FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF: April 22, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4 (b)
PUBLIC WORKS FILE NO.: fVVVIU
TO: ~O~~ND~YCOUNCIL THROUGH: LI~RIS, C~NAGER FROM: PETER FERNANDEZ, P.E., PUB SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOS MODI ATIONS TO SALEM RIVER CROSSING PREFERRE ALTERNATIVE
ISSUE:
Shall Council accept public comment on proposed modifications to the preliminary recommendation of the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team (Alternative 4D) as detailed in the Facts and Findings section of this staff report? Following the close of the public hearing, shall Council authorize Councilor Clem to advance these proposed modifications of Alternative 4D to the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team and report back to Council on the results of the Oversight Team Preferred Alternative deliberations?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council accept public comment on proposed modifications to the preliminary recommendation of the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team (Alternative 4D) as detailed in the Facts and Findings section of this staff report. Staff further recommends that following close of the public hearing, Council authorize Councilor Clem to advance these proposed modifications of Alternative 4D to the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team and report back to Council on the results of the Oversight Team Preferred Alternative deliberations.
BACKGROUND:
In August 2012, the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team-on which Councilor Clem represents the City-made a preliminary recommendation that Alternative 4D be the preferred alternative for the Salem River Crossing project. Graphics representing Alternative 4D are attached as Attachment A and details of Alternative 4D are documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published in April 2012. The Oversight Team forwarded its preliminary recommendation to the partner jurisdictions (City of Salem, City of Keizer, Marion County, Polk County, Salem-Keizer Transit District, and the Oregon Department of Transportation) for feedback.
On November 5, 2012, the Salem City Council conducted a public hearing on this preliminary recommendation. Following the public hearing, Council convened a series of four work sessions between November 2012 and February 2013 to discuss the preliminary recommendation, its potential impacts, and various options and alternatives. A City website, www.cityofsalem.net/salemrivercrossing, was established to provide public access to the information provided to Council at these work sessions. Public Hearing on Proposed Modifications to Salem River Crossing Preferred Alternative Council Meeting of April 22, 2013 Page 2
FACTS AND FINDINGS:
Modifications to Alternative 4D On April 8, 2013, Council set a public hearing for April 22, 2013, for the purposes of receiving public input on proposed modifications to Alternative 4D as described below and identified on the corresponding map (Attachment B).
A. Bridge Footprint and Piers: Evaluate opportunities to reduce the number of piers in the main channel of the Willamette River; minimize the overall footprint of the bridge structure; and create a signature bridge structure. The intent of this modification is to minimize impact to the floodway and to construct a structure compatible with the natural and built environments. The evaluation should consider costs and benefits of using an alternate bridge type, such as a cable-stayed bridge.
B. Marine Drive NW: Construct Marine Drive NW at-grade from Glen Creek Road NW to River Bend Road NW following the alignment that is currently adopted in the Sa/em Transportation System Plan. Do not extend Marine Drive NW north of River Bend Road NW. Eliminate the viaduct between Glen Creek Road NW and Hope Avenue NW (at the new bridge). Incorporate signals or other appropriate traffic control at the intersections of Marine Drive NW with Glen Creek Road NW and Hope Avenue NW (at the new bridge).
C. Surface Street Elements: Minimize surface street modifications, including eliminating the proposed realignment of Orchard Heights Road NW and widening Glen Creek Road NW. Minimize roadway widening on Wallace· Road NW. Eliminate the proposed new surface street ca,nnecting Marine Drive NW to Wallace Road NW opposite a realigned Orchard Heights Road NW.
D. Highway 22 and Edgewater Street NW: Provide ramp connections from Marine Drive NW to Highway 22 at a location south of Glen Creek Road NW. Construct the ramps in a manner that provides connectivity in the vicinity of Eola Drive NW while minimizing impacts to the river side of Edgewater Street NW. Note that minimizing impacts to Edgewater Street NW will likely involve relocating the interchange with Highway 22 and Rosemont Avenue NW, placing it further west to align with Eola Drive NW.
E. East Side and West Side Bridgehead Refinement Plans: Conduct focused planning studies to identify options for mitigating impacts of the preliminary recommendation in the vicinity of the east side and west side bridgeheads and connecting roadways. Elements to address include, but are not limited to: installing traffic calming features on local streets; incorporating pedestrian and bicycle access; providing access to the Willamette River; determining appropriate land uses in areas below the elevated structures; developing comprehensive plan and zoning designations in the areas of the bridgeheads; changing parcel configuration and access as a result of the preliminary
JPffLC/:G:\Group\dlrector\Judy\Councll 2013\Aprll 22\CCSR22Apr2013SRXAit4DMod.doc Public Hearing on Proposed Modifications to Salem River Crossing Preferred Alternative Council Meeting of April 22, 2013 Page 3
recommendation; and incorporating aesthetic design considerations such as improved landscaping.
Next Steps Following is a description of next steps needed to complete the EIS for the Salem River Crossing project. Work on some of these items will happen concurrently, but there are a number of actions that must be completed before Federal Highway Administration can issue the Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD).
Defining the Preferred Alternative If the Oversight Team agrees to modify Alternative 4D, the Salem River Crossing Project Team will define a footprint and operational characteristics to address the desired modifications. This footprint will be used to identify the performance and impacts of the preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Given the number of changes being discussed by City Council, it may take several months to finalize a footprint that all parties find acceptable. At this time, staff does not think that the proposed modifications to Alternative 4D will require preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS.
Land Use Approvals After a footprint for a modified Alternative 4D is agreed to by the Oversight Team, the preferred alternative will need to be adopted into local land use and transportation plans. At a minimum, this will require adoption into the Polk County and Salem transportation system plans. These actions will require exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals or an Urban Growth Boundary expansion. In addition, the Oregon Transportation Commission will need to approve Alternative Mobility Targets, given that the preferred alternative will likely not meet adopted mobility targets for all State facilities. After the preferred alternative is adopted into the local transportation plans, it will need to be adopted into the Regional Transportation Systems Plan by a unanimous vote of the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKA TS) Policy Committee.
Finance Strategy A Finance Strategy is required prior to issuing the Final EIS. The Finance Strategy will be developed with input from the Oversight Team, member jurisdictions, and the public. The effort will review the available and anticipated funding sources in relation to the updated project cost for the preferred alternative. The Finance Strategy will address opportunities for phasing construction of the project.
Final Environmental Impact Study The Final EIS will document the process followed to reach a decision on the preferred alternative and the impacts of the preferred alternative, including identifying mitigation measures. This work can begin after the preferred alternative has been agreed upon, including its footprint, structure-type, and operational characteristics. Ultimately, the Final EIS will be issued by the Federal Highway Administration. This action is contingent upon obtaining all local land use approvals and completing a Finance Strategy.
JP/TLC/:G :\Group\dlrector\Judy\Councll 2013\Aprll 22\CCSR22Apr2013SRXAit4DMod.doc Public Hearing on Proposed Modifications to Salem River Crossing Preferred Alternative Council Meeting of April 22, 2013 Page 4
Record of Decision The Record of Decision is the final approval by the Federal Highway Administration of the chosen preferred alternative. Obtaining a Record of Decision requires that funding for at least one phase of the project is included in the SKATS Transportation Improvement Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
Robert D. Chandler, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Public Works Director
Attachments: A. Alternative 4D B. Map showing suggested modifications to 4D Wards All April 12, 2013 Prepared by Julie Warncke, Transportation Planning Manager
JPITLC/:G:\Group\director\Judy\Council 2013\Aprll 22\CCSR22Apr2013SRXAit4DMod.doc ATIACHMENTA
McLane Island
OR 22 Connector (proposed; e levated roadway1o'ver Marine ~rive ) · !g !g !g t; t; ~t; # f 0 11! I# ~~::j ~ ~al l ace 8 t:J Marine ~ Park
Proposed right-of-way
Proposed new bridge span/ elevated roadwa} A North 0.25 0.5 ..c=~~~ ...... mi ATTACHM ENT 8
Salem River Crossing 0 25C600 1' 000 j I I I I I Alternative 40 with Proposed Modifications N Feet April22, 2013 4 (b)
April 16, 2013
The Honorable Anna M. Peterson Mayor and Members of City Council DOCUMENT FILED 555 Liberty Street SE Salem, Oregon 97301 APR 16 2013 CITY OF SALEM RE: Third Bridge Resolution CITY Fii°COFlDER
Dear Mayor Peterson and City Councilors:
WHEREAS, the Salem River Crossing (SRC) planning project was launched in 2006 with a budget of $2 million to locate and provide a funding plan for a new bridge in Salem, and
WHEREAS, the SRC has paid consultants $7.8 million for a planning project extending into a seventh year, and
WHEREAS, the SRC has been able to identify nine potential options but no funding plan to present to local governments, and
WHEREAS, past bridge studies considered locations including Pine Street and concluded estimated costs "proved far in excess of available funds", and "the capacity limitations of the abutting signalized intersections" causes traffic congestion on the bridges, and
WHEREAS, the SRC citizen Task Force that worked for six years did not reach a majority decision to recommend any of the nine options, and
WHEREAS, the April 8, 2013, staff report to the Salem City Council does not recommend any of the nine options and instead recommends a new option that does not address any stated objective, does not include a cost estimate or funding plan, and has not been subject to scrutiny by the project consultants, the project Task Force or the project Oversight Team, and
WHEREAS, the ongoing costs to continue work on the SRC costs averages $100,000 per month that is needed for other important transportation projects;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the South Central Association of Neighbors recommends the Salem City Council, other local government entities such as the Salem Keizer Area Transportation Study, along with the Oregon Department of Transportation, stop all work on planning for a Third Bridge in Salem and immediately turn attention to locating funding to retrofit the existing bridges so they are operational after a major earthquake, and focus future transportation planning efforts on improving the capacity of the existing bridges and pursuing low-cost and no-cost ways to reduce car commuting during peak hours.
The vote of the SCAN Board at our April 1oth meeting was 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstention. 25 neighbors and guests attended the meeting, including 2 city employees.
Respectfully,
Curt Fisher Vice President South Central Association of Neighbors
CC: Linda Norris, City Manager Peter Fernandez, Public Works Director Mike Jaffe, MPO Program Manager MWVCOG Dan Fricke, ODOT Project Manager April 22, 2013 4 (b)
Kathy Hall- fair treatment ofpnblic commenters + 3rd bridge-West Salem Neighborhood Assn comment
From: Bargen Jan
Madame Mayor and Council, I am watching the City Council meeting tonight from afar, since my job has me out of town -- I appreciate that Council meetings are available on a streaming basis. Thank you.
I emailed the Council earlier today, urging you to postpone the public hearing on the 3rd bridge proposal so that each neighborhood association would have the opportunity to consider and vote on a recommendation to you as to what course of action to take on the new staff recommendation.
I was startled to realize that, for most citizen commenters in the public comment session that ended now before break, you asked whether councilors had questions of the person -- except for the ftrst person to speak against the bridge recommendation-- Scott Bassett. In fact, it seemed, from online view anyway, that all the people who were commenting against the bridge were cut off curtly, while praise and applause was lauded to people spealcing on other subjects. This was made especially apparent by Councilor Clem's conversation with the West Salem neighborhood representative about postponing the Apr 22 hearing, but not inviting any further comment on the matter by people spealcing against the bridge proposal.
As a second matter, I want to express my alarm at statements made by the West Salem Neighborhood Assn leader. Upon questioning, he suggested that the 5-page staff rec might be sufficient info for the assn to use in considering the proposal. I am alarmed because I was present at a West Salem Neighborhood Assn meeting in November, just before Thanksgiving, where the association moved and voted to approve a motion to tell the City Council that it should cease and desist expenditures of money regarding the consultant and other expenses of pursuing a 3rd bridge until costs and funding plans were further vetted. The staff plan does not meet that threshold because it does not have that sort of info or analysis! (The vote was at least 2/3 majority, and I think it was 3/4-- approx 30 out of 40 people present.)
Please delay the Apr 22 public hearing. Last fall, the council promised additional public hearing and work session time that did not then pan out. We cannot trust that the second chance for comment that Councilor Clem implied will really come to pass. At the very least, Scott Bassett should have been called up again to compare for the arguments to the contrary-- during which he was abruptly cut off in comment.
Thank you,
Jan Bargen 1440 Beaumount Dr NW Salem, OR 97304
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5163238BGWC1 S-... 4/9/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b)
Kathy Hall- Urban Renewal Agency Comments on the Salem River Crossing
From: Curt Fisher
To: The Honorable Mayor Anna Petersen
Re: Urban Renewal Agency Comments on the Salem River Crossing
Thank you for submitting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Salem River Crossing:
West Salem URA The West Salem URA was established in 2001 to eliminate blight and depreciating property values and attract job-producing private investments that improve and stabilize property values. The Edgewater Second Street Action Plan (Action Plan) recommends focusing near term investment in this area envisioned as a mixed use commercial corridor. The Action Plan focus includes Edgewater and Second Streets, between Rosemont and Patterson Streets. Approximately $5.5 Min infrastructure projects are planned for completion over the next 3-5 five years, starting in 2012, including reconstruction of Second Street NW, utility undergrounding, sidewalk bulb-outs and streets cape improvements on Edgewater Street NW, as well as improvements in Wallace Marine Park. Most of the Salem River Crossing bridge alternatives impact the West Salem URA, which includes Edgewater Street NW, the Edgewater Greenway, and portions of Wallace Marine Park. The impacts resulting from a new frontage road/ramp and highway access to this "Main Street" area of Edgewater and Second Street will be significant to the West Salem urban renewal plan for this area and will diminish the redevelopment value of properties in the affected area. (bttp:/Lwww.salemrivercrossinq. orq/ProjectDocumentsLDEIS Comments RAW MASiffLQZ0512.QIIJ}
No 3rd Bridge activists concur with the Urban Renewal Agency that the current proposal being discussed at council will suppress property values and deter the private investment needed to attract jobs to the West Salem URA. Your constituents participated in this planning process with the hope that Salem can provide the vibrant and dynamic urban living option that you have spoken about so eloquently on so many occasions. Edgewater St. is an important resource for the entire community because it is one of the only safe, healthy "Main St." environments in Salem. While our competitors in the region have enjoyed great success in attracting the best and brightest talent to their cities with high quality urban environments, Salem has not kept pace with the housing markets of the 21st century. Salem has struggled to provide quality living options other than tract suburbia and by paving over this area the city would be sacrificing one of the few opportunities to meet this demand in the near term.
Here is a linlc to the Edgewater St. Action Plan for your edification: htm;//www.cityofsalem.J1et/Departrnents/1Jrbill:!Develop_ment/UrbanRenewalAream2oQJ.lme nts,'fin.a!ActionPianReport-02-19-1 0.]2df The old West Salem City Hall featured on the cover of the document is one of the many buildings that would need to be demolished to build the OR-22 connector file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51534A5DGWCl... 3/28/2013 Page 2 of2 with alternative 4D. It effectively turns West Salem's "front porch" to asphalt: httpjLmakeagif.com/6ZA VMC
The OR-22 connector provides little to no benefit for Salem bridge users. This topic was addressed directly on page 6 of the 2002 Corridor Capacity Study which is available in the Salem River Crossing document library:
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 1-5 makes up a relatively small portion of the user market for the bridges.
The 3.5% of bridge users that would primarily benefit from the OR-22 connector are users that do not live in Salem, they do not work in Salem, they do not pay taxes in Salem, and according to the Chamber of Commerce's statements on their website and Facebook page, these users have no intention of stopping in Salem. I hope you agree that sacrificing our Urban Renewal investments to provide this tiny group of users the luxury of passing through the city without having to touch their brakes is a bad for Salem.
Finally, if the proponents of Alt. 4D are successful and this option becomes part of Salem's Transportation System Plan, the City will have adopted two incompatible and mutually exclusive policy visions into our plans--an Urban Development Plan which calls for more strategic investments in the Edgewater St. commercial district and the long range Transportation Plan that paves over them. I hope you agree that this outcome would be a huge embarrassment for us all. I encourage you to use your leadership to avoid that outcome and honor the commitments you have made to your constituents to deliver a higher quality built environment for current and future resident of Salem. Respectfully,
Curt Fisher
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khali\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51534A5DGWCl... 3/28/2013 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study
General Corridor Evaluation
Executive Summary Including Purpose and Need and Next Steps
june 2002
~ 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 Willamctte 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: I) 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 Willamettc 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 altemative new bridge corridors. This General Corridor Evaluation is the first step in that process, and documents the evaluation of altemative 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 Wi!lame!te 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:
I. 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 Wil/amelte 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 additional26 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 ~n 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
Willamelte 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 PM 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 Bridoe 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 29.2 1.29 Creek 3100 700 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 400 30.8 1.00 Broadwav Street 1700 1300 0.76 1700 1700 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 Wil/amelte 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 identity 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. Identity and document the components and problems associated with river crossing travel demand. 3. Identity 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. Identity 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 COITidor alignment EIS, which is the next step in the overall planning process.
ES-8 Wilfameffe River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary Public Involvement
Seeping 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 (SKA TS), the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and project sponsor, conducted two scoping meetings on July 30, 1996 and September 16, 1997 to:
I. 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 Sl(ATS 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
Wi!lamette River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summmy 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 Willarnette 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 Willameue River Crossing Capacity Study·-·· Executive Summary ES-11 Alternatives Evaluation
Three general "classes" ofaltcmatives were evaluated: No-Build, Non-New-Bridge Constmction, 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 peale-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 msh hours, certain "non-construction" alternatives, such as shifting some of the demaod 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 cao provide an increase in usable transportation capacity include:
1. Increased transit use. 2. Transportation demand management (TDM). 3. Bicycle aod 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 significaot 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 peale-hour demand. For instance, it would require about 44 buses (each with 50 sitting and staoding 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 Willameffe 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 of25 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 oflife 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 tbe 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 6:15a.m. to 9:45p.m. weekdays and 7:15a.m. to 9:45p.m. on Saturdays. The system operates on frequencies ranging from 15 to 60 minutes. Most of the 22 routes accessing downtown arc 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 6:15a.m. to 6:15p.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 tbe Center Street Bridge between 7:00a.m. and 8:00a.m. is 55 passengers Gust 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 4:00p.m. and 6:00p.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 head ways 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 scats and 150 standees.
Transit System Improvements
ES-14 Willame!le River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary Peak-hour traffic congestion on the Marion and Center Street bridges could be reduced by shifting SOY 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. Restmcture 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 ncar the intersection of Wallace and Glen Creek Roads. All West Salem transit routes could run on IS-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 Wif!amel/e River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary technique in the river crossing environment would be to construct a reversible HOY 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 arc 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:
I. 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:
I. encouraging alternative travel choices; 2. reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) usc 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 Wil/amelle Rivel' 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 (SOY). The program also provides for web-based rideshare participation. Other outreach effmis include transportation fairs and booths at employment sites and public events. The Ridcshare program also conducts media advertising, and produces and distributes outreach materials throughout Marion, Pollc, 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 vanlbuspool 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 Ridcshare 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.
Willame/le 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 arc 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 usc. 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 I 00 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 SOY 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 Wif!ametle 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-SOY 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:
I. 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 SOY 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, 12'h 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- I 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:
I. 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.
Yanpools are generally more effective for longer distance commute trips that have defined origin and destination points. Carpooling also has its place for the shorter
Willamef!e 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 altemative work schedules and rideshare programs to be successful, the altematives 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 munber 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 TOM 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 Ridcsharc. 2. Expand the level of support for TOM Programs. 3. Increase the participation among state agencies and other employers in the existing Rideshare and TOM Programs. 4. Consider a TOM 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 vanpooVbuspool 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.
Leve2s o£ Bicyc2e and Pedestrian Use
Based on the 1990 U.S. Census, bicycle and walking accounted for about one percent and two percent, respectively, of the joumey-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.
Bicyc~e 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.
Willamelte 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 Parle.
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 usc of transportation facilities. Charging a fee during peak demand periods is a strategy !mown 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 Willameffe 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
Willamefte 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 sidewallcs.
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 Wi!lamette Riva 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 Bola 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 ofDoaks Ferry Road with both Orchard Heights and Bola 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
Willametfe 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 SOY 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 Willame/te River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary Figure ES-2
Wi/lamette River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary ES-31 ES-32 Wil!amelle River Crossing Capacity Study-l!,Xecutive Summary Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study- l!):ecutive Summary .ES-33 ES-34 Wil/ameue River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summmy Willamef/e River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary ES-35 ES-36 Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary Willame/le 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 SKA TS 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 Wiflamelle River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary April22, 2013 4 (b)
Kathy Hall - NO to the Third Bridge
From: "Floyd and Cheryl Eby"
Once again, the city of Salem is beating us about the head and ears on building another bridge to west Salem. Considering that Salem has high unemployment, many vacant storefronts and mall facilities, and no industry at all, what is the need for another bridge? Salem, once a very nice city to live in, is lost. Poor use of city funds and a council and mayor unable or unwilling to promote private industry growth here have led us to the current state we are in. We are the state capitol, but that is all we are. For any services of any importance, people will go to Eugene or Portland; no one comes here. Your time and talent would be far better served in openly recruiting and promoting new business to set up shop in this city. Goodness knows we can use it. We shouldn't have to go to another city to do business, but you force us to do so frequently.
According to an article in "Salem Weekly," by Richard Reid, you people are promoting destroying businesses in north and west Salem to build this boondoggle to the tune of about $80 million dollars. This, of course, puts more people on unemployment since this community has little to offer in the way of employment of any meaning, and many may move away to find work. Then the bridge itself would cost $800 million and would lose approximately $260,000 property taxes from said businesses. Considering the vast amount of money already owed on other loans, why are you willing to gamble with OUR money on another wasteful project that will only increase our indebtedness, but do nothing for the real problems this community faces? Why is it only the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce, Peter Fernandez, and a couple of you councilors supporting this and expecting the rest of us to go along?
When are you people going to become fiscally responsible? Is it too much to hope for that our tax dollars could be used for something productive instead of cutesy street signs no one can read unless standing under them or bridges to nowhere or a conference center that isn't getting near the use one in, say Eugene, would get? If you people really care about Salem, and I'm not sure you really do, you need to invest in this community by wooing private business in and promote its growth. That is what makes a healthy city, and right now Salem is just about dead on arrival.
Cheryl A. Eby
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5147261DGWC1... 3/18/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b)
Kathy Hall - SACC Bridge
From: cheryl erb
I say no to the 3rd Bridge across the Willamette River because of the displacement it will cause for businesses and loss of annual property taxes.
The collateral damage is prohibitively high.
More streets should NOT be torn up, and property should NOT be destroyed for this bridge.
How can this bridge be built because a minority wants it: the SACC, Salem Public Works Director, and only a couple (i.e. a minority) of City Councilors. A minority should not make this project happen.
Please use common sense.
Thank you,
Cheryl Erb 1068 Park Avenue NE Salem, OR 97301 503-884-5528
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5139C9C5GWC1 S... 3/8/2013 April 22, 2013 4 (b)
Kathy Hall - Earthquakes and bridges
From: Mark Wigg
If one purpose of the new bridge is to have a bridge that will withstand the 'Big One", we could do that for less. Bruce Johnson, ODOT Bridge Group, responded to my request for information on earthquake risk in the email below. I also talked to Mr. Johnson on the phone. ODOT has a long tradition of excellence in bridge design that started with Conde McCullough and ODOT engineers work hard to maintain that tradition of excellence. In addition, ODOT personnel tend to be very helpful and willing to share their expertise.
While Mr. Johnson does not have specific knowledge of the River Crossing Project, he was able to provide the following observations:
• Constructing bridges across a liquefaction zone as would be done in the build alternatives to meet current seismic standards is very expensive but there are ways to do it. One method is to grout the ground under and around the bridge so it does not liquify in an earthquake. • If the current cost estimates for a new bridge do not include the additional cost for addressing the liquefaction hazard, the costs are probably too low. • There are ways to retrofit the existing bridges to withstand a major earthquake. These methods have been successful in maintaining bridges in Japan and California in large earthquakes. These methods are expensive but cost 25-40% of the cost of building a new bridge of comparable length and width.
Grouting the west side of the river under and around the new bridge would make the area into a large block of concrete. This would affect the scour of the river, the transport of gravel down the river, salmon spawning habitat downstream, and possibly the flood elevations. I don't recall seeing these impacts discussed in the DE IS.
Fiber reinforced polymer wrapping of the bridge columns to withstand earthquakes is the same method now being used to stabilize and strengthen the columns in the Courthouse Square bus mall and building. The 25-40% lower cost of doing this versus building a new bridge is much lower than cost of the proposed new bridges because the new bridges are so much longer than the Marion and Center street bridges. The cost of retrofitting the two bridges may be about 10-20% of the cost of the longer, new bridge across the liquefaction zone.
>From: [email protected] >To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Citizen's Representative Office- Customer Entry--Mark Wigg file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5134B6D4GWC1 S... 3/4/2013 Page 2 of2
>Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:37:19 +0000
> >Mark, > >Thanks for your inquiry regarding the Marion and Center Street bridges. We do not maintain a simple rating for seismic performance of bridges. In order to assess seismic vulnerability and performance it is necessary to conduct a detailed analysis similar to the effort required for designing a new bridge. The cost ofthat analysis is beyond the available budget for all oft he 2800 bridges owned and operated by ODOT. Instead of expending the funding for doing that level of analysis, we do make simplifying assumptions to develop a "program" level of "system-wide" assessment. Those conclusions are not considered to be definitive, but only to give a general idea of possible system-wide performance. > >So, based on a simplified assessment, not a detailed analysis, here are some things we do know about the bridges. Center St. was constructed in 1955 and widened in 1985. Marion St was constructed in 1985. ODOT started designing for a large Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake in 1990. So, both bridges were built before we started accounting for a large earthquake. This means the large piers or columns that support the bridge do not have sufficient reinforcement to resist the horizontal forces from a large earthquake. Those columns will crack. Also, the foundations under the water are not designed for those horizontal forces so the columns may rock and tilt. The girders are connected well to the tops of the piers, so the bridge may not collapse. But, there will likely be some movement or displacement, which will make the deck or roadway surface on the bridge uneven, with gaps or bumps. These deficiencies mean that the bridge will not be usable after a major Cascadia earthquake. After some temporary measures and repairs are done, the Marion Street bridge could be available for emergency vehicles only. > >Liquefaction mitigation is very expensive, on the order of millions of dollars per bridge. We have not made a detailed assessment of the liquefaction potential at the Marion Street and Center Street sites, but it is common along waterways that loose sandy or silty deposits could exist making waterway bridge even more susceptible for damage from liquefaction after an earthquake. > >The Marion and Center Street bridges would need to have significant foundation and column strengthening, and possibly liquefaction mitigation, to be made resilient under a large Cascadia earthquake. We have not estimated the cost of that work, but in any case, we do not have a funding source for doing that kind of work. > >Bruce >Oregon State Bridge Engineer
Mark Wigg p 503 588-2524 c 971 600-6607 POBox 831 Salem OR 97308
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5134B6D4GWCl S... 3/4/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b)
Kathy Hall
From: Donald DesJarlais
Good Morning,
Please abandon this 3rd bridge. Sounds and feels like something being forced and not really needed. Stop spending good money, time & effort after bad.
In the 15 yrs I have lived here I have never been backed up on the existing bridges in Salem across the Willamette River . And I have crossed 1OO's of times.
Thanks for taking the time to read this ... " A concerned citizen"
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lchall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5125E618GWCl S... 2/21/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b)
Kathy Hall - Congestion in Salem vs. Eugene
From: Mark Wigg Today's paper talked about the hours of delay for commuters, for Salem it is about 27 hours per commuter per year. For Eugene it is only 13 hours per commuter per year. Why is Eugene doing so much better? What can we do to reach that level? The metropolitan areas are very similar in size. Some of the reasons may include a higher percent of commuters bike, walk, and bus to work than in Salem. However, the Eugene MPO has the same vehicle miles oft ravel as Salem, so it is not just alternative modes. Maybe they have better management of their street network so traffic moves more smoothly. Another reason may be that a higher percentage of their commuters do not work an 8-5 schedule. Have you noticed that during state furlough days Salem has very little congestion? We could almost eliminate congestion if we could get state employees off the 8-5 work schedule. Then we would not need a new bridge. This should be the focus of the city's efforts and if successful it would reduce congestion not only at the bridges but throughout the city? With appreciation for your your service to our community, Mark Wigg p 503 588-2524 c 971 600-6607 POBox 831 Salem OR 97308 file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5124E4FCGWCI... 2/20/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- Upcoming Third Bridge Work Session & New Third Bridge Blog From: jason brandt To Salem City Council: Thank you for your leadership on third bridge discussions. As you approach your fourth work session on the issue this Tuesday evening, the Third Bridge Alliance is hoping you will focus on one primary question- What is our vision statement for transportation infrastructure across the Willamette River? We hope you take the time to review the latest post we have uploaded on the Third Bridge Alliance blog through the following link: http://thirdbrid~saJ~_m.blogspQLf~Qm/ Currently, the alliance includes the Salem Chamber, Homebuilders Association of Marion/Polk County, local trade unions, and the West Salem Business Association. Further discussion will be taking place in the coming month with the North Salem Business Association and the Salem Association of Realtors. In addition, both the Marion County Farm Bureau and Polk County Farm Bureau are starting to engage on this issue. If any of the neighborhood associations you represent are interested in a presentation, I would be happy to personally coordinate those opportunities as well. We look forward to the opportunity to engage in the City Council public hearing once scheduled. I hope you all enjoy the rest of your weekend and we will see you this coming Tuesday evening for the work session at Broadway Commons. Sincerely, Jason Brandt, CEO Salem Area Chamber of Commerce file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51208E7CGWC1... 2/19/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- Fwd: Salem Chamber's vision; nightmare for the rest of ns From: Richard Reid Fresh ideas for tomorrow's work session. Richard Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Reid If this is the best "vision" Salem Chamber has for our region's transportation needs it is time for them to see an optometrist. Please come to the fourth Council work session at 5:00pm tomorrow. Broadway Commons is on Broadway NE just South of Spruce NE. Richard bttp://thirdbridge§!ll!;!m.biQgspot.com/ SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 17,2013 A Mid-'ic::ll!ID' Vision Statement The Salem City Council will hold their fourth work session on the Salem River Crossing this coming Tuesday at 5:30pm at the Broadway Commons. As our community continues to prepare to make a very important decision for our future, the Third Bridge Alliance would like everyone to consider one question. What is our vision statement for transportation infrastructure? For example, the Salem-Keizer School District's Vision Statement is that every student in the K-12 school system will graduate. · We believe an appropriate Third Bridge vision statement should be to take care of all of our region's transportation needs across the Willamette River for the next 30-50 years. -)\ bold vision but it's impossibleJoLJJ_§ingle bridge (unless it is massive! to "take care of all of ourmgiQD'$/ransportation needs across the Wiflam_etteBiver for the next 30-50 Jlea.re>"'- -Does that "vision" include all the options for_crossing the river between Eugene and Brqoks?(The crossing doesn't have to be enliLfliYuPto S.a.lemta.xpavers!l file:I/C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51225786GWC1 S... 2119/2013 Page 2 of3 The data clearly shows that additional infrastructure across the Willamette River is needed to accommodate the growth of the Mid-Willamette Valley over the course of the next 30 years. oi_f)f]data "clearlv shows" rnucl)more. The dat There is one alternative that is clearly the vision statement to accommodate the growth in transportation forecasting models and that is Alternative 40. The component of 40 that is most important is the connection of a third bridge to Highway 22 infrastructure. cOther "most importanLr::.omQonents" includf],: footprint. funding. social and habitat imQar::.to;,_}axes etc. The ru_ost current detailed research on Alternative 4D sJ_glrt..ti. ho_w_ilff.flmatives :i. -Sure/ythe $!1CC "vision" does noleDclorse wholesale communitv_ destruction like this. Let's review some of the concerns of 4D 1) 4D would be a monstrosity of concrete pillars and highway that consumes North Salem and West Salem's livability. An elevated highway is included in the current 40 plan and it certainly would add a new transportation element to our community. Currently, the Salem City Council is looking at alternative options to an elevated highway. As long as there is direct connection to Highway 22 that provides transportation efficiencies, we can be confident we have adopted a plan that adequately addresses the costs of congestion to both residents and businesses. Without the direct connection, we run a major risk of clogging West Salem roadways and North Salem roadways with traffic that has no intention of stopping in Salem's residential neighborhoods. That traffic must be addressed to protect livability in both North and West Salem as well as downtown for generations to come. -Again other connections North anrLS.DMth of Salem such as between 99W and 15 would greatlv redycf)lraffic_?cross Salem's bridges while proviclingl:!_§nfJ.fi!Ii to "regional Qartners.~' 2) 4D costs $800 million dollars according to those against a bridge. Who is going to pay for it? The cost estimate for 40 is $687 million in 2015 dollars. This includes a 40% construction cost contingency for unanticipated expenses. As a community we must remember that an adopted plan is a "vision statement" for the future. It does not mean the full 40 plan would be implemented in one massive construction project. file://C:\Documents and Settings\lchall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51225786GWCl S... 2/19/2013 Page 3 of3 ,prq[Qoging construction increases the cost of money and ?ilinf!ation!'1ffe<;te9 <;Qst$. What has_.hEIP.P.ened to the Citv bondingt,;f1Qacitv? What has happened to the world-wide_ bondmEirket? file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51225786GWC1 S... 2/19/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- Third Bridge Work Session #4 From: Jim Scheppke Dear Councilor Tesler: Next Tuesday I will be attending the 4th City Council Work Session on the Third Bridge, and I expect you to finally have a serious conversation about the "Finance Strategy." The "flow chart" that recently went up on the City's new Third Bridge website indicates that the "Finance Strategy" does not get developed until after the Preferred Alternative is approved by the Oversight Team and the all various local governments involved. That's crazy! Would a business spend millions on planning for a new facility before figuring out how to finance it? This table developed by the SRC consultants shows that even the City Public Works Director's idea of only building half of Alternative 4A for a mere $150 million would involve significant tolling or tax increases or registration fee increases. Preliminary Estimate of Rates and Fees G. (1\f!(l~ion/Polk Cg_u_nti~s) ';';' ;.. ''-;;"·:.•• ~' ·'. Project costs $100 $150 $200 ' $250 ($millions) ~~ ----"----·--- Annual payment $7.7 $11.5 $15.4 $19.2 ($ million) on 20-year bond Fuel tax .. . $0.05 $0.07 $0.10 $0.12 {$ per gallon), or -~~~~~="~ ~--=~=-~~~- -~•m---"-~----- Vehicle Registration Fee ($ per $20 $30 $40 $50 vehicle per year), or --""'~''""'"' ""'-~'=-"~-' Property tax levy($ per $1,000 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 assessed value), or ·~~ -~o·'=- Tolls($ one-way) $0.28 $0.42 $0.56 $0.70 ..• •... Is it within the realm of possibility to think that everygne in Marion and Polk Counties would be willing to increase their property taxes by $0.60 per $1,000 for 20 years to build a $150 million bridge connecting Hope St. to Pine St.? I don't think so. I don't think my neighbors in South Salem would be willing to pay for a bridge from Hope to Pine (much less people in Keizer or Stayton). They couldn't point to Hope to Pine on a map. file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\511D3434GWCl... 2/15/2013 Page 2 of2 I beg you. Do not proceed with spending millions of dollars as envisioned in the "flow chart" before having a grown-up discussion about how to pay for the bridge. I understand that the contact between CH2M Hill and ODOT allows for planning money to be spent on polling the community. That would be an excellent thing to do right now. See ifthere is support for paying for a Third Bridge before wasting any more money. Thank you for your service, Jim Jim Scheppke j __echeppke@comcas t. net 503-269-1559 file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\511D3434GWC1... 2/15/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b) n; r~_-r-_c: fi~~---~~r,_·~~~,..- '-~ ,_) L, !, lt: (I UFEB 1 3 20'13 I ~~~ JZ, ' - . I ~:-~f!d_ City of Independence, Oregon DOCUMENT FILED February 8, 2013 FEB 1 4 2013 CITY OF SALEM Anna M. Peterson, Mayor CITY RECORDER City of Salem 555 Liberty Street SE, Room 220 Salem, OR 97301 RE: Salem River Crossing Dear Mayor Peterson, The City of Independence would like to take this opportunity to express our support for the Salem River Crossing project. Regardless of the final river crossing alternative chosen, this project represents a "bridge to a secure economic future", if you wilL The concept of a secure and functional transportation system is extremely important to our community. We recognize that it takes a robust transportation system to support our growing number of local businesses, the large agricultural base west of the Willamette River, Western Oregon University and importantly, critical emergency response in the case of natural disaster. The City of Salem and its partner agencies has boldly looked at future needs with regard to crossing the Willamette River. This process has required an enormous planning and public involvement effort, and a great deal of time. The Independence community is thankful for these efforts and supports your final conclusions. 555 S. l\IIA!N STREET, P.O. BOX 7, INDEPENDENCE, OR 97351 Phone: 503. 838.1212 • 503.606.3282 • TTY: 800. 735-2900 w wvv .d. i!JS.\ependence .or. us 11w City is an Equal Opportunity Pmvicler April22, 2013 4 (b) West Salem Business Association POST OFFICE BOX 5021 SALEM, OR 97304 January 31, 2013 Honorable Anna Peterson, Mayor Salem Gty Council 555 Liberty St SE Room 220 DOCUMENT FILED Salem, OR 97301 FEB u5 2013 CITY OF 3,1\LEM RE: The Salem River Crossing Project CITY RECORDER Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members: The Salem River Crossing Project is a massive project that has been in discussion for many years. Countless hours have been dedicated to this project with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), preferred alternative studies, and individual and business commentary. Although the final EIS, Record of Decision and funding strategy have not yet been made, we believe that it would be practical to maintain our focus on Alternative 4D (Hope to Pine/Hickory crossing location). The West Salem Business Association agrees with the Oversight Team's assessment of the feasibility of Alternative 4D as described in the recommendation and believe it will be beneficial for private and commercial use. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. West Salem Business Association kelly®salemelectric.com 503.362.3601 www.wsba-westsalem.com April22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall -congestion relief alternatives From: Mark Wigg We could present the voters with the following alternatives to relieve traffic congestion at the bridge heads? The numbers are rough estimates but reasonably accurate. Alternative 4A Cost: $300million in 2015$ Cost per $200,000 home: $200/yr for 30 years for prop. tax levy, if it passes. Completion date: bridge opens 2023 and traffic congestion is reduced, no congestion relief if bond fails. If we pass this bond, we may not be able to pass additional bonds for important projects. New Bridge has two lanes, Marine Drive constructed, over 100 homes/businesses demolished along with other impacts. Alternative 5 Cost: $1million Cost per $200,000 home: $0 Completion date: 2013, traffic reduced this year. Toll: $2-4/vehicle, charged only when traffic becomes stop-n-go about 4,000 v/h. Currently would be charged for one hour in am for eastbound traffic and one hour in pm for westbound traffic. No charge for first 5 crossings per month. Money from toll dedicated to seismic retrofits of bridges and to improve traffic flow around bridges as determined in TIP and RTP. Which alternative do you prefer? Which do you think voter would be select? Alternative 4A would still exceed capacity during peak hours and it will be hard to get voters to approve the bond. Alternative 5 would not require voter approval to implement. It could be funded by the money now being spent to complete the EIS. Tolls could be adjusted to acheive traffic objectives, but we could commit to limiting the tolls to a maximum of $4/trip. We could also commit to using the tolls to fund a new bridge if traffic objectives are not met. This is a congestion problem we can quickly fix. If you explain this to the voters, they will support you. Give them a cha nee. Mark Wigg p 503 588-2524 c 971 600-6607 POBox 831 Salem OR 97308 file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\510AE6F4GWC1S... 2/1/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b) From: Casey Lucas To the Honorable Mayor Peterson and Council Members, A third bridge in Salem will successfully divert traffic destined for West Salem aroUnd downtown. The current transportation model of the downtown makes retail and residential uses less viable due to traffic speeds and volumes, foot traffic and access to parking. By adding a third bridge to west Salem, we have a greater chance of increased bicycle and pedestrian counts, increased transit ridership, improved utilization of the parking facilities, improved financial performance of the Parking District, increased attendance and participation at events, increased business sales and a reduction in accident and violations attributed to all modes of transit Being a business owner in the downtown over the past three years, I have come to see the gridlock that occurs during the morning and evening commutes to and from west Salem A third bridge would alleviate some of this congestion and in a way let the downtown "breathe." Respectfully Yours, Casey M Lucas Jonathan's Since 1979 April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- "Just Say No" and Shelve the 4D Bridge-Build proposal From: Bargen Jan Dear City Council, I understand that tonight, at your work session, you may decide to entangle the City of Salem and other regional residents and businesses further in the sad plarming process that has, inappropriately, put the Option 4D Bridge-Build proposal on your plate. I trust you have received the 1000 Friends of Oregon condemnation of this proposal (if not, I have attached it). I trust also that you saw in the "Economic Resources Technical Report" prepared by Salem River Crossing consultants, that the Alternative 40 $800 million Third Bridge endorsed by the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce will displace local business and employees as follows (data page from report attached): -51 businesses "displaced" in North and West Salem -490 to 510 employees affected at displaced businesses - $71.3 to $79.3 million in annual sales at displaced businesses On a hearsay basis, I have heard rumors that this is an end-run by Walmart or other big-box stores to move into West Salem, that some development folks want Hwy 22 to be like a west-side Lancaster Blvd, that this planning effort is significantly driven by staff (city and/or other 'lead agency' staff) and that they are "tired of' the current plarming phase, that the consultants will say anything to keep getting paid, etc etc. I don't !mow about those things, but I do !mow that the usage data and various data on which the proposal (and plarming process) have been rationalized have been soundly refuted, I also !mow that access improvements to the existing bridges to improve flow during Salem's "rush minutes" have not been fully explored or vetted, despite claims to the contrary at your table. From the comments submitted to the DEIS, the comments you received at your Public Hearing, and other material that has been submitted to you, such as the attached, you have what you need to stop Salem from proceeding down this perilous path, The planning expenses paid so far are sunk costs, nothing less -- but nothing more, either. The money is not entirely wasted -- the engineering can form the platform for any explorations that are perceived worthy in a later decade, if and when the imagined projections ever materialize. To do continue throwing good money after bad on this effort is fiscally irresponsible. Furthermore, the question the planning process started out is no longer the right one. Rather than "Do we need a 3rd bridge?", we should be asking "If Salem is going to go into debt for $800 million, what should it be spent on to best promote this community?" (My answer: More teachers and libraries and other workforce development efforts would go much farther than building a bridge). Please shelve this proposal, as the West Salem Neighborhood Association, with input from West Salem file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50FEC245GWCl . ., 1/22/2013 Page 2 of2 businesses, voted to petition you to do, 38-10, on November 17th. Thank you, JanBargen 1440 Beaumount Dr NW Salem, OR 97304 file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50FEC245GWCl... 1/22/2013 1000 Willamette Valley Office • 220 E l1'h Avenue, Ste 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 520-3763 • fax (503) 223-0073 friends Pordand OHice • 133 SW Second Ave, Ste 201 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • www.friends.org of Oregon Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 • fax (541) 474-9389 ..... -- .... Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 January 4, 2013 Honorable Mayor Anna Peterson Salem City Council City of Salem 555 Liberty St SE Salem, OR 97301 Re: Traffic forecasts for Salem Third Bridge study Dear Mayor and Councilors: 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to enhance our quality of life by building livable urban and rural communities, protecting family fmms and forests, and conserving natural and scenic areas. 1000 Friends is a consistent advocate for realistic, fact-based land use and transportation planning. We are concerned about the use of an outdated population forecast for Polk County to derive the long-range traffic forecast that is a key justification for the Salem Third Bridge. Population forecasts are the cornerstone of all land use and traffic planning. If population forecasts are wrong, then everything built upon them will also be wrong. Salem could experience substantial economic harm if it commits to building and paying for a project that is not a good fit with actual future traffic demands and toll revenue streams. It is clear from a review of the Salem River Crossing Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the expectation of a dramatic increase in future traffic loads is a primary rationale for the project. The following text is taken from page 1-12 of the EJS; it includes the first three of the five justifications for the project. Please note that all three justifications are based on assumptions about future traffic demand: The following statements identify the need for the Salem River Crossing Project: · Need Statement#1. Based on available data, tl1e existing river crossing facilities and local blidge system in Salem arc inadequate for current and future traffic demand, resulting in a need to improve traffic operations in the study area over the No Build Alternative conditions. · Need Statement #2. Based on available data, the existing river crossing facilities and local b1idge connections in Salem are inadequate for current and future users (vehicles, freight, bicycles, and pedestrians) with regard to safety conditions, resulting in a need to improve traffic safety for all these users. · Need Statement #3. Based on available data, the existing river crossing facilities and local bridge system in Salem are inadequate for current and future freight- vehicle capacity, resulting in a need to improve freight mobility in the area of the Center Street and Marion Street Bridges. [emphasis added] Page 1-13 of the EIS contains a powerful bedrock assumption about this future traffic demand: Afternoon peak-period traffic volumes are forecast to double by 2031, which would increase the duration of the peak period considerably. We encourage you to look carefully at this core assumption- is it really true that bridge traffic will double in the next 18 years? If not, then the integrity of the decision-making process has been compromised, because that assumption was key to the detennination that a third bridge was necessary. Wrong inputs yield wrong outputs. On December 20, the Statesman Joumal published the attached story featuring comments from Mike Jaffe of the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments. When questioned by the council about the ongoing trend of decreasing traffic loads across the bridge, Mr. Jaffe told the council that according to population projections, the decline is not likely to continue, and that instead, bridge traffic would greatly increase. He cited a projected 2030 population for Polk County of over 117,000 people, a 2030 Dallas population of 31,000, and a combined Monmouth and Independence population of 31 ,000. When we read this article, we were concerned, because the population projections listed by Mr. Jaffe match the attached projections from the Polk County TSP. That Polk County forecast is in turn based on the 2004 Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) long-range forecast, also attached. The continued use of the 2004 OEA forecast is ill advised, because it is outdated and can no longer provide a sound foundation for your important planning work. Not only was it based on the 2000 census, it was conducted prior to our severe and ongoing economic downturn. It has been recognized in planning circles for many years that the 2004 OEA forecast is unreliable, and more cmrent information is routinely used in lieu of the outdated OEA projections.' This week, OEA released the draft 2012 long-range forecast, see attached. As expected, it predicts dramatically less growth for Polk County than the OEA's 2004 forecast. As shown by Table 1 below, the 2004 OEA forecast predicted about 45% more growth for Pollc County than the draft 2012 OEA forecast. 1 For example, in 2009, when Portland State's Population Research Center was preparing the Lane County coordinated population forecast, the demographers' draft county forecast was much lower than the 2004 OEA forecast. When asked about this by the City of Springfield, PSU responded, "It is the decision of the cities and tile County to adopt the forecasts that they feel confident about. The previous [2004] forecasts developed by OEA did not foresee such a big economic downturn. Forecasts need to be revised regularly to account for unforeseen changes that occur and to incorporate recent trends and dynamics that occur after the initial forecast is prepared. Part of the forecasting process is revision. OEA revises their forecasts periodically, and as time and money permit. It would not be 'best practice' for us to base a forecast on old data when new data are available." See page 100, Population Forecasts for Lane County, its Cities and Uninco1porated Area 2008-2035, May 2009, by the Population Research Center College of Urban and Public Affairs Portland State University. 2 Table 1 2004 OEA Forecast 2012 OEA Forecast 2012 Polk County Actual Population 76,625 76,625 2030 Polk County Forecast Population 117,557 104,997 2012-2030 Polk County Growth 40,932 28,372 Note that under the new OEA draft forecast, the predicted 18-year increase for Polk County is only 37% of the 2012 population. It seems unlikely that a 37% population increase in the entire county - which includes many residents who do not routinely drive across the bridge - would translate into a doubling of traffic across the bridge. We strongly suggest that Salem reevaluate the traffic model population forecast inputs, in light of this new information from OEA. We also suggest a thorough review of all other assumptions and data inputs that feed into the traffic model. It is possible that other aspects of the model are similarly outdated. For example, the model may contain assumptions about per capita vehicle miles travelled (VMT) based on trends from the 1990s. Driving habits have changed since then. The below chart2 shows that Oregon vehicle miles travelled peaked in 2002, and have declined ever since, despite an II% increase in Oregon's population over the last decade. 22 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1970 1975 '1980 1985 1990 HJ95 2000 2005 2010 2 Sightline Institute, http://daily.sightline.org/20 12/09/04/driving-less-in-oregon/ 3 As shown by the below chart,3 travel over Salem's existing bridge mirrors the larger Oregon trend of flat or declining traffic since 2002. Current bridge traffic levels are 25% lower that the forecast for 2015. Actual Annual Bridge Traffic vs. Projections 100,500 i_!l 1\0}),')0 £:_ j"j f'·· Both the statewide and local trends preceded the recession and increased fuel prices, and they may continue well into the future. Suggested reasons for the reduction in VMT include: 1. Growth of public transit 2. Reversal of urban sprawl and densification of urban centers 3. Growth of a culture of urbanism, especially among young people 4. Successful application ofwalkability policies 5. Sustained increase in fuel prices 6. Growth of various sorts of e-commerce that reduce car-based movement Prior to committing public funds to a new bridge project, the city should exercise due diligence and determine the likelihood that planning models overestimate future bridge traffic and toll revenues. The greater the level of uncertainty around traffic and revenue forecasts, the greater the fiscal risks the city will incur. A comprehensive review of the bridge traffic model formula, data inputs and assumptions would help safeguard the integrity of the city's decision-making process and protect the city from unexpected revenue shortfalls. 3 Salem Weekly, http://www.willamettelive.com/2012/news/new-bridge-defies-old-mles/ 4 Sincerely, ~~ Mia Nelson W illamette Valley Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon 220 East ll th A venue, Suite 5 Eugene, OR 97452 541.520.3763 Attachments: December 20, 2012 Statesman Journal article Pages 2-1 and 2-2, Polk County TSP 2004 OEA Forecast 2012 Draft OEA Forecast 5 http://www .statesmanjournal.com/article/20 121221/NEWS/31221 00 16/Salem-cmmcil-still-talking-about-bridge Salem council still talking about bridge Writte1i by Justin Much Statesman Journal Dec. 20 statesmanjournal.com Priorities and tradeoffs are what the Salem City Council will focus on in the coming months with regards to the Salem River Crossing Project. The council held a work session Monday to learn more about the project, often referred to as the "third bridge." The council heard from a number of people who have worked on the project, and reviewed various options presented in recent years. Salem's Director of Public Works, Peter Fernandez, raised the same questions that were focal points in a Salem River Crossing work session held last month: Is there a need for another river crossing and what does the city hope to accomplish with it? Within the latter, the council was urged to examine the priorities and the tradeoffