• Highway 22/51 • River Bend/Wallace 4. Improve safety for people, vehicles, Qualitative scale considering factors that influence injury crashes and freight including non-peak period traffic volumes, number of signalized intersections, presence of access control, and bicycle/ pedestrian/auto interactions, vehicle miles traveled per household
5. Improve transit reliability across the PM peak hour travel time between Courthouse Transit Center Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer (downtown) and Glen Creek Transit Center (West Salem) and area between Glen Creek Transit Center and the Wallace Road/Orchard Heights intersection
6. Improve pedestrian facilities across Qualitative scale incorporating pedestrian security, directness the Willamette River in the Salem- and connectivity to the pedestrian facility network, and quality of Keizer area environment (path width, grade, lighting, drainage, landscaping, shade)
7. Improve bicycle facilities across the Qualitative scale incorporating bicyclist security, directness and Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer connectivity to the bicycle facility network, and quality of area environment (path width, grade, lighting, drainage, landscaping, shade)
8. Improve emergency vehicle response Qualitative scale considering travel time and system redundancy across the Willamette River in the across the river during an event in which one of the existing Salem-Keizer area bridges is closed
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 6
Goal 2: Preserve or improve natural and cultural resources
Objectives Performance Measures
1. Avoid direct and indirect impacts to Net area and quality of wetland loss wetlands where practicable. Minimize and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts and provide opportunities for wetland enhancement.
2. Avoid direct and indirect impacts to Cubic yards of pier encroachment in the floodway (ordinary high Threatened and Endangered and water level) other fish species where practicable. Minimize and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts and provide opportunities for improvement of critical habitat.
3. Avoid direct and indirect impacts to Qualitative scale considering likelihood of occurrence within 100 terrestrial Threatened and feet of alternative footprint Endangered species where practicable. Minimize and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts, and provide opportunities for improvement of habitat.
4. Preserve or enhance ecological Qualitative scale that evaluates terrestrial wildlife passage connectivity (including riparian areas)
5. Preserve or improve the existing Cubic yards of fill encroachment in 500-year floodplain floodplain and fluvial functions
6. Preserve air quality Change in system-wide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to No Build alternative
7. Avoid direct and indirect impacts to Number of historic sites affected (National Register, National historic resources where practicable, Register eligible, local historic sites) and mitigate any unavoidable impacts
8. Avoid direct and indirect impacts to Number of known cultural/archaeological sites affected cultural and archaeological resources where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts
9. Avoid or minimize impacts to or Square footage of tree canopy loss improve tree cover where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts
10. Avoid or minimize impacts to or Acres of native plant community loss improve native plant communities where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts
11. Preserve or improve water quality This will be evaluated based on the results of the water quality technical report for selection of the Preferred Alterative (not during screening process).
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 7
Goal 3: Preserve the quality of life in communities on both sides of the river
Objectives Performance Measures
1. Minimize impacts to businesses Number of businesses displaced
2. Minimize impacts to residences Number of residential units displaced
3. Minimize impacts to non-displaced Square footage of business properties required for right-of-way businesses
4. Minimize other impacts to non- Square footage of residential properties required for right-of-way displaced residences
5. Minimize traffic intrusion onto Number of residences on streets in project area which have residential streets forecasted traffic levels 20 percent higher than future No-Build condition
6. Minimize noise in residential areas Number of residences within preliminary 65 decibel noise contour centered on east and west bridgeheads
7. Maintain neighborhood cohesion Qualitative scale considering changes in access, presence of physical barriers, separation of parts of existing neighborhoods from each other, ability of pedestrians to cross key bridge approach streets
8. Stimulate economic development, This will be evaluated based on results of economic and land consistent with adopted land use use technical reports for selection of the Preferred Alterative (not plans during screening process).
9. Reduce through freight traffic in Percentage of through freight traffic diverted from downtown downtown (Union to Trade, Willamette River to Cottage)
10. Support adopted land use and Qualitative scale of consistency with policies in the applicable transportation plans local and regional Comprehensive Plans and Transportation System Plans
11. Minimize construction duration and Qualitative scale considering duration of construction and lane traffic impacts during construction closures and travel demand in areas affected
12. Enhance public access to the river Qualitative scale considering number and quality of public access opportunities to river including amount of river frontage
13. Minimize impacts to recreational Qualitative scale considering recreation use, constructive use, facilities and long-term construction impacts on recreation properties
14. Minimize impacts to schools Qualitative scale considering right of way impacts to school facilities, noise at school facilities, safe routes to school.
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 8
Goal 4: Meet federal and state regulatory requirements
Objectives Performance Measures
1. Meet Section 4(f) and 6(f) Qualitative scale of the likelihood that alternative can meet requirements Section 4(f) and 6(f) requirements
2. Meet Statewide Planning goal Qualitative scale of the likelihood that alternative can comply requirements with Statewide Planning goal requirements
3. Meet Environmental Justice This will be evaluated based on results of environmental justice requirements technical report for selection of the Preferred Alterative (not during screening process).
Goal 5: Provide a cost effective and timely solution
Objectives Performance Measures
1. Minimize construction cost Cost for planning, design, permitting, and capital construction in 2007 dollars
2. Minimize operations and maintenance Average annual cost for operations and maintenance in 2007 cost dollars
3. Minimize implementation timeline Qualitative scale considering the likelihood the project will be funded earlier within the 20-year planning period given available funding sources, public support, institutional readiness, and time to start of construction
4. Maximize incremental benefits Qualitative scale considering ability to phase project elements to achieve incremental benefits throughout 20 year period
5. Maximize congestion reduction Total cumulative hours of delay as compared to the No Build benefits over the planning period alternative
6. Maximize likelihood of funding Qualitative measure considering the project’s ability to be funded
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 9
Goal 6: Ensure that any structural solution is aesthetically pleasing5
Objectives Performance Measures
1. Enhance pedestrian/bicycle experience Qualitative scale considering architectural detail, interpretive displays, viewing facilities/vantage points, and human scale
2. Provide a structure that instills a sense of Qualitative scale considering views of the bridge community pride and complements the from the community, gateway treatments surrounding environment
3. Preserve, enhance, or create views from the Qualitative scale considering quality of views crossing provided from the bridge for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants
4. Provide opportunities for productive use under Qualitative scale considering potential for visually bridge structure (if applicable) that serves as a pleasing, commercial or recreational use, consistent community asset with permitted uses
5 Goal and objectives relating to aesthetics will not be used for initial screening, but will be added for selection of a preferred alternative when design information will be available. Application of this goal and objectives will incorporate public input on bridge types and aesthetics gathered through the public involvement process. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MEMO 10
ALTERNATIVES METHODOLOGY REPORT
The Salem River Crossing Task Force approved a framework for evaluation of alternatives in March 2007. The project team will continue to use this overall approach, and the adopted goals, objectives and performance measures, to narrow alternatives from the current set of 13 to those that should be studied in the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This memorandum outlines the methodology that was used to evaluate each alternative and to compare the overall performance of each alternative.
INTRODUCTION The alternatives evaluated through this process were identified by the project team, Task Force, and Oversight Team, with input from community members at open houses on June 26 and 27, 2007. The set of alternatives to be evaluated was approved by the Task Force on August 15, 2007 and by the Oversight Team on August 17, 2007. Beginning in October 2007, the Task Force and Oversight Team will review the results of the alternatives evaluation. The Task Force and Oversight Team also will recommend which alternatives should be carried forward for more detailed evaluation in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The evaluation framework includes the following six goals, each with related objectives and performance measures:
1. Improve mobility and safety for people and freight across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer Metropolitan Area 2. Preserve or improve natural and cultural resources 3. Preserve the quality of life in communities on both sides of the river 4. Meet federal and state regulatory requirements 5. Provide a cost effective and timely solution 6. Ensure that any structural solution is aesthetically pleasing All goals, except Goal 6, were evaluated through this process. Goal 6 will be evaluated as project designs are developed. A team of technical experts rated the performance of each project alternative against each evaluation criterion. Performance ratings were either qualitative or quantitative. For the qualitative criteria, the technical experts rated the alternatives. Regardless of the scale used to score the criteria, the scale was normalized to make scores equal. In some cases, reviewers determined the scoring categories using statistical techniques. For other criteria, the reviewers used professional judgment to identify natural breaks between scores. For the purely quantitative criteria, actual performance data was used in place of scores. In a few cases, the measures used for the criteria were modified from what was anticipated. These cases are noted in the methodology report.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 1
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
A. GOAL 1: MOBILITY AND SAFETY
A. 1 Improve vehicle and freight mobility for local travel Evaluation overview Improvements to local travel mobility were evaluated using the 2031 P.M. peak-hour vehicle assignment model results for each concept. The sub-criteria used to evaluate this measure include travel time, vehicle hours of delay (VHD) and the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio on the Marion Street Bridge.
Methods A score for each subcriterion was computed individually and weighted equally to calculate a total score for each concept. Details for each component are described below. Travel Time The following origin destination locations were used to measure travel time differences among alternatives: From: ♦ Broadway/Salem Parkway ♦ High/Center ♦ Silverton/Lancaster ♦ Commercial/Fairview To: ♦ Brush College/Wallace ♦ Glen Creek/Wallace ♦ Highway 22/Doaks Ferry Travel time benefits were quantified by averaging travel time from each origin to each destination.
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) VHD considers the amount of congestion, measured in hours, on a roadway segment(s). Time or delay is measured against a threshold. For local travel, this subcriterion was measured as hours of travel above a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.0. Facilities used for this measure included Edgewater Street, and Glen Creek, Orchard Heights and Brush College roads in West Salem. In downtown Salem, facilities used for this measure included Front, Commercial, Liberty, Marion, Broadway and 12 th streets. Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio
2 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
The V/C ratio was determined based on the demand (volume) using available supply (capacity) 1 on the Marion Street Bridge 2. Performance rankings were calculated and assigned in the same manner described above for VHD Scoring Criteria First, scores of 2 (below average) or 3 (above average) were calculated for each subcriterion. Alternatives were then assigned an average score of 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 (worst) to 4 (best) based equally on travel time, VHD, and the V/C ratio on the Marion Street Bridge. Alternatives were only assigned scores of 2 or 3 even though the scale was from 1 to 4 to recognize the small relative differences in performance between alternatives.
Score Description 4 Theoretical best performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
3 Better than average performance – This score was assigned to all alternatives with above average performance.
2 Worse than average performance – This score was assigned to all alternatives with below average performance.
1 Theoretical worst performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
A. 2 Improve vehicle and freight mobility for regional travel Evaluation overview Improvements to regional travel mobility were evaluated using the 2031 P.M. peak-hour vehicle assignment model results for each concept. The sub-criteria used to evaluate this measure include travel time, VHD and the V/C ratio on the Marion Street Bridge.
Methods A score for each subcriterion was computed individually and weighted equally to calculate a total score for each concept. Elements for each component are described below. Travel Time The following origin destination locations were used to measure travel time differences between alternatives: From: ♦ I-5/Salem Parkway ♦ High/Center ♦ Silverton/Lancaster ♦ Commercial/Fairview To: ♦ Highway 22/Highway 51
1 The analysis assumed that capacity on the Marion Street Bridge was 6,000 for alternatives without improvements to the bridge and 9,000 for alternatives with improvements to the bridge. 2 Some concepts include increased capacity on the Marion Street Bridge
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 3
♦ River Bend/Wallace Travel time benefits were quantified by averaging travel time from each origin to each destination. Vehicles Hours of Delay (VHD) VHD considers the amount of congestion, measured in hours on a roadway segment(s). Time or delay is measured against a threshold. For regional travel, this subcriterion was measured as hours of travel above a V/C ratio of 0.85. Facilities used for this measure included Oregon Highway 22 (east of Rosemont) and Wallace Road in West Salem. In downtown Salem, facilities used for this measure included Front (south of Division), Commercial, Ferry, Trade and Liberty streets, and Pringle Parkway. Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio The V/C ratio was determined based on the demand (volume) using available supply (capacity) on the Marion Street Bridge. Performance rankings were calculated and assigned in the same manner described above for VHD. Scoring Criteria First, scores of 2 (below average) or 3 (above average) were calculated for each sub-criterion. Alternatives were then assigned an average score of 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 (worst) to 4 (best) based equally on travel time, VHD, and the V/C ratio on the Marion Street Bridge. Alternatives were only assigned scores of 2 or 3 even though the scale was from 1 to 4 to recognize the small relative differences in performance between alternatives.
Score Description 4 Theoretical best performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
3 Better than average performance – This score was assigned to all alternatives with above average performance.
2 Worse than average performance – This score was assigned to all alternatives with below average performance.
1 Theoretical worst performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
A. 3 Improve vehicle and freight mobility for through travel Evaluation overview Improvements to through travel mobility were evaluated using the 2031 P.M. peak-hour vehicle assignment model results for each concept. The sub-criteria used to evaluate this measure include VHD and the V/C ratio on the Marion Street Bridge. Travel times between selected origins and destinations were considered, but not included in this analysis. Travel times did not demonstrate significant differences between alternatives.
Methods A score for each subcriterion was computed individually and weighted equally to calculate a total score for each concept. Elements for each component are described below. Vehicles Hours of Delay (VHD)
4 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
VHD considers the amount of congestion, measured in hours on a roadway segment(s). Time or delay is measured against a threshold. For through travel, this measure was set as hours of travel above a volume to capacity ratio of 0.85. Facilities used for this measure included Oregon Highway 22 (east of Rosemont) and Wallace Road in West Salem. In downtown Salem, facilities used for this measure included Front (south of Division), Ferry, and Trade streets, Pringle Parkway, and Commercial and Liberty streets. Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio The V/C ratio was determined based on the demand (volume) using available supply (capacity) on the Marion Street Bridge. Performance rankings were calculated and assigned in the same manner described above for VHD. Scoring Criteria First, scores of 2 (below average) or 3 (above average) were calculated for each sub-criterion. Alternatives were then assigned an average score of 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 (worst) to 4 (best) based equally on VHD, and the V/C ratio on the Marion Street Bridge. Alternatives were only assigned scores of 2 or 3 even though the scale was from 1 to 4 to recognize the small relative differences in performance between alternatives.
Score Description 4 Theoretical best performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
3 Better than average performance – This score was assigned to all alternatives with above average performance.
2 Worse than average performance – This score was assigned to all alternatives with below average performance.
1 Theoretical worst performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
A.4 Improve safety for people, vehicles and freight Evaluation overview This criterion was evaluated using a qualitative scale incorporating access control, new signalized intersections, bicycle/pedestrian interactions, and traffic volumes.
Methods Scoring Criteria This evaluation criterion was evaluated with four equally weighted sub-criteria. The final score for this evaluation criterion was the sum of the four subcriterion scores divided by four. A fifth subcriterion, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household, was considered for analysis. However, the VMT per household per day results showed less than a 1 percent difference among alternatives (VMT ranged between 16.7 and 17.0 miles), and, therefore, did not provide enough differentiation between alternatives to be included in the total score. Rating criteria by subcriterion
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 5
Access Control: Because potential conflicts occur at each access point to a roadway, limited access roadways improve safety by limiting the number of potential conflict points. Access control for each alternative was evaluated qualitatively.
Score Description
5 Best opportunity for access control on the west and east sides of the river (connects to limited access facility, had interchanges and limited number of new signalized intersections).
3 Opportunity for access control on one side of the river, but limited potential for access control on the other side of the river (connects to existing street grid on east side of river).
1 Limited opportunity for access control on both sides of the river.
New Signalized Intersections: Signalized intersections provide less safety for vehicles and freight than interchanges. In addition, alternatives with local street improvements that would convert existing unsignalized intersections (existing low-traffic volumes) to signalized intersections (due to projected higher traffic volumes) also decreases safety because existing low-volume streets would be converted to higher-volume streets, potentially decreasing safety. This subcriterion evaluated the number of new signalized intersections for each alternative. The following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
Score Description
5 1 new signalized intersection
4 2 or 3 new signalized intersections
3 4 , 5, or 6 new signalized intersections
2 7 or more new signalized intersections
Bicycle/Pedestrian Interactions: This subcriterion evaluated the interaction of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicles and freight by determining the number of new lane crossings at signalized intersections for each alternative. More lane crossings increase the interaction (number of conflict points) between bicycle, pedestrians, vehicles, and freight, which potentially could decrease safety. Because lane configurations at signalized intersections have not been finalized, the total number of new lane crossings for each the alternative was rounded to the nearest five or 10 (e.g. 60, 65, 70, 75). The following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
Score Description
5 Less than 60 new lane crossings at signalized intersections
4 65, 70, or 75 new lane crossings at signalized intersections
3 80, 85, or 90 new lane crossings at signalized intersections
2 95, 100, 105 new lane crossings at signalized intersections
1 110 or more new lane crossings at signalized intersections
6 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
Traffic Volumes: In general, safety decreases with higher traffic volumes. Total traffic volumes during the P.M. peak hour were calculated using modeled future traffic conditions for each alternative. The traffic volumes for 11 of 13 alternatives were within 1.5 percent or less of each other. Two alternatives (Orange and Yellow) were at least 1 percent higher than the next highest alternative. To differentiate the small differences in traffic volumes between the alternatives, the Orange and Yellow alternatives received a score of 2, and the other 11 alternatives received a score of 3.
A.5 Improve transit reliability across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer area Evaluation overview The evaluation considered travel time between the downtown Courthouse Square transit center and the Glen Creek transit center. In addition, the original measure called for measuring travel time between the Wallace Road/Orchard Heights intersection and the downtown Courthouse Square transit center. This travel time was not included in the evaluation because the travel time to the intersection was not significantly different than the travel time to the transit center.
Methods Travel time for this measure is based on P.M. peak-hour service between the Courthouse and Glen Creek transit centers. It was evaluated by measuring the travel time between the Courthouse Square and Glen Creek transit centers using the results from the 2031 P.M. peak-hour vehicle assignment model results. Scoring Criteria All alternatives were assigned a score of 3 for this criterion because there were not significant differences between alternatives for this criterion.
A.6 Improve pedestrian facilities across the Willamette River in the Salem- Keizer area Evaluation overview This criterion was evaluated using a qualitative scale incorporating the number of overcrossings, directness, and connectivity to the existing pedestrian facility network.
Methods Scoring Criteria This criterion was evaluated using three equally weighted sub-criteria. The final score for this evaluation criterion was the average score for the three sub-criteria. Rating criteria by subcriterion Overcrossings: Overcrossings (a grade-separated bridge structure over a roadway) degrade the quality of the pedestrian environment and sense of security. This subcriterion evaluated the number of new overcrossings of streets with sidewalks that were also designated as a bicycle route in the City of Salem Transportation System Plan (TSP). Streets with sidewalks that were also designated as bicycle routes were assumed to have the most pedestrian
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 7
traffic. The flyover ramps on the west side of the river associated with the Highway 22 connection (Red alternative) were also included in the total number of overcrossings.
Score Description
0 to 1 new overcrossing
4 2 new overcrossings
3 3 new overcrossings
2 4 new overcrossings
1 5 new overcrossings
Structure Length: This subcriterion evaluated how direct the crossing of the Willamette River would be for each alternative. For each alternative, this was evaluated by measuring the length (in miles) of the roadway improvements from the beginning of the bridge structure on the east side to the beginning of the bridge structure on the west side of the Willamette River. The following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
Score Description
5 Bridge structure length of 0.8 miles or less
4 Bridge structure length of 0.9 to 1.1 miles
3 Bridge structure length of 1.2 to 1.4 miles
2 Bridge structure length of 1.5 to 1.7 miles
1 Bridge structure length of 1.8 miles or more
Connectivity: This subcriterion evaluated the connectivity to the existing sidewalk network at the beginning of the bridge structure on the east and west sides of the river. GIS was used to determine the total miles of sidewalks within 0.25 miles of the east side and west side bridgeheads. The following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
Score Description
5 13.0 miles or more miles of sidewalks within 0.25 miles of the bridgeheads
4 10.0 to 12.9 miles of sidewalks within 0.25 miles of the bridgeheads
3 7.0 to 9.9 miles of sidewalks within 0.25 miles of the bridgeheads
2 4.0 to 6.9 miles of sidewalks within 0.25 miles of the bridgeheads
1 3.9 miles or less of sidewalks within 0.25 miles of the bridgeheads
Assumptions • Pedestrian access to the new bridge structure would be provided only at the bridgeheads. • Streets with bicycle routes and sidewalks have the most pedestrian traffic.
8 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
A.7 Improve bicycle facilities across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer area Evaluation overview This criterion was evaluated using a qualitative scale incorporating the number of overcrossings, directness, and connectivity to the existing bicycle facility network.
Methods Scoring Criteria This criterion was evaluated by averaging the scores of three equally weighted subcriteria. Rating criteria by subcriterion Overcrossings: Overcrossings (a grade-separated bridge structure over a roadway) degrade the quality of the environment for bicyclists and sense of security. This subcriterion evaluated the number of new overcrossing of streets designated as bicycle routes in the City of Salem TSP. The flyover ramps on the west side of the river associated with the Highway 22 connection (Red alternative) were also included in the total number of overcrossings.
Score Description
5 0 to 1 new overcrossing
4 2 new overcrossings
3 3 new overcrossings
2 4 new overcrossings
1 5 or more new overcrossings
Structure Length: This subcriterion evaluated how direct the crossing of the Willamette River for bicyclists would be with each alternative. For each alternative, this was evaluated by measuring the length (in miles) of the roadway improvements from the beginning of the bridge structure on the east side to the beginning of the bridge structure on the west side of the Willamette River. The following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
Score Description
5 Bridge structure length of 0.8 miles or less
4 Bridge structure length of 0.9 to 1.1 miles
3 Bridge structure length of 1.2 to 1.4 miles
2 Bridge structure length of 1.5 to 1.7 miles
1 Bridge structure length of 1.8 miles or more
Connectivity: This subcriterion evaluated the connectivity to existing bicycle routes at the beginning of the bridge structure on the east and west sides of the river. GIS was used to calculate the total miles of designated bicycle routes within 1 mile of the east side and west side bridgeheads. The following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 9
Score Description
5 18.0 miles or more miles of bicycle routes within 1.0 mile of the bridgeheads
4 16.0 to 17.9 miles of bicycle routes within 1.0 mile of the bridgeheads
3 14.0 to 15.9 miles of bicycle routes within 1.0 mile of the bridgeheads
2 12.0 to 13.9 miles of bicycle routes within 1.0 mile of the bridgeheads
1 11.9 miles or less of bicycle routes within 1.0 mile of the bridgeheads
Assumptions Bicycle access to the new bridge structure would be provided only at the bridgeheads. A.8 Improve emergency vehicle response across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer area Evaluation overview This criterion was evaluated by considering travel time and system redundancy across the river during an event in which one of the existing bridges is closed.
Methods Scoring Criteria A new river crossing improves vehicle emergency response across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer area by improving emergency response travel time and mobility during an event in which one or both of the existing bridges is closed. Two new bridge crossings provide more travel options for emergency response than alternatives with one bridge crossing. The following scale was used in scoring alternatives:
Score Description
5 Alternative includes two new crossings of the Willamette River
3 Alternative includes one new crossing of the Willamette River
10 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
B. GOAL 2: NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
B.1 Avoid direct and indirect impacts to wetlands where practicable. Minimize and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts and provide opportunities for wetland enhancement. Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well each alternative avoids direct and indirect impacts to wetlands. This criterion was evaluated using mapped wetlands and a reconnaissance-level field visit. It includes an assessment of the extent of potential wetland impacts and the quality of wetlands impacted.
Methods Potential impacts to wetlands were evaluated using a weighted scoring system taking into account total area of wetlands and general quality of those wetlands. For each alternative, the total area of each wetland category (using Cowardin classification) within the footprint of each proposed alternative was calculated. Initial location, extent, and category of wetlands was determined using Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) mapping. For areas not covered by LWI mapping, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping was used. Results of the mapping were confirmed or modified following a field visit.
Determination of quality of wetlands was based on estimated proportion of native species, number of vegetation layers, size and/or connectivity of the wetland to other wetland areas. Values were given as follows based on observations made during the field visit:
High Quality: Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands generally had a higher proportion of native vegetation. Tree and shrub layers were predominantly native with higher proportions of non-native vegetation in the herbaceous layer and at forest edges and in openings in the forest. PFO wetlands generally had well developed diverse understory vegetation and occurred in larger patches of continuous habitat than other wetland types.
Moderate Quality: Riverine Wetlands generally had a higher proportion of non-native species than PFO wetlands, particularly in the herbaceous layer, but more native species, species diversity, and larger patches of continuous habitat than other wetland types. These wetlands tended to be narrow and consisted of predominantly tree and herbaceous layers with less well developed shrub layers.
Low Quality: Other wetlands present included emergent (PEM) and scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands as well as some open water areas (PAB, PUB). These wetlands generally have a very high proportion of non-native species, particularly reed canarygrass ( Phalaris arundinaceae ) and tended to be smaller and more often isolated than PFO and Riverine wetlands. The open water wetlands generally had minimal vegetation around the edges and often appeared to be artificially created or excavated in historic streams or wetlands. Values were assigned to wetland categories as follows:
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 11
Scoring Criteria
TABLE 1 Wetland Category Values Wetland Category Map Label Assigned Value Quality
Palustrine Forested PFO 1 High
Riverine R 2 Moderate
All other categories PEM, PSS, POW, etc. 3 Low Note: Based on site visit, the only high quality wetlands were forested wetlands. Scores for each alternative were calculated by multiplying the number of acres of each wetland type by the assigned value as shown in Table 1. Results were plotted on a graph and numerical categories 1 through 3 were assigned, based on natural breaks. A score of 3 reflects less area of higher quality wetlands within the proposed alternative footprint, thus resulting in the least potential impact. A score of 1 indicates greater area of higher quality wetlands within the proposed alternative footprint resulting in the greatest potential impact.
Assumptions • Impact calculations assumed potential direct or indirect impacts to the resources within the entire footprint of each alternative. • Quality of wetlands is directly correlated with higher proportion of native plant species, size and connectivity to other wetland or upland habitats, and diversity of vegetation. Other wetland functions were not evaluated.
B.2 Avoid direct and indirect impacts to Threatened and Endangered and other fish species where practicable. Minimize and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts and provide opportunities for improvement of critical habitat. Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well each alternative avoids direct and indirect impacts to Threatened and Endangered and other fish species. This criterion was evaluated by estimating the amount of habitat that would likely be affected with each alternative.
Methods Scoring was based on estimate of cubic yards of impacts below ordinary high water. Impacts were calculated by overlaying the footprints of the proposed alternatives on an aerial photograph and measuring the distance across the Willamette River for each alternative, to determine the number of spans required. For the purpose of this evaluation a 50-foot minimum depth was assumed for each drilled shaft. Greater cubic yards of impacts within the proposed footprint of each alternative is positively correlated with greater potential impact. Scores were not assigned for this criterion.
12 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
Assumptions This analysis assumes a structure type with 300 foot spans across the main channel of the Willamette River with each pier containing six 7-foot diameter drilled shafts.
B.3 Avoid direct and indirect impacts to terrestrial Threatened and Endangered species where practicable. Minimize and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts, and provide opportunities for improvement of habitat. Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well each alternative avoids direct and indirect impacts to terrestrial Threatened and Endangered species. This criterion was evaluated by estimating the likelihood of occurrence of a Threatened and Endangered species near an alternative footprint using habitat and historical records as indicators.
Methods Information was obtained from the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC) database on Aug. 11, 2006. The ORNHIC database contained records for 10 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered (RTE) species observed within a 2-mile radius of the proposed alternatives for the Salem Willamette River crossing. Several of the observed species were within the ½-mile study area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s county lists of threatened and/or endangered (T&E) species identify five of these species as potentially occurring in Marion County and six as potentially occurring in Polk County. Table 2 provides a summary of RTE species, their status, and record of occurrence or potential occurrence in the vicinity of the project area.
TABLE 2 Terrestrial Wildlife Species that may Occur Within the Proposed Alternatives OR USFWS USFWS Federal ORNHIC Scientific Name Common Name State T&E List T&E List Status Records Status Marion County Polk County
Aster curtus white top aster SoC LT Yes
Castilleja levisecta golden paintbrush LT LE Yes Yes
Cimicifuga elata tall bugbane C Yes
Delphinium pavonaceum peacock larkspur SoC LE Yes
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens Willamette daisy LE LE Yes Yes Yes
Horkelia congesta ssp. Congesta shaggy horkelia SoC C Yes
Howellia aquatilis water howellia LT Yes Yes Yes
Lomatium bradshawii Bradshaw's lomatium LE LE Yes Yes Yes
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii Kincaid's Lupine LT LT Yes Yes Yes
Nelson's checker- Sidalcea nelsoniana mallow LT LT Yes Yes Yes
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 13
(LE)=Listed Endangered, (LT)=Listed Threatened , (Soc)=Species of Concern; (C)= Candidate for Listing Scoring A qualitative scale considering likelihood of occurrence within 100 feet of alternative footprint was used to score this criterion. Evaluation of potential impacts to threatened, endangered, or candidate terrestrial species was accomplished using a weighted scoring system. The weighted score was based on recorded occurrence of T&E species within a 2-mile radius, recorded occurrence of species with the last 20 years, and presence of potential habitat within the proposed concept footprint.
The score for each alternative was determined as follows. For each identified species, one point was assigned for each of the following:
♦ ORNHIC record of occurrence of Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species within 2 miles of the proposed alternative footprint ♦ ORNHIC record of occurrence of Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species within 2 miles of the proposed alternative footprint with the past 20 years ♦ Presence of potential habitat that might support identified species within 100 feet of the proposed alternative footprint. ♦ Presence of potential habitat was determined based on review of aerial mapping and field observation of representative habitats.
Scores for all species were summed and plotted on a graph for each of the alternatives. Through consideration of natural breaks in the original scores which ranged below 1 and 4, alternatives were assigned a score of 1 to 3. A score of 3 reflects the lowest probability of occurrence of the identified species, thus resulting in the least potential impact. A score of 1 indicates the highest probability of occurrence of the identified species resulting in the greatest potential impact to the identified species for each of the proposed alternatives. Assumptions No Threatened or Endangered terrestrial animal species were likely to occur within the proposed alternatives. B.4 Preserve or enhance ecological connectivity Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well each alternative preserves or enhances ecological connectivity. This criterion was evaluated by estimating the impacts to wildlife habitat that are connected to other natural habitat.
Methods The evaluation of this criterion was based on total area of wildlife habitat impacted by each alternative that is connected to at least 1 acre of other natural habitat, generally providing connectivity to a water source. Areas identified as wildlife habitat were defined as areas with generally natural vegetation and communities with a minimum of human impacts. Habitat areas were delineated on an aerial map with the proposed alternative footprints
14 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
overlain and areas of wildlife habitat calculated using GIS. The acreage of those habitat areas connected to at least 1 acre of wildlife habitat beyond the project footprint was calculated for each alternative. The actual number of acres of impacted habitat areas was used in place of a score. B.5 Preserve or improve the existing floodplain and fluvial functions Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well each alternative preserves or improves the existing floodplain or fluvial functions.
Methods This criterion was evaluated based on estimates of cubic yards of fill within the 500-year floodplain for each proposed alternative. The 500-year floodplain was derived from FEMA floodplain maps for the Salem area (ref). Impacts were calculated by mapping the 500-year floodplain on aerial photography with the footprints of each proposed alternative overlain. The actual number of cubic yards of impacts was used in place of a score.
Assumptions This assumes a structure type with spans 150 feet long crossing over the floodplain areas with each pier containing six 5-foot diameter drilled shafts. For the purpose of this evaluation a 30-foot minimum depth was assumed for each drilled shaft. B.6 Preserve air quality Evaluation overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative preserves air quality. The evaluation is based on changes in VMT in the downtown and West Salem travel districts, which is a proxy for air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions. Variation among concepts was relatively small so all alternatives were assigned a score of 3 for this criterion.
Methods Air quality is directly affected by the number of miles traveled. VMT for this measure is calculated as the summation of vehicle trips based on 2031 P.M. peak-hour traffic assignment results. VMT is calculated for the downtown and West Salem travel districts, those districts that are likely to be most affected by the alternatives. Scoring Criteria Given the small variation in change in VMT between alternatives, all alternatives were assigned a score of “3.”
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 15
B.7 Avoid direct and indirect impacts to historic resources where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable impacts Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare the impacts of alternatives on historic resources in the project area. This criterion was evaluated by counting the number of historic properties that could be directly or indirectly impacted by each alternative.
Methods The following properties are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) individually:
1. The Old West Salem City Hall, 1320 Edgewater Street, listed in the NRHP on June 1, 1990. (Polk County)
2. The Jessie & Julia Harritt House, 2280 Wallace Road NW, listed in the NRHP on April 2, 1999. (Polk County)
3. The Andrew T. Gilbert House, 116-172 Marion Street, listed in the National Register on Nov. 6, 1980. (Marion County)
4. The Union Street Railroad Bridge and Trestle, Junction of Union Street NE and Water Street NE, listed in the NRHP on Jan. 11, 2006. (Marion County) The following is listed in the NRHP as a district:
1. Salem Downtown Historic District (Salem Downtown State Street-Commercial Street Historic District), listed in the NRHP on Sept. 28, 1991 The following properties are listed on the City of Salem Local Historic Landmark Register:
1. The Quarry House, 1340 Wallace Road NW (Polk County)
2. Parrish House, 470 Water Street NE (Marion County)
3. Marion Square Park, 551 Commercial Street NE (Marion County)
4. Reynolds House, 2390 Liberty Street NE (Marion County)
5. Christensen, 2295 Liberty Street NE (Marion County)
6. Polaire, 1950 Water Street NE (Marion County)
7. Colonial Revival House, 1195 Summer Street NE (Marion County)
8. Paulus, 1155 Summer Street NE (Marion County)
9. Paulus Residence, 1556 Church Street NE (Marion County) The following is listed on the City of Salem Historic Property List; however, it is not identified as NRHP-listed or as a local landmark.
1. Arch Structure, 164 Marion Street, NE (Marion County)
16 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
Effects to historic properties can be direct physical impacts, resulting in the demolition, partial destruction, or modification of a property, and indirect impacts, which can be auditory, atmospheric, or visual. Scoring Each historic property was assumed to have equal value. Each alternative began with 10 points. Points were deducted for each impact as follows: ♦ Complete demolition, or condemnation, as the most severe physical impact, resulted in a deduction of 1.5 point per historic property ♦ Direct physical impacts resulted in deductions ranging between 0.5 to 1.5 points to account for the range of severity of those impacts ♦ Physical impacts that result in significant physical alterations, but not demolition, resulted in a deduction of 0.5 to 1.0 points per historic property ♦ Proximity impacts that resulted in the significant changes in the setting of an historical property resulted in the deduction of 0.5 points per historic property
The total number of points after the above deductions was the final score for the alternative. Assumptions Between Pine Street to the north and Bush Street to the south, Salem has over 50 properties listed on the NRHP. The densest concentration of listed properties is in the blocks between Court Street NE, Church Street SE, State Street, and Front Street NE. A systematic survey of the entire area has not been conducted so any selected route or alternative would require an additional survey for other potential historic properties.
Literature Cited National Register of Historic Places, National Register Information System: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/nris.htm City of Salem Historic Landmarks & Design Review Commission website: http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/scdev/cityplan/historic/shlc.htm - Historic Properties List (updated 12-01-04) Salem Historical Quarterly: http://www.salemquarterly.com/
B.8 Avoid direct and indirect impacts to cultural and archaeological resources where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare the impacts of alternatives on cultural and archaeological resources in the project area. This criterion was evaluated by assessing the impacts to archaeological and cultural resources that could result for each alternative.
Methods Based on research, there are no known archaeological resources within the footprints of any of the alternatives. For this reason, all alternatives received the same score of 10 indicating no impacts to known archaeological and cultural resources.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 17
Assumptions The areas adjacent to the Willamette River are generally considered high probability areas for the presence of buried historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. In 2001, an archaeological survey was conducted for river crossing alignments from Tryon Avenue and Pine Avenue and entering the west side at Brush College Road. That surface investigation identified no archaeological sites (Connolly, 2001). Particularly sensitive areas on the east side of the river include lands adjacent to Mill Creek and Pringle Creek. On the west side of the river the narrow island opposite Pine Street, Wallace Marine Park, and the undeveloped lands adjacent to the west bank all represent areas of high archaeological probability. Most of the east side of the river is heavily developed and fill imported to raise the Willamette River floodplain may be present in many areas near the river. Thus, surface indications of archaeological deposits will probably not be visible. Where bridge construction will require deep bents or other construction requiring excavation, subsurface exploratory excavations will be necessary to determine whether archaeological deposits are present. The location and known site history will determine the nature of those excavations, whether they are done by hand, or mechanically.
B.9 Avoid or minimize impacts to or improve tree cover where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts
Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well each alternative avoids or minimizes impacts to tree cover.
Methods This criterion was evaluated based on the impacts of each alternative on tree cover. First, total aerial extent of tree cover was reviewed. This included urban trees as well as natural forested areas. Canopy cover was delineated on an aerial map with the proposed alternative footprints overlain and areas calculated using GIS analysis. The total acreage of tree canopy impact was used in place of a score for this criterion.
B.10 Avoid or minimize impacts to or improve native plant communities where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well each alternative avoids impacts to native plant communities.
Methods The evaluation for this criterion was based on total area of impacted plant communities dominated by native species. Native plant communities were defined as those plant communities having a predominance of native plant species. These were generally forested areas with well developed understory. Areas of potential native plant communities were delineated on an aerial map with the proposed alternative footprints overlain and areas
18 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
calculated using GIS analysis. In general these occurred along streams and the Willamette River. Area of native plan community impact was used in place of a score for this criterion.
Assumptions Native plant communities were considered those communities that consisted of predominantly native species.
B.10 Preserve or improve water quality As documented in the evaluation framework memo for the project, this criterion will be evaluated as part of the EIS when sufficient detail is available.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 19
C. COMMUNITY IMPACTS
C.1 Minimize impacts to businesses Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to determine the number of structures impacted in commercial and employment zoned areas by alternative. Those alternatives with fewer impacts were rated more highly, as the objective of this criterion is to minimize impacts to businesses. Zoning data, augmented by a site visit, was used in the place of existing land use data.
Methods Using GIS, the right-of-way (ROW) footprint for each alternative was overlaid on the 2005 building footprints provided by City of Salem. Buildings that were impacted by an alternative in commercial or employment zones, using the City of Salem zoning codes, were counted, and used as the measure to determine potential business displacements. The following zoning classifications, which are considered to be commercial or employment zones, were collapsed for the purposes of this evaluation:
♦ Central Business District ♦ General Commercial ♦ Neighborhood Commercial ♦ Retail Commercial ♦ Employment Center ♦ Industrial Business Campus ♦ Industrial Commercial ♦ General Industrial ♦ Industrial Park ♦ Capitol Mall
Data for existing land uses is not available; therefore, zoning is used as a proxy for existing land uses. Zoning classifications for a few specific blocks were modified based on a field visit. If the majority of uses in a block were non-conforming, meaning the area is zoned commercial but the current use was residential or zoned residential but the current use was commercial, the zoning classification was modified. This was done in very few areas, mainly along Commercial Street NE and Liberty Street NE where residential uses remain in an area that is now zoned for commercial use. Scoring Criteria The actual number of structures impacted in commercial and industrial zones was used to compare the alternatives.
20 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
C.2 Minimize impacts to residences Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to determine the number of structures impacted in residentially zoned areas by alternative. Those alternatives with fewer impacts were rated more highly, as the objective of this criterion is to minimize impacts to residential areas. Based on available data, this measure was revised to reflect structures in residential zones rather than homes.
Methods Using GIS, the ROW footprint for each alternative was intersected with 2005 building footprints provided by City of Salem. Buildings that were impacted by an alternative in a residential zone, using the City of Salem zoning codes, were quantified and used as the measure to determine potential displacements. Below is the list of zoning classifications that were considered to be residential, and collapsed for the purposes of this evaluation.
♦ Residential Agriculture ♦ Multi-family Residential High-Rise ♦ Multi-family Residential 1 ♦ Multi-family Residential 2 ♦ Duplex Residential ♦ Single-Family Residential
Data for existing land uses is not available; therefore, zoning is used as a proxy for existing land uses. Since available data was limited to structures within Rural, Multi-family, Duplex, and Single-Family Residential zones, each structure impacted was counted to determine relative differences between each alternative. If the majority of uses in a block were non- conforming, meaning the area is zoned commercial but the current use was residential or zoned residential but the current use was commercial, the zoning classification was modified. This was done in very few areas, mainly along Commercial and Liberty Street Northeast, and some blocks east of Broadway where properties were zoned for commercial uses but residential uses remained. Scoring Criteria The alternatives were compared using the actual number of structures impacted.
C.3 Minimize impacts to non-displaced businesses Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to determine, for those parcels that do not result in a displacement, the square footage of a parcel that would be impacted by an alternative for ROW. Impacts that do not result in a displacement could result in a loss of access, loss of non-structure related uses such as parking or internal circulation, loss of buffer from traffic related noise, loss of landscaping, and others. Those alternatives that impact less square footage were rated more highly.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 21
Methods Methods were similar to those used for business displacements. Using GIS, the ROW footprint for each alternative was overlaid with tax lots that did not result in an impact to a structure. Tax lots were considered to be commercial or employment using the same zoning classifications that were used to determine potential business displacements. The square footage of impacted areas was quantified in GIS. Scoring Criteria Alternatives were compared using the actual square footage of impacted areas.
C.4 Minimize impacts to non-displaced residences Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to determine, for those parcels that do not result in a displacement, the square footage of a parcel that would be impacted by an alternative for ROW. Impacts that do not result in a displacement could result in a loss of access, loss of yards or landscaping, and loss of buffer from traffic related noise. Those alternatives that impact less square footage received higher scores.
Methods Methods were similar to those used for residential impacts. Using GIS, the ROW footprint for each alternative was overlaid with tax lots that did not result in an impact to a structure. Tax lots were considered to be residential using the same zoning classifications that were used to determine potential residential displacements. The square footage of impacted areas was quantified in GIS. Scoring Criteria Alternatives were compared using the actual square footage of impacted areas.
C.5 Minimize traffic intrusion onto residential streets Evaluation overview This criterion was evaluated by determining the total length of roads designated Collector and Local Street within or adjacent to residential zones in the City of Salem and that had a projected traffic volume 20 percent or higher than the no-build alternative. Collector or Local Street designated roadways within or adjacent to residential zones in the City of Salem was used as a proxy for residential streets. This evaluation was not limited to the study area but accounted for traffic intrusion in the entire City of Salem. The total length of the impacted roadways was used instead of counting individual houses to minimize errors based on structure type (multi-family or single family) and density (number of units).
Methods The traffic model developed to analyze future traffic conditions for each alternative was used to identify the streets that have 2031 P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes that are at least 20 percent higher than volume in the no-build scenario. Next, GIS was used to determine the total length of these roadways (in miles) for each alternative that met the following criteria:
22 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
♦ Within the City of Salem city limits – used to limit the analysis to a defined area.
♦ Designated as a Collector or Local Street in the City of Salem TSP – a 20 percent or higher increase in traffic volumes represents a substantial change in traffic volumes for Collector and Local Streets, which are low-volume streets that serve to connect traffic to and from the arterial street network.
♦ Within or adjacent to residential zoning districts– these zoning district categories include: Residential Agriculture, Multi-family Residential High-Rise, Multi-family Residential 1, Multi-family Residential 2, Duplex Residential, and Single-Family Residential in the City of Salem Zoning Code. Scoring Criteria The alternatives were compared using actual miles of traffic intrusion.
C.6 Minimize noise in residential areas Evaluation overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative minimizes noise impacts in residential areas. This criterion was evaluated by determining the likely number of residences within 65 decibel (dBA) noise contour areas for each alternative.
Methods Noise impacts were evaluated by determining the number of residences within 65 dBA noise contour areas developed for each alternative. The number of residences in each contour was calculated using the maximum density per residential land use category as described in detail under assumptions. The residential zones include single family, multi- family and rural. To develop noise contours, the peak-hour traffic volumes and speeds for these roadways were entered in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise model (TNM) 2.5 (FHWA, 1995). Noise contours were only developed for portions of roadways that are adjacent to residential land use area. All roadways affected by the project were evaluated, including roadways that were not immediately adjacent to the bridge. GIS was used to calculate the surface area within the 65 dBA noise contour areas for each residential land use area category by roadway. Number of residences per concept were calculated by using the 65 dBA surface area and the land use density. Scoring Criteria The actual number of residences impacted was used to compare the alternatives.
Assumptions ♦ The vehicle distribution for cars, medium trucks and heavy trucks was 95 percent, 2.5 percent and 2.5 percent respectively.
♦ Roadway width was 12 feet for each lane of traffic.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 23
♦ Noise analysis topography was flat.
♦ The maximum density associated with each land use category equaled the number of residences associated with each category as follows:
• Residential - 1 residence per 3,500 square feet • Multi-family residential - 1 residence per 1,557 square feet • Rural residential - 1 residence per 2-acre area (87,200 square feet) or 1 minimum per concept Literature Cited FHWA 1995,U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Office of Environment and Planning Noise and Air Quality Branch, D.C. June 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, June 1995. Traffic data supplied by Steve Perone Land Use categories cited by City of Salem for residential and multi-family Marion County Rural Zoning Ordinances http://www.co.marion.or.us/PW/Planning/zoning/ruralzoning/ accessed September 13, 2007
C.7 Maintain neighborhood cohesion Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well each alternative maintains neighborhood cohesion. This criterion was evaluated considering separation of parts of existing neighborhoods from each other.
Methods The neighborhood cohesion analysis was completed only for the east side of the Willamette River because on the west side:
♦ impacts were similar among all alternatives (little differentiation) ♦ development is less cohesive with a large proportion of commercial or undeveloped (that is, non-residential) land ♦ most improvements were outside of the official West Salem Neighborhood boundary or on the boundary itself
GIS was used to determine the total length (in miles) of project improvements on the east side of the Willamette River for each alternative that met the following criteria:
♦ Designated as a Local Street or Minor Arterial (there were not any collector-level streets affected) in the City of Salem TSP – Local Streets are low-volume streets that serve to connect traffic to and from the arterial street network. Minor Arterials are lower-volume streets that serve to connect traffic to and from Major Arterials. Project improvements to streets designated as Local Streets and Minor Arterials would substantially change traffic volumes on these streets. To reflect the
24 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
differences in the street designation types, improvements to Minor Arterials in residential zoning districts were weighted half as much as improvements to Local Streets in residential zoning districts.
♦ Within or adjacent to residential zoning districts – these zoning district categories include: Residential Agriculture, Multi-family Residential High-Rise, Multi-family Residential 1, Multi-family Residential 2, Duplex Residential, and Single-Family Residential in the City of Salem Zoning Code. Scoring Criteria The total miles that met the above criteria ranged between 0.00 and 1.13 miles, with the data for all alternatives falling within five data groupings. The following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
Score Description
5 0.0 miles
4 0.1 to 0.4 miles
3 0.5 to 0.7 miles
2 0.8 to 1.0 miles
1 1.1 or more miles
C.8 Stimulate economic development, consistent with adopted land use plans As documented in the evaluation framework memo for the project, this criterion will be evaluated as part of the EIS when sufficient detail is available.
C.9 Reduce through freight traffic in downtown Evaluation overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative would divert through freight traffic in downtown Salem. It is based on percentage of through freight traffic diverted from downtown (Union to Trade, Willamette River to Cottage). Since the traffic analysis completed at this level did not break out vehicle types, total traffic through downtown is used as a proxy for freight traffic.
Methods The travel demand model does not include a specific commodity or freight component. As a result, vehicle traffic in the P.M. peak hour was used as a proxy. A downtown cordon (Union to Trade, Willamette River to Cottage) was created and the number of trips through each of the ‘gates’ was totaled. Scoring Criteria Alternatives were assigned an average score of 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 (worst) to 4 (best) based on through-traffic diversion.. Alternatives were only assigned scores of 2 or 3 even though the scale was from 1 to 4 to recognize the small relative differences in performance between alternatives.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 25
Score Description
4 Theoretical best performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
3 Better than average diversion of freight traffic from downtown Salem – This score was assigned to all alternatives with above average performance.
2 Worse than average diversion of freight traffic from downtown Salem – This score was assigned to all alternatives with below average performance.
1 Theoretical worst performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
C.10 Support adopted land use and transportation plans Evaluation overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative supports adopted land use and transportation plans. Each alternative was evaluated for consistency regarding the applicable adopted plans and policies (a list of all plans and policies reviewed can be found in the “literature cited” section). The compatibility of the alternative was rated on a scale from 1-5, with 5 being the most compatible and 1 being the least for each applicable plan. Plans that pertain to larger jurisdictions, such as regional, county, or city were weighted more heavily than plans that pertain to more localized areas such as neighborhoods.
Methods After reviewing a number of plans (see Literature Cited) for applicability to this criterion, a small number of plans were reviewed in detail:
♦ Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Regional Transportation Systems Plan, May 2007 ♦ Salem Area Comprehensive Plan, April 2004 ♦ City of Salem Transportation System Plan, Amended March 2005 ♦ Polk County Comprehensive Plan, July 1998 ♦ Riverfront Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, City of Salem, February 2003 ♦ North Gateway Urban Renewal Area Plan, City of Salem, September 2006 ♦ West Salem Urban Renewal Area Plan, City of Salem, August 2001
The alternatives were compared to the policies set forth in the plans for consistency. A score was assessed for consistency with each plan (see below). The score for consistency with the Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan was reduced by 1 point to account for its specific geographic area in comparison to the other plans. The West Salem Urban Renewal Plan would be affected equally by all alternatives because the plan area includes areas along Highway 22 and the existing bridges – all alternatives affect one of those areas.
A total score for each alternative was determined by averaging the scores for each of the five plans.
Rating criteria by subcriterion
26 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
The individual plans were considered subcriterion and were then totaled and averaged to produce an overall score for the criteria. The Riverfront Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, a smaller, more specific plan, was reduced by a half-point rating so the larger more comprehensive plans had more sway in the rating system. Scoring For the larger plans that did not differentiate between alternatives, all alternatives received a score of 4 for consistency with the plan. The Polk County Comprehensive Plan was the only large plan with which all alternatives were not consistent. Scoring for consistency with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan is based on agricultural and Willamette Greenway impacts. To determine the scoring categories, the data points were graphed and natural breaks were identified.
Score Description
4 Impacts 650-715 square feet of agricultural and greenway land
3 Impacts 716-900 square feet of agricultural and greenway land
2 Impacts 901-1300 square feet of agricultural and greenway land
1 Impacts 1301-1500 square feet of agricultural and greenway land
Not all alternatives were consistent with the Riverfront Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, a smaller plan. Scores were based on right-of-way impacts within the plan area.
Score Description
4.0 Right of way impacts would be outside of the Urban Renewal Area (URA)
3.0 Right of way impacts within the URA would be in the vicinity of existing bridges only
2.0 Right of way impacts within the URA would be in areas aside from the vicinity of the existing bridges
1.0 Right of way impacts within the URA would be near parcels undergoing or planned for redevelopment
Assumptions Plans that pertain to a larger area, such as the region, city, or county were weighted heavier than more local, specific plans such as neighborhood plans. Plans that influenced larger areas were weighted more heavily because they have a greater impact on a larger number of people. Further, many of the smaller plans are compatible with or contain similar elements to the larger plans. Some plans prescribed specific improvements or changes to the transportation system aimed at increasing connectivity or reducing congestion in the area. In such cases, an alternative was evaluated based on whether or not it met the underlying goal of increased connectivity or reduced congestion, even if the precise transportation improvement was not recommended as part of the build alternative. Specific improvements recommended by plans may be built or modified to achieve similar results regardless of bridge alternatives. Unless an alternative conflicted with a policy, project, or would interfere
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 27
with the larger purpose behind the plan, the alternative was considered compatible. Generally, all alternatives are compatible.
Literature Cited Note: all plans were reviewed. Only those with relevant policies were included in the scoring and methodology section. The Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Regional Transportation System Plan, May 2007 Polk County Comprehensive Plan, July 1998 Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 1981 Salem Area Comprehensive Plan, April 2004 City of Salem Transportation System Plan, Amended March 2005 Final West Salem Gateway Area Refinement Plan, June 2005 North Gateway Plan, September 2006 Riverfront-Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, City of Salem, February 2003 North Downtown Plan, July, 1997 West Salem Neighborhood Plan, Effective April, 2004 Highland Neighborhood Plan, Adopted June 1984 Grant Neighborhood Plan, Adopted June 1983 Central Salem Streetcar Feasibility Study Final Report, February, 2005 Wallace Road Local Access and Circulation Study, 1997 West Salem Urban Renewal Area Plan, City of Salem, August 2001 C.11 Minimize construction duration and traffic impacts during construction Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare the impacts of construction to the traveling public and the duration of those impacts. This criterion was evaluated using a qualitative scale that assessed the location of major construction activities and impacts to the existing arterial street system. The ratings varied from a high score of 4 and a low score of 1.
Methods This criterion was measured by considering the types of construction activities required for each alternative and the likely impact on travel in the region. Construction on the existing bridges, construction of new structures over major roads or railroads and construction of new east side interchanges were considered in the evaluation. Scoring Criteria
28 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
A score of 4 points indicated the best alternative because it had the least impacts to traffic, while a score of 1 point indicated the least favorable alternative because it had the greatest impacts to traffic. A scale of 1 to 4 was used to highlight the differences between those options that required improvements to the existing bridges and those that did not. Scores were assigned as follows:
Score Description
4 Alternative does not require major improvements to existing bridges and connects to the street system on the east side at-grade
3 Alternative does not require major improvements to existing bridges, but does require construction over major arterial roadways or railroads
1 Alternative requires major improvements to the existing bridges
A score of “2” was not used to capture the significant difference in impacts between those alternatives that require major improvements to existing bridges and those that do not.
C.12 Enhance public access to the river Evaluation overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well the alternatives enhance public access to the Willamette River. This criterion was evaluated using a qualitative scale considering the number of public access opportunities to access the Willamette River, including the amount of river frontage.
Methods Scoring Criteria For each alternative, the right-of-way footprint and total river frontage at the Willamette River on the east and west sides were evaluated in GIS. The analysis concluded that the alternatives fell within three categories for river frontage. Therefore, the following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
Score Description
5 Most opportunity to enhance public river access
3 Moderate opportunity to enhance public river access
1 Least opportunity to enhance public river access
Assumptions The right-of-way below the bridge on the east and west riverbank for each alternative is an opportunity to enhance public river access, similar to the public open space and river access at the west and east river banks below the existing Marion and Center Street bridges.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 29
C.13 Minimize impacts to recreational facilities Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to minimize impacts to recreational facilities. This criterion was evaluated by considering if an impact constitutes a constructive use and if the impacts are direct or indirect.
Methods GIS was used to identify the right-of-way boundary for each alternative and the recreational facilities that could be directly or indirectly impacted by an alternative. These recreational facilities were Edgewater Trail and Wallace Marine Park on the west side, and Marion Square Park and Highland Park on the east side of the Willamette River. Direct impacts, to recreational facilities would result from right-of-way acquisition. Indirect impacts to recreational facilities would result from alternative improvements located immediately adjacent to a recreational facility. Each alternative began with 5 points. Points were deducted as follows:
♦ Direct Impact from Bisecting of Active Area: 2 points were deducted for the direct impact from alternatives that split/bisect an active area of a recreational facility (such as a playground or softball field)
♦ Direct Impact of Active Area: 1.5 points were deducted for the direct impact at the edge of an active area of a recreational facility (such as a playground or softball field)
♦ Direct Impact of Inactive Area: 1 point was deducted for the direct impact of an inactive area of a recreational facility
♦ Indirect Impact: 0.5 points were deducted for the indirect impact to recreational facilities Scoring Criteria The total number of points after the above deductions was the final score for the alternative. All alternatives included improvements adjacent to Marion Square Park in downtown Salem. Therefore, impacts to Marion Square Park were not considered in the analysis because they did not differentiate between alternatives.
Assumptions The type of impact (direct versus indirect), location of impact (alternative bisects park versus alternative impacted an edge of a park), and the use of the impacted park area (active versus inactive area) to recreational facilities were considered in the analysis. The total area of potential impact was not considered in the analysis.
30 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
C.14 Minimize impacts to schools Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare how well the alternatives minimize impacts to schools. This criterion was evaluated by considering the right-of-way impacts to school facilities and increased traffic volumes on streets adjacent to or near school facilities.
Methods The traffic model developed to analyze future traffic conditions for each alternative was used to identify the streets that have a 2031 P.M. peak-hour traffic volume at least 20 percent greater than the no-build scenario. Next, GIS was used to identify public and private school facilities in the project area. Finally, the total number of schools that were within a ¼ mile of the alternative’s improvements and located within 1/8 mile of a street with a projected P.M. peak-hour traffic volume 20 percent or more than the no-build alternative were identified. The following scoring scale was used in the analysis:
Score Description
5 7 or fewer schools within 1/8 mile of a street with a projected increase in P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes of at least 20%
4 8 to 9 schools within 1/8 mile of a street with a projected increase in P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes of at least 20%
3 10 to 11 schools within 1/8 mile of a street with a projected increase in P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes of at least 20%
2 12 or more schools within 1/8 mile of a street with a projected increase in P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes of at least 20%
After a score was assigned using the above methodology to each alternative, indirect and direct impacts to school facilities for each alternative were considered, and applied as follows:
♦ Indirect Impacts: 2 points were deducted for project improvements within 500 feet of a school facility (Green, Forest, and Purple alternatives)
♦ Direct Impacts: 3 points were deducted for alternatives that directly impact school facilities (right-of-way acquisition) (limited to the Blue and Forest alternatives)
♦ Impacts to neighborhood elementary schools: 1 point was deducted for project improvements within 500 feet of a public neighborhood elementary school.
The scores after these deductions were the final scores for each alternative.
Assumptions Traffic volumes for the roadways with at least a 20 percent increase in traffic volumes were for the P.M. peak hour, which may not correspond to the hour with the highest number of schoolchildren traveling on these streets.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 31
D. FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
D.1 Meet Section 4(f) and 6(f) requirements Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative would likely meet Section 4(f) and 6(f) requirements. All publicly owned lands that are for recreational purposes, such as parks or trails, wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas, and historic sites are Section 4(f) resources. Section 6(f) resources are park or recreational properties that were acquired or improved using Section 6(f) funds of the Land and Water Conservation Act. The original measure for this criterion was qualitative scale of the likelihood that the alternative can meet Section 4(f) and 6(f) requirements. In an attempt to quantify potential impacts as much as possible, the measure used was the number and severity of impacts to Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, which is to serve as a proxy to determine the likelihood that an alternative can meet Section 4(f) and 6(f) requirements.
Methods For the purposes of Section 4(f), a historic site was considered significant if it is on or eligible for the National Registry of Historic Properties. FHWA may determine that it is appropriate to apply Section 4(f) to historic sites of local significance (FHWA, 2005); therefore, historic sites from the City of Salem Local Historic Landmark Register were also included as part of this analysis. Section 6 (f) resources are park or recreational lands acquired using Section 6 (f) funds. Within the general project vicinity, Section 6(f) resources are Brush College Park, Eola Park, and Minto Park, none of which are impacted by an alternative and have therefore, not been included as part of this analysis. Wallace Marine Park is also a 6 (f) resource that is impacted by project alternatives and is therefore included in this analysis. Impacting Section 6 (f) resources would require identifying replacement lands.
All alternatives begin with a score of 5 from which Section 4(f) impacts are subtracted. As a result, alternatives with a higher score are considered better able to meet Section 4 (f) requirements, meaning any prudent and feasible avoidance alternative will score more highly. This methodology helps build the case that the agency is not being arbitrary and capricious if the preferred alternative impacts a Section 4(f) resource, since impacts to Section 4(f) resources are considered as part of the evaluation of alternatives. The level of impact is also considered. Parcel takes were considered the highest level of impact. The actual area taken is compared to the overall area of the resource, but is not the only measure used to determine impact. If an alternative takes a marginally used area of a resource that is considered to be less impact than an alternative that would bisect a resource land or would result in a loss of function for that resource, such as loss of a soccer field. Recreational sites were visited to help determine any impacts to the function of the resource. Impacts that did not result in a take of land were considered proximity impacts. For proximity impacts, the first determination is whether or not the impact is a constructive use, indirect, or a de minimis impact. A constructive use is considered a substantial impairment
32 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
to the activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) resource, resulting in a higher subtraction of points relative to an indirect or de minimis impact. An indirect impact is a proximity impact such as noise or access impacts that are significant, but do not substantially impair use of the resource. A de minimis impact is a minimal proximity impact that is not considered to be adverse, and results in no subtraction of points. For both direct and proximity impacts, the range of points subtracted was between 0.75 and 0.25 depending on a qualitative assessment taking into account considerations described above. Section 4(f) resources relevant to the evaluation of alternatives are: ♦ Wallace Marine Park (also a Section 6(f) resource) ♦ Salem Riverfront Park ♦ Marion Square Park (historic resource also), 551 Commercial Street NE (Marion County) ♦ Jessie & Julia Harritt House ♦ Quarry House, 1340 Wallace Road NW (Polk County) ♦ Old West Salem City Hall, 1320 Edgewater Street, listed in the NRHP on June 1, 1990. (Polk County) ♦ Andrew Gilbert House, 116-172 Marion Street, listed in the National Register on Nov. 6, 1980. (Marion County) ♦ Arch Structure, 164 Marion Street, NE (Marion County) ♦ Union Street Railroad Bridge and Trestle, Junction of Union Street NE and Water Street NE, listed in the NRHP on Jan. 11, 2006. (Marion County) ♦ Parrish House, 470 Water Street NE (Marion County) ♦ Colonial Revival House, 1195 Summer Street NE (Marion County) ♦ Paulus, 1155 Summer Street NE (Marion County) ♦ Paulus Residence, 1556 Church Street NE (Marion County) ♦ Polaire, 1950 Water Street NE (Marion County) ♦ Christensen, 2295 Liberty Street NE (Marion County) ♦ Reynolds House, 2390 Liberty Street NE (Marion County) ♦ Mouth of Mill Creek Park ♦ Highland Park ♦ Highland Elementary School Park ♦ Grant Park
Literature Cited Federal Highway Administration (2005), “FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper.”
D.2 Meet Statewide Planning Goal requirements Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative is likely to meet statewide planning goal requirements. This measure assesses whether the crossing is outside the urban growth boundary (UGB), if there are other roadway improvements
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 33
associated with an alternative that are outside the UGB, and the significance of those impacts.
Methods Salem River Crossing project alternatives are a type of transportation facility or improvement that is not permitted on rural lands under Section 0065 of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), OAR 660, Division 12, and are allowed only upon demonstration of compliance with the requirements for goal exceptions set out in Section 0070 of that rule. The TPR goal exception standards are relevant to project alternatives because (1) the TPR does not permit new bridges serving urban travel needs outside UGBs without an exception, and (2) several of the alternatives are located in part outside the Salem-Keizer UGB. The TPR goal exception requirements were amended in July, 2006, and this analysis incorporates those amendments. The principal effect of those amendments was to integrate all relevant provisions of Land Conservation and Development Commission’s (LCDC’s) Exceptions Rule, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 4, into the TPR to enable OAR 660-012-0070 to operate as a stand-alone provision. Consequently, it is now sufficient for a local government to demonstrate compliance solely with the TPR exception standards, whereas before it needed to demonstrate compliance with both TPR and OAR 660, Division 4 exception requirements. Potentially impacted rural lands outside of the UGB are zoned by Polk County as Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) 3, the purpose of which is to conserve agricultural land 4. Because the bridge would predominantly serve an urban population, exceptions would be required to state policies in Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands), 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and 14 (Urbanization). Those policies protect agricultural land for farm uses and prevent the extension of urban facilities and uses outside of UGBs. 5 If goal exception requirements are met, the transportation facility would be subject to review and approval as a conditional use by the state. The TPR clearly favors avoiding goal exceptions by mandating the selection of non- exception alternatives wherever they can “reasonably accommodate” the identified transportation need. Simply put, whenever non-exception alternatives can reasonably accommodate the need, the exception alternatives will fail. Therefore, the evaluation of alternatives based on this criterion depends on the alternative’s relative impact to EFU land outside of the UGB, with alternatives that would require a goal exception scoring the worst (score of 1). Scoring All alternatives had some potential impact outside of the UGB, and scores ranged between 3 and 1, with the greatest potential impact is given a score of 1. Each alternative began with a possible score of four points. Points were deducted as follows:
3 Source: Polk County GIS and Polk County Zoning Code, Chapter 136, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zoning District 4 Although bridge alternatives would be elevated on piers through areas zoned for farm use, a goal exception would still be required. 5 It is possible that the project may also require an exception to Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway. If so, that exception would be governed by the exception requirements in OAR 660, Division 4 rather than those in the TPR.
34 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
♦ 1 point was deducted if the crossing itself is outside the UGB. ♦ 1 point was deducted if other roadway improvements are outside of the UGB. ♦ 1 additional point was deducted if improvements bisect resource land.
Scores from 1 point (most inconsistent with state land use planning goals) to 3 points (most consistent with state land use planning goals were assigned. Since all alternatives included some improvements outside of the UGB, no score of 4 was given.
E. COST -EFFECTIVE AND TIMELY SOLUTION
E.1 Minimize construction cost Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare the cost of each alternative.
Methods The project cost estimates were prepared in 2007 dollars and escalated at 4.25% per year to an approximate ‘build year’ of 2012. The escalation rate of 4.25% was obtained from the ODOT Cost Estimating Unit and is intended to account for inflation of construction costs over the near term. The project cost estimates include construction cost, right-of-way cost, a 40% contingency, and an allowance for engineering cost. Quantities for each bid item were estimated based on alternative footprints. Costs were calculated by multiplying quantity of each bid item by price. Cost for each bid item were then estimated and held constant across all alternatives. Scoring The actual project costs assuming a 2012 build year were used in place of scores for this criterion. Assumptions These are planning-level cost estimates that were developed for relative comparison to each other. They are not intended for programming purposes or design-level cost estimating. The variable was the quantities. The cost estimates are based on the preliminary traffic studies performed to date. They also include a standardized set of “system improvements” which are not on the main bridge alignment but which are required to meet mobility requirements in the currently defined project area. The system improvements may or may not be included in the final scope of the Salem River Crossing project. Also, it was assumed that everything is built at one time, i.e., no phasing was considered. More detail is available upon request.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 35
E.2 Minimize operations and maintenance cost Evaluation overview The purpose of this evaluation criterion is to compare the long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of each alternative. This criterion was evaluated considering street maintenance, structure maintenance, and signal maintenance among other things.
Methods A general review of the alternatives indicated structure maintenance was the most costly item while street and signal maintenance were minor items. Thus the exercise was simplified and focused on structure maintenance. Without knowing the type of structure, the only real difference among alternatives was the structure size (length and width). So the O&M cost was evaluated as a function of structure size. Scoring Criteria A score of 4 points indicated the best alternative because it had the least O&M cost (smallest structure size), while a score of 1 point indicated the least favorable alternative because it had the highest O&M cost (largest structure size).
Score Description
4 Less than 1,000,000 square feet of structure
3 Between 1,000,000 square feet of structure and 1,157,000 square feet of structure
2 Between 1,157,000 and 1,230,000 square feet of structure
1 More than 1,230,000 square feet of structure
Assumptions Structure maintenance is significantly more costly than street, signal, or other public maintenance costs.
E.3 Minimize implementation timeline Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how quickly each alternative could be implemented. The measure for this criterion is a qualitative scale considering the likelihood the project will be funded earlier within the 20-year planning period given available funding sources, public support, institutional readiness, and time to start of construction.
Methods The alternatives could not be differentiated based on likelihood the project will be funded earlier within the 20-year planning period given available funding sources, public support, institutional readiness, and time to start of construction.
36 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
E.4 Maximize incremental benefits Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative could be phased over time or otherwise be constructed to maximize incremental benefits. The assumption here is that specific improvements could be constructed as traffic demand warrants so that some benefits could be implemented soon and the costs of the project could be spread out over time.
Methods The alternatives could not be differentiated based on this criterion. At this point, all alternatives had similar phasing opportunities. For example, the Red option could be phased as well as the improvements to the existing bridges. Obviously all the new bridge alignments would require an up-front connection on the east and west side of the river, so there was no difference there. The “system improvements,” many of which were included on all alternatives, could be implemented independently as well.
E.5 Maximize congestion reduction benefits over the planning period Evaluation overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative could maximize congestion reduction benefits over the planning period. Evaluation is based on reducing the total cumulative Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) for the west Salem and downtown districts.
Methods Scoring Criteria Alternatives were assigned a score of 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 (worst) to 4 (best) based Vehicle Hours of Delay in the downtown and west Salem districts. Alternatives were only assigned scores of 2 or 3 even though the scale was from 1 to 4 to recognize the small relative differences in performance between alternatives.
Score Description 4 Theoretical best performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative.
3 Better than average performance – This score was assigned to all alternatives with above average performance.
2 Worse than average performance – This score was assigned to all alternatives with below average performance.
1 Theoretical worst performance – This score was not assigned to any alternative. Assumptions Vehicles Hours of Delay (VHD) – VHD is measured in 2031. It considers the amount of congestion, measured in hours on a roadway segment(s). Time or delay is measured against a threshold. This measure was set as hours of travel above a V/C ratio of 0.90 for all roadway facilities in West Salem and downtown Salem districts. Final rankings for each concept were calculated and assigned as follows:
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 37
♦ Calculate the average and standard deviation of VHD results from each concept ♦ Assign rank based on intervals using the average and standard deviation using the individual concept results
E.6 Maximize likelihood of funding Evaluation Overview The purpose of this criterion is to compare how well each alternative maximizes the likelihood of funding. Methods The alternatives could not be differentiated based on this criterion given the limited information available about funding scenarios.
38 ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC
APPENDIX A: LITERATURE CITED FOR NATURAL RESOURCE CRITERIA
City of Salem. 1999. City of Salem Local Wetlands Inventory. Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M. M. P. Huso. 1997. Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History: Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press. pp. 492. FEMA, 2004. Flood Insurance Study City of Salem, Oregon, Marion and Polk Counties. Revised October 19, 2004, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study Number 410183V000A. NRCS. 1972. Soil Survey of Marion County, Oregon . USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, DC. NRCS. 1982. Soil Survey of Polk County, Oregon . USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, DC. NRCS. 2000. Hydric Soils of Polk County, Oregon. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, DC. NRCS. 1999. Hydric Soils of Marion County, Oregon. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2007. Data base search for rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species within the proposed alternatives vicinity. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, Portland, Oregon Titus, J.H., J.A. Christy, D. Vanderschaaf, J.S. Kagan, and E.R. Alverson. 1996. Native Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Plant Communities and Their Biota in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Phase I Project: Inventory and Assessment Report to Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington Willamette Basin Geographic Initiative Program. November 1996 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006 Federally Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species, Candidate Species and Species of Concern that May Occur in Marion and Polk Counties. Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. USFWS, 1994. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map, Salem West, Oregon quadrangle.
ALTERNATIVEMETHODOLOGYREPORT_10.25.07_FINAL.DOC 39 MEMORANDUM
Alternatives Evaluation Results
This memorandum documents the findings of the alternatives evaluation process for the Salem River Crossing project. The purpose of this step of the project is to help the Task Force and Oversight Team narrow the universe of alternatives to a few that will be analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). This memo is not intended to suggest recommendations or decisions. It is intended to summarize the results of the technical evaluation process. These evaluation results are just one piece of information that, along with local knowledge and stakeholder perspectives, will be used by the Task Force and Oversight Team in the narrowing process. This memorandum is organized into four main sections:
♦ Evaluation Process—summarizes the evaluation framework, alternatives, the methodology used to evaluate alternatives, and the decision model used to score the alternatives.
♦ General Findings by Goal—summarizes the general findings of the alternatives evaluation process. Findings are summarized by evaluation criteria category and alternative.
♦ Key Findings by Alternative—documents the key findings of the alternative evaluation process. Findings are organized by alternative.
♦ Summary—summarizes the findings of the alternative evaluation and describes the next steps.
EVALUATION PROCESS The Salem River Crossing Evaluation Framework (see Salem River Crossing Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum, approved on Jan. 29, 2007) outlines the approach for narrowing all potential project alternatives to a set that will be evaluated in the DEIS. There are two steps in this process. The first step screened preliminary concepts to ensure that each concept both met project’s adopted Purpose and Need Statement, and the mobility standard or alternate mobility standard agreed upon by the City of Salem and the Oregon Department of Transportation. The alternatives to be evaluated were identified by the project team, Task Force, and Oversight Team, with input from community members at open houses on June 26 and 27, 2007, and via the project web site. The set of alternatives to be evaluated was recommended by the Task Force on Aug. 15, 2007, and by the Oversight Team on Aug. 17, 2007. The second step of the evaluation process, conducted in fall 2007, compared the performance of project alternatives against the evaluation criteria specified in the Evaluation Framework. The results of this process are described in this report. Evaluation criteria are used to differentiate and identify trade-offs among feasible alternatives. To be most effective, an evaluation criterion must be measurable and well-defined. This ensures a
10/23/07 1
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS common understanding of each criterion’s meaning, and allows for a clear comparison among alternatives. In total, 43 evaluation criteria were developed and approved by the Task Force and Oversight Team. Some criteria important to stakeholders could not be measured during this evaluation phase due to lack of applicable data, but are included because they will be used later in the process for selection of a preferred alternative, during final design, or during the procurement of construction contractors. For a list of these criteria, see the Salem River Crossing Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum (approved January 29, 2007). The evaluation framework includes the following six goals. Five of these goals were evaluated through this process and include criteria and performance measures:
1. Improve mobility and safety for people and freight across the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer Metropolitan Area
2. Preserve or improve natural and cultural resources
3. Preserve the quality of life in communities on both sides of the river
4. Meet federal and state regulatory requirements
5. Provide a cost effective and timely solution
6. Ensure that any structural solution is aesthetically pleasing1 The Task Force determined weighting factors for the evaluation criteria to establish relative importance and value. Weighting was accomplished in a workshop using a nominal group process. First, each Task Force member developed his or her own weights for each of the six goals. Each member had 100 points to distribute across the six goals. Task Force member distributions were compiled to show the high, low, and median scores for each goal. The group discussed the scoring, with proponents of high and low scores explaining their reasoning to the others. Then the members individually reweighed the goals and their scores were averaged to determine the final weights. This nominal group process was then repeated for the goals with the highest weights to determine the distribution of the weight assigned to the individual criteria within the goal. For example, the Preserve Quality of Life goal received a total weight of 23 points. Task Force members assigned 100 points across the 13 criteria comprising this goal in the same two-round process described above. The average weights were then normalized as a distribution of the 23 points. For the remaining goals, members each provided weights for the individual criteria and these were averaged and normalized without discussion. The weighting of the evaluation criteria goals is illustrated in Figure 1. A complete list of individual criterion weighting is provided in Attachment A. These weights and the performance of alternatives against the evaluation criteria were used to develop a “evaluation score,” discussed later in this section.
1 The sixth goal (aesthetics) was not evaluated at this time because bridge designs have not been developed. It will be considered as designs are developed.
2 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
FIGURE 1 Weight by Goal
Cost-effective and Timely Solution 22% Mobility and Safety 33%
Meets State and Federal Regulatory Requirements 8%
Preserves Natural and Preserves Quality of Cultural Resources Life 14% 23%
Elements Common to Alternatives For ease of reference, each of the potential crossing locations was assigned a color as a name. In some cases, two alternatives were developed for a particular crossing location: one was developed to meet the adopted mobility standard and one was developed to meet an alternate mobility standard. In the alternatives referred to as a color plus “Red” (e.g. Orange + Red alternative), the “Red” component is generally consistent between alternatives. It refers to a direct connection between a new crossing and Highway 22 south of the existing bridges. The alternatives referred to as a color alone (e.g. Orange alternative) include improvements to the existing Marion Street and Center Street bridges and Highway 22 in addition to the new crossing. All alternatives also include some improvements to the street network.
Alternatives Evaluated Seven crossing locations and 13 unique alternatives with variations including a Highway 22 connection (Red) or improvements to the existing bridges were evaluated. The alternatives are described below. It is important to note that all alternatives that do not include a direct connection to Highway 22 (Red) instead include extensive improvements to the existing Marion Street and Center Street bridges.
♦ Purple alternative—Begins at the Salem Parkway on the east, extends south to Tryon Avenue, and connects to Wallace Road and Brush College Road on the west. Most of this bridge would need to be elevated, because it crosses over the floodplain and floodway. This concept does not have a direct connection to Highway 22, but does include significant improvement to the existing bridges. ♦ Orange and Orange + Red alternatives—Begins at Salem Parkway on the east, extends south to Tryon Avenue, and connects to Wallace Road and Hope Avenue on the west. This bridge would need to be elevated for most of its length, because it crosses over the floodplain and floodway. Two variations were advanced for further study, one with a
10/23/07 3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
direct connection to Highway 22 (Red) and one with improvements to the existing bridges.
♦ Pink and Pink + Red alternatives—Begins at Pine and Hickory streets on the east, extends slightly south to cross the river, then connects to Wallace Road and Hope Avenue on the west. Two variations were advanced for further study, one with a direct connection to Highway 22 (Red) and one with improvements to the existing bridges. ♦ White, White + Red, and White + Red light alternatives—Begins at Salem Parkway and Pine Street on the east, crosses the river and connects to Hope Avenue and Wallace Road on the west. Three variations were evaluated: one with a direct connection to Highway 22 (Red); one with a direct connection to Highway 22 (Red) but with a connection to the Liberty-Commercial couplet and no connection to Pine and Hickory streets; and a third that does not connect to Highway 22 (Red) but does include the Pine Street and Hickory Street couplet and improvements to the existing bridges.
♦ Blue + Red alternative—Begins at Academy and River streets on the east, extends over the river, then turns south to connect to Wallace and Orchard Heights Roads on the west. Includes direct connection to Highway 22 (Red). ♦ Yellow and Yellow + Red alternatives—Begins at Hood and Shipping streets on the east, crosses the river and connects to Wallace and Orchard Heights Roads on the west. Two variations were advanced for further study, one with a direct connection to Highway 22 (Red) and one with improvements to the existing bridges.
♦ Green + Red alternative—Begins at Market and Gaines streets on the east, crosses the river and connects to Glen Creek and Wallace Roads on the west. Includes a direct connection to Highway 22 (Red).
♦ Forest alternative—This alternative includes two new, independent bridges, one from Pine and Hickory streets to Wallace Road at Hope Avenue (Pink alignment) and one from Market Street to Glen Creek and Wallace roads (Green alignment). No direct connection to Highway 22 (Red) is included with this alternative, but it does include improvements to the existing bridges.
Methodology Summary A team of technical experts rated the performance of these 13 alternatives against each of the 39 evaluation criteria adopted by the Task Force that could be measured. Performance ratings were either qualitative or quantitative. Thirty-four of these evaluation criteria could be evaluated to differentiate among the alternatives.
♦ For the qualitative criteria, the technical experts rated the alternatives on a scoring scale described in the methodology report. The scales were 1 to 3, 1 to 4, or 1 to 5, depending on the variation in the performance of alternatives. In all cases, the highest score represents the best performance.
♦ For the quantitative criteria, such as property impacts, natural resource impacts and costs, actual performance data was used for the evaluation process. For these criteria, the lowest cost or lowest number or area of impact represent the best performance. The
4 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Salem River Crossing Alternatives Methodology Report documents the methodology used to evaluate alternatives.
Evaluation Tool The combination of 13 alternatives and 39 evaluation criteria results in more than 500 performance scores. In addition, the weighting of the five goals that are being scored and the 39 evaluation criteria produces a data set difficult to manage and interpret. For these reasons, a commercially available decision analysis tool, Criterium Decision Plus, was used to capture all of the information. The software also applies mathematical equations to ensure the appropriate calculation of results. Steps in the Criterium Decision Plus tool are as follows:
♦ Step 1: Develop Decision Structure—In the first step, the five goals (criteria categories) and 39 evaluation criteria being scored, and all 13 alternatives are entered into the model.
♦ Step 2: Input the Performance of the Alternatives—The second step entails inputting the performance score from the technical team’s analysis for each alternative against each evaluation criterion.
♦ Step 3: Weight the Evaluation Criteria—The third step entails inputting the weighting assigned by the Task Force for each of the goals and evaluation criteria.
♦ Step 4: Run Model and Rank Alternatives—The final step entails running the model. A decision score for each alternative was calculated by multiplying the weights times the performance ratings (the 1 to 5 scales indicating the extent to which the alternatives met the performance criteria) for each criterion and summing the scores for all the criteria. The higher the score, the higher the relative performance of the alternative against all evaluation criteria. Evaluation scores were arrayed from high to low to indicate the relative rank of the alternatives. Attachment A shows the evaluation scores and alternative rankings. The evaluation model is intended only as a tool to assist the Task Force in developing a recommendation. The evaluation model captures technical analysis of criteria and goals, but is not a substitute for group discussion of trade-offs and local knowledge of impacts. Stakeholder interpretation of the data and perspectives will guide the development of alternatives. The evaluation scores are just one piece of information that should be used in developing recommendations and decisions.
FINDINGS BY GOAL Alternative screening findings in this memorandum are divided into two sections: (1) General Findings and (2) Key Findings by Alternative. This section, General Findings, summarizes the general findings by goal and evaluation criteria. The next section, Key Findings by Alternative, provides a summary of the alternative evaluation results by alternative. Appendix A provides detail on the evaluation of each criteria. (NOTE: Appendix A is currently being developed.)
10/23/07 5 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Goal 1: Improve Mobility and Safety for People and Freight
Total Weight 33 Points (33% of total score)
Evaluation • Improve vehicle and freight mobility for local travel (5.5 points) Criteria • Improve vehicle and freight mobility for regional travel (5 points)
• Improve vehicle and freight mobility for through travel (4.9 points)
• Improve safety for people, vehicles and freight (4.3 points)
• Improve transit reliability across the Willamette River (5 points)
• Improve pedestrian facilities across the Willamette River (3.1 points)
• Improve bicycle facilities across the Willamette River (2.3 points)
• Improve emergency vehicle response across the Willamette River (3 points) Findings by Goal ♦ The Forest, Green + Red, White, and Pink alternatives score best for this goal. Forest and Green + Red both scored well on the local mobility, transit and through mobility criteria. Forest and White both scored well on regional mobility criteria.
♦ Forest scored more points than any other option on the emergency vehicle response criterion because it would provide bridge redundancy.
♦ The Purple, Orange + Red, White + Red light, and Orange alternatives all scored poorly for this goal.
♦ The alternatives without Red scored well (and in some cases better than their alternative with Red) in large part due to the improvements to the existing bridges that are part of the non-Red alternatives.
FIGURE 2 Evaluation Score for Goal 1: Safety and mobility by rank
Forest 0.715 Pink 0.613 White 0.602 Green + red 0.559 Yellow + red 0.547 Yellow 0.504 White + red 0.503 Pink +red 0.458 White + red light 0.447 Blue + red 0.415 Orange 0.393 Orange + red 0.393 Purple 0.393
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
6 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
FIGURE 3 Contributions to Goal 1: Safety and mobility by rank
Findings by Criteria
Criteria Overall Findings
Improve vehicle and freight • There was little overall differentiation between alternatives for this mobility for local travel (5.5 criterion, so alternatives were scored either a 2 or a 3 on a scale of 1 to 4. points) • Green + Red, Forest, White, and Pink scored well for this criterion because they effectively relieved traffic on the existing bridges and resulted in a fewer system-wide vehicle hours of delay.
Improve vehicle and freight • There was little overall differentiation between alternatives for this mobility for regional travel (5 criterion, so alternatives were scored either a 2 or a 3 on a scale of 1 to 4. points) • Pink, Yellow, Yellow + Red, Green + Red, Forest, and White scored well for this criterion because they effectively relieved traffic on the existing bridges and resulted in fewer system-wide vehicle hours of delay.
Improve vehicle and freight • There was little overall differentiation between alternatives for this mobility for through travel (4.9 criterion, so alternatives were scored either a 2 or a 3 on a scale of 1 to 4. points) • Pink, Yellow, Yellow + Red, Green + Red, Forest, and White scored well for this criterion because they effectively relieved traffic on the existing bridges and resulted in fewer system-wide vehicle hours of delay.
Improve safety for people, • Purple scored well for this criterion because of limited access, only one vehicles and freight (4.3 points) new signalized intersection, and limited bicycle/pedestrian interactions with vehicles and freight
• Forest and Blue + Red scored poorly for this criterion. The Forest alternative performed poorly in the access control and bicycle/pedestrian interaction sub-criteria, and performed average in the other two sub- criteria. The Blue + Red alternative performed poorly in the new signalized intersection and bicycle/pedestrian interaction sub-criteria.
Improve transit reliability across • There was little differentiation between alternatives for this criterion so all the Willamette River (5 points) alternatives received a score of three.
Improve pedestrian facilities • Forest scored well for this criterion. across the Willamette River (3.1 points) • Purple, Orange + Red and Orange scored poorly because of the longer crossing distances and lack of pedestrian facilities near the bridge heads.
10/23/07 7 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Criteria Overall Findings
Improve bicycle facilities across • Forest scored well for this criterion. the Willamette River (2.3 points) • Purple, Orange + Red and Orange scored poorly for this criterion because of the longer crossing distances and lack of bicycle facilities near the bridge heads.
Improve emergency vehicle • Forest scored well for this criterion because it provides two new bridges. response across the Willamette River (3 points) • The remaining alternatives that provide one new bridge received the same score.
8 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Goal 2: Preserve or Improve Natural and Cultural Resources
Total Weight 14 Points (14% of total score)
Evaluation • Avoid direct and indirect impacts to wetlands where practicable. Minimize and mitigate Criteria any unavoidable adverse impacts and provide opportunities for wetland enhancement (1.7 points)
• Avoid direct and indirect impacts to Threatened and Endangered (T&E) and other fish species where practicable. Minimize and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts and provide opportunities for improvement of critical habitat (1.5 points)
• Avoid direct and indirect impacts to terrestrial T&E species where practicable. Minimize and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts, and provide opportunities for improvement of habitat (1 point)
• Preserve or enhance ecological connectivity (1.4 points)
• Preserve or improve the existing floodplain and fluvial functions (1.4 points)
• Preserve air quality (2.7 points)
• Avoid direct and indirect impacts to historic resources where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable impacts (.9 point)
• Avoid direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable impacts (1 point)
• Avoid or minimize impacts to or improve tree cover where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts (1.1 points)
• Avoid or minimize impacts to or improve native plant communities where practicable, and mitigate any unavoidable adverse impacts (1 point) Findings by Goal ♦ The Green + Red, White + Red light, White + Red, and Yellow + Red alternatives all scored well for this goal. These alternatives all scored well for minimizing floodplain impacts. The Green + Red and Yellow + Red alternatives scored well for minimizing wetland impacts.
♦ The Pink + Red, Blue + Red, Orange + Red, Orange and Forest alternatives scored poorly for this goal. These alternatives scored poorly on a variety of natural resource criteria.
10/23/07 9 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
FIGURE 4 Evaluation Score for Goal 2: Preserve or Improve Natural and Cultural Resources
Green + red 0.862
White + red light 0.813
White + red 0.798
Yellow + red 0.79
White 0.736
Pur ple 0.733
Pink 0.732 Yellow 0.719
Blue + red 0.623
Pink +r ed 0.614
Orange 0.605
Orange + red 0.576
Forest 0.458
0 0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91
FIGURE 5 Contributions to Goal 2: Preserve or Improve Natural and Cultural Resources
Findings by Criteria Biological Impacts Greatest potential impacts: Alternatives with the greatest potential impacts to biological resources include the Forest, Orange, and Orange + Red alternatives. The Forest alternative had the lowest overall score for preserving biological resources. Each of the two included bridges extends across the 500-year floodplain. It also crosses the greatest area of high quality wetlands. The Orange + Red alternative extends across the greatest area of 500-year floodplain with a single bridge, as well as a relatively large area of contiguous wildlife habitat. It impacts the largest area of predominantly native plant community and includes the second greatest tree canopy cover. The Orange alternative extends across a large area of
10 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
500-year floodplain. It impacts a greater area of native plant community and has a relatively high extent of tree canopy cover.
Least potential impacts: Alternatives with the least potential impacts to biological resources include the White + Red, White, and White + Red Light alternatives. All of these alternatives extend across the shortest area of 500-year floodplain; have the shortest crossing of the Willamette River, and cross the least area of contiguous wildlife habitat. These alternatives also scored the lowest for potential to impact T&E terrestrial species.
Moderate potential impacts: Of the remaining alternatives, the Blue + Red and Pink alternatives would impact some of the highest acreages of native plant communities, contiguous wildlife habitat, and tree canopy cover. The Green + Red, Yellow, Pink + Red, and Yellow alternatives have the highest probability of impacting T&E terrestrial species. The Pink + Red alternative would also impact a large area of high quality wetlands. Impacts to all other biological resources for these alternatives are moderate to low. Other Natural and Cultural Resource Impacts Criteria Overall Findings
Preserve air quality (2.7 points) • Because there was little differentiation between alternatives, all alternatives received the same score for this criterion.
Avoid direct and indirect impacts to historic • Orange + Red alternative would impact the fewest historic resources where practicable, and mitigate resources. any unavoidable impacts (.9 point) • Forest would impact the most historic resources.
Avoid direct and indirect impacts to • There are no known cultural resources affected by any cultural resources where practicable, and alternative, so all alternatives received the same score. mitigate any unavoidable impacts (1 point)
10/23/07 11 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Goal 3: Preserve Quality of Life on Both Sides of the River
Total Weight 23 Points (23% of total score)
Evaluation • Minimize impacts to businesses (1.2 points) Criteria • Minimize impacts to residences (1.6 points)
• Minimize impacts to non-displaced businesses (1.1 points)
• Minimize other impacts to non-displaced residences (1.2 points)
• Minimize traffic intrusion onto residential streets (3.2 points)
• Minimize noise in residential areas (1.8 points)
• Maintain neighborhood cohesion (3.4 points)
• Reduce through-freight traffic in downtown (2.9 points)
• Support adopted land use and transportation plans (1.5 points)
• Minimize construction duration and traffic impacts during construction (1.2 points)
• Enhance public access to the river (1.4 points)
• Minimize impacts to recreational facilities (1.3 points)
• Minimize impacts to schools (1.7 points)
Findings by Goal ♦ The White + Red Light, Pink, White + Red, and Orange + Red alternatives score best for this goal. White + Red and White + Red Light scored well for the through freight traffic, school impacts and residential displacement criteria. Orange + Red scored well for the traffic intrusion and neighborhood cohesion criteria.
♦ Yellow, Yellow + Red, White, Forest, and Blue + Red scored poorly for this goal. Forest scored poorly for the neighborhood cohesion and school impacts criteria. Yellow and Yellow + Red scored poorly for the residential impacts and traffic intrusion criteria. Blue + Red scored poorly for the residential impacts, business impacts and school impacts criteria.
12 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
FIGURE 6 Evaluation Score for Goal 3: Preserve Quality of Life on Both Sides of the River
Orange + red 0.603
White + red light 0.595 White + red 0.575
Pink 0.56
Green + red 0.518 Pink +red 0.503
Pur ple 0.499
White 0.46 Orange 0.431
Yellow + red 0.413
Blue + red 0.411 Yellow 0.368
Forest 0.344
0 0.10.20.30.40.50.60.7
FIGURE 7 Contributions to Goal 3: Preserve Quality of Life on Both Sides of the River
Findings by Criteria
Criteria Overall Findings
Minimize impacts to businesses (1.2 • Blue + Red and Green + Red alternatives impact the most points) businesses (65 and 66 businesses, respectively).
• Purple, Orange, Orange + Red, Pink, White + Red and White + red light impacted the fewest businesses (between 31 and 39).
10/23/07 13 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Criteria Overall Findings
Minimize impacts to residences (1.6 • Blue + Red, Yellow and Yellow + Red alternatives impact the points) most residences (between 71 and 73).
• The three White, Purple and Pink alternatives impact the fewest residences (between 28 and 39).
Minimize impacts to non-displaced • Pink, Yellow and Green + Red alternatives impact the fewest businesses (1.1 points) square feet of non-displaced business property.
• Pink + Red and Purple alternatives impact the greatest square footage of non-displaced business property.
Minimize other impacts to non-displaced • Green + Red, Forest and the three White alternatives impact residences (1.2 points) the fewest square feet of non-displaced residential property.
• Orange + Red and Blue + Red impact the greatest square footage of non-displaced residential property.
Minimize traffic intrusion onto residential • Orange + Red alternative would result in the fewest miles of streets (3.2 points) traffic intrusion onto local and collector residential streets.
• The Orange and Yellow alternatives would result in the most miles of traffic intrusion onto local and collector residential streets.
Minimize noise in residential areas (1.8 • Yellow and Pink alternatives would result in the fewest noise points) impacts.
• Orange + Red and the three White alternatives would result in the most noise impacts.
Maintain neighborhood cohesion (3.4 • Purple, Orange + Red, and Orange alternatives, maintained points) neighborhood cohesion best because east side improvements were located outside residential-zoned areas and not on minor arterials or local streets.
• Forest alternative had the highest neighborhood cohesion impact because it would construct two bridges.
Reduce through-freight traffic in downtown • Since different traffic types were not modeled at this stage, (2.9 points) total traffic through downtown was used as a proxy for freight traffic.
• Since there was little differentiation between alternatives based on this criterion, all alternatives were scored either a two or a three based on a scale of 1 to 4.
• The options with Red scored better on this criterion than options without Red.
Support adopted land use and • White, White + Red and White + Red Light scored best transportation plans (1.5 points) because they were more consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan.
• The remaining options received the same score.
Minimize construction duration and traffic • Alternatives without “Red” would result in improvements to the impacts during construction (1.2 points) existing bridges which would be a major construction impact. These options received the worst score.
• The impacts to traffic were the lowest when an alternative included the Red option AND it matched in “at grade” on the east side connection (Pink + Red and Blue + Red).
Enhance public access to the river (1.4 • Because the Forest alternative would construct two bridges, it
14 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Criteria Overall Findings points) would provide the most opportunity for new river access. This assumes that the right-of-way under and around the bridge could be used for public river access.
Minimize impacts to recreational facilities • Blue + Red would impact the most recreational facilities. (1.3 points) • Purple would impact the fewest recreational facilities.
Minimize impacts to schools (1.7 points) • Pink, Pink + Red, and White, and White + Red alternatives would impact seven or fewer schools with increased traffic and no schools with right-of-way acquisition.
• The Green + Red, Purple, and Blue + Red alternatives performed poorly. The Green + Red alternative is near Grant Elementary School. The Purple alternative is near Brush College School. The Blue + Red alternative is near Highland Elementary School.
10/23/07 15 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Goal 4: Meet Federal and State Regulatory Requirements
Total Weight 8 Points (8% of total score)
Evaluation • Meet Section 4(f) and 6(f) requirements (4.4 points) Criteria • Meet Statewide Planning goal requirements (3.8 points)
Findings by Goal • The Green + Red and Orange + Red alternatives scored well for this goal. The Green + Red alternative scores well for the criterion “meets statewide planning goals.” The Orange + Red alternative scores well for well for the criterion “meets 4(f) and 6(f) requirements.”
• The Purple, Blue + Red and Forest alternatives do not score well for this goal. Purple scores poorly on the “meets statewide planning goals” criterion because of its extensive footprint outside the urban growth boundary.
FIGURE 8 Evaluation Score for Goal 4: Meet Federal and State Regulatory Requirements
Orange + red 0.768
Green + red 0.693
White 0.615
Orange 0.615
White + red light 0.538
White + red 0.538 Yellow 0.538
Yellow + red 0.462
Pur ple 0.383
Pink 0.308
Pink +red 0.308
Forest 0.308
Blue + red 0.232
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
16 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
FIGURE 9 Contributions to Goal 4: Meet Federal and State Regulatory Requirements
Findings by Criteria
Criteria Overall Findings
Meet Section 4(f) and 6(f) • Orange + Red alternative would best meet these requirements. It requirements (4.4 points) would impact fewer resources than the other alternatives. Pink, Orange and White alternative would also meet these requirements well.
• Blue + Red alternative would impact the most 4(f) and 6(f) resources including both parks and historic resources.
• All alternatives impact Wallace Marine Park, though the severity of impacts varies. The Green + Red alternative would have the most severe impact to Wallace Marine Park.
Meet Statewide Planning goal • Purple alternative has the highest risk of not meeting statewide requirements (3.8 points) planning requirements because it impacts a large area outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) and bisects land zoned for exclusive farm use.
• The Green + Red alternative scored best for this alternative because it has the smallest area of impacts outside the UGB associated with the river crossing itself.
• The other alternatives all had crossing locations and system improvements outside the UGB.
10/23/07 17 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Goal 5: Provide a Cost-effective and Timely Solution
Total Weight 22 Points (22% of total score)
Evaluation • Minimize construction cost (5.1 points) Criteria • Minimize operations and maintenance cost (2.4 points)
• Minimize implementation timeline (2.2 points)
• Maximize incremental benefits (2.5 points)
• Maximize congestion reduction benefits over the planning period (3.3 points)
• Maximize likelihood of funding (6 points)
Findings by Goal ♦ All alternatives received the same score for two criteria: (1) Maximize incremental benefits, and (2) maximize likelihood of funding because there is not sufficient detail to differentiate between the alternative based on this criteria.
♦ The Green + Red alternative received best score for this goal. It had the lowest construction cost.
♦ The Purple, Forest, Orange and Orange + Red alternatives scored poorly for this goal. These are the four most expensive alternatives.
FIGURE 10 Evaluation Score for Goal 5: Provide a Cost-effective and Timely Solution
Green + red 0.917 Blue + red 0.849 Pink 0.842 Yellow + red 0.728 Pink +red 0.717 White 0.691 White + red light 0.631 White + red 0.624 Yellow 0.596 Orange 0.464 Orange + red 0.463 Forest 0.422 Pur ple 0.271
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
18 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
FIGURE 11 Contributions to Goal 5: Provide a Cost-effective and Timely Solution
Findings by Criteria Construction Costs The alternatives ranged from a low of $509.6 million (Green + Red) to a high of $874.3 million (Purple). The shortest bridge was the least expensive and the longest bridge was the most expensive. A review of the details of the cost estimates identified the structure size (length and width) as the primary differentiator. The system improvements and the right-of-way acquisition costs did not vary significantly among alternatives with the exception of some variations on Marine Drive when a connection was made in the floodplain. The table below shows the cost estimates:
Alternative Cost in millions ($2012)
Purple 874.3
Forest 809.5
Orange + Red 770
Orange 747.4
Yellow 679.5
White + Red 673.7
White + Red light 667.6
White 667.4
Pink + Red 642.8
Yellow + Red 632.1
Pink 580.8
Blue + Red 574.3
Green + Red 509.6
10/23/07 19 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Criteria Overall Findings
Minimize operations and • Green + Red, Blue + Red, and Pink alternatives had the least amount of maintenance cost (2.4 points) structure, therefore the lowest operations and maintenance cost.
• Purple, Forest, and Orange + Red had the most structure, therefore the highest cost.
Maximize congestion reduction • Because there was little differentiation between alternatives based on benefits over the planning period this criterion, all alternatives received a score of 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 to (3.3 points) 4.
• Purple, Orange, and Yellow alternatives would result in the smallest reduction in vehicle hours of delay.
20 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
KEY FINDINGS BY ALTERNATIVE This section provides a summary of results by alternative. It includes a summary table that shows the ranking of alternatives for each goal, a total evaluation score chart, a contribution to total score by goal chart, and a cost-benefit chart. A narrative description of the results by alternative is also given.
Rank Goal 1: Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Goal 5: Cost- Total Safety and Natural and Quality of Regulatory effective and Evaluation Mobility Cultural Life Requirements timely Score Resources
1 Forest Green + Red Orange + Orange + Red Green + Red Green + Red Red
2 Pink White + Red White + Red Green + Red Blue + Red Pink light light
3 White White + Red White + Red White Pink White
4 Green + Red Yellow + Red Pink Orange Yellow + Red White + Red
5 Yellow + Red White Green + Red White + Red Pink + Red Yellow + light Red
6 Yellow Purple Pink + Red White + Red White White + Red light
7 White + Red Pink Purple Yellow White + Red Pink + Red light
8 Pink + Red Yellow White Yellow + Red White + Red Yellow
9 White + Red Blue + Red Orange Purple Yellow Blue + light Red
10 Blue + Red Pink + Red Yellow + Red Pink Orange Orange + Red
11 Orange Orange Blue + Red Pink + Red Orange + Forest Red
12 Orange + Orange + Yellow Forest Forest Orange Red Red
13 Purple Forest Forest Blue + Red Purple Purple
10/23/07 21 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
FIGURE 12 Total Evaluation Score
Green + red 0.681 Pink 0.644
White 0.609 White + red 0.59 Yellow + red 0.583 White + red light 0.58
Pink +red 0.535
Yellow 0.525 Blue + red 0.524
Orange + red 0.512 Forest 0.497
Orange 0.465 Pur ple 0.452
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
FIGURE 13 Contributions to Total Score by Goal
22 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
FIGURE 14 Cost-Benefit Ratio for Alternatives
Cost-Benefit Ratio
700
Pink 650 Green+Red White
Yellow+Red White+Red 600 White+Red Light 550 Pink+Red Yellow Orange+Red Blue + Red Forest 500 Evaluation Score Evaluation Purple Orange 450
400 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 Cost in Millions ($2012)
Purple Alternative The Purple alternative has the worst total score of any alternative. It scores worst on the improve mobility and safety, and cost-effective and timely solution goals. It is the most expensive alternative with a cost of than $874.3 million ($2012). Since it is located farther from the existing bridges than the other alternatives, it attracts less traffic and, therefore, does less to relieve congestion on the existing bridges and in the overall system. The Purple alternative has more significant impacts to land outside the UGB making it less likely to meet state land use regulations than other alternatives.
Orange and Orange + Red Alternatives The Orange and Orange + Red alternatives have poor total scores (second and fourth worst, respectively). These alternatives are expensive and have low overall benefit scores. They scored poorly for the cost-effective and timely solution, improve safety and mobility, and natural and cultural resources goals. The Orange + Red alternative had the best score for the quality of life goal, while Orange scored poorly. Both options scored relatively well for the meets state and federal regulatory requirements goal.
Pink and Pink + Red Alternatives The Pink alternative has the third highest total score while the Pink + Red alternative has a medium total evaluation score. Both alternatives score well for the cost-effective and timely solution goal. Pink has a relatively low construction cost. The Pink alternative scores well for the quality of life, and mobility and safety goals. Both received a low score for the meeting state and federal requirements goal.
10/23/07 23 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
White, White + Red, and White + Red Light Alternatives The White and White + Red alternatives received the third and fourth highest total score, respectively. The White + Red Light alternative received a medium score (sixth highest). All three alternatives had medium scores on the cost-effective and timely goals. The White + Red and White + Red Light alternatives both received medium scores on the cost-effective and timely solution goal and had similar costs. These alternatives also scored well on the natural and cultural resources and quality of life goals. These alternatives had medium-low scores on the safety and mobility goal. The White alternative scored well for the meets state and federal requirements and safety and mobility goals. It had medium scores on the natural and cultural resources and quality of life goals.
Blue + Red alternative The Blue + Red alternative received a low total score. It had a relatively low cost and a low benefit score. It scored well on the cost-effective and timely goal. It scored poorly on the quality of life, natural and cultural resources, and safety and mobility goals. It received the lowest score for the state and federal requirements goal.
Yellow and Yellow + Red alternatives The Yellow + Red and Yellow alternatives received medium evaluation scores. The Yellow + Red alternative received a medium-high score for the cost-effective and timely solution, preserve natural and cultural resources, and mobility and safety goals. It received a medium score for the meet state and federal requirements goal and a low score for the quality of life goal. The Yellow alternative had a relatively low evaluation score. Yellow alternative received medium to low scores for the cost-effective and timely, quality of life, and natural and cultural resources goals. Yellow had a medium score for the state and federal requirements and safety and mobility goals.
Green + Red Alternative The Green + Red alternative received the highest total evaluation score and had the best cost-benefit ratio. This alternative received the best score for the cost-effective and timely solution and natural and cultural resources goals. This can largely be attributed to the fact that this alternative has the shortest bridge crossing with the smallest total footprint – making it the lowest cost alternative ($509.6 million) with fewer impacts to natural and cultural resources. It also received a relatively high score for the likelihood of meeting state and federal requirements (it impacts relatively little area outside the Urban Growth Boundary) despite its impacts on parks (both 4(f) and 6(f) resources). It received a medium/high score for the safety and mobility and quality of life goals.
Forest Alternative The Forest alternative received a low total score. It had a medium benefit score and a high cost. Forest received the lowest score for quality of life and natural and cultural resources goals and a low score for the federal and state requirements and cost-effective and timely
24 10/23/07 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS goals. Forest received the highest score for the improve safety and mobility goal, which is not surprising since the Forest alternative would provide two new bridges.
SUMMARY These evaluation results are just one piece of information that, along with local knowledge and stakeholder perspectives, will be used by the Task Force and Oversight Team in the narrowing process. The information here is not intended to suggest recommendations or decisions but rather is intended to summarize the results of the technical evaluation process. The overall results for the evaluation scores were driven largely by criteria related to construction cost and mobility. Construction cost was weighted with 5.1 points. The seven mobility-related scores accounted for 29 points in the total evaluation. These criteria ranged in purpose, but all benefited alternatives that provided for good mobility. They are:
♦ Improve vehicle and freight mobility for local travel (5.5 points) ♦ Improve vehicle and freight mobility for regional travel (5 points) ♦ Improve vehicle and freight mobility for through travel (4.9 points) ♦ Improve transit reliability across the Willamette River (5 points) ♦ Preserve air quality (2.7 points) ♦ Reduce through-freight traffic in downtown (2.9 points) ♦ Maximize congestion reduction benefits over the planning period (3.3 points) There was little differentiation between alternatives based on these goals. This is not surprising since all alternatives were designed to meet either ODOT’s adopted mobility standards or alternate mobility standards. As a result, all alternative received the same score for transit reliability and air quality, and either a score of 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 to 4 on the remaining mobility and congestion-related alternatives. Alternatives ranged in cost from $509.6 million to $874.3 million ($2012). When these costs are compared to the benefit scores (the total evaluation scores without cost), the following score well on the cost-benefit scale meaning that the evaluation score is good in comparison to the cost:
♦ Green + Red ♦ White ♦ White + Red ♦ Yellow + Red ♦ Pink In some cases, alternatives with the “Red” improvements perform better than their counterparts without “Red” improvements. Pink and White score better without the “Red” component. Yellow and Orange score better with the Red component. In terms of overall score, the Green + Red alternative received a much higher evaluation score than the other options. It received the highest score for two goals: cost-effective and timely solution, and preserve natural and cultural resources. It received the second highest score for the state and federal requirements goal. On the 34 individual criteria that showed differentiation, the Green + Red alternative received the highest possible score on 14. It
10/23/07 25 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS received the lowest possible score on five criteria including school impacts, tree canopy impacts, terrestrial species impacts, business displacements, and access to river. Among the alternatives receiving the lowest total scores, Purple received the lowest score on the following goals: cost-effective and timely, and safety and mobility. The two Orange options also scored poorly on these goals as well as on the natural and cultural resources goal. Forest received the lowest score for natural and cultural resources and quality of life and low scores for the state and federal requirements and cost-effective and timely goals.
26 10/23/07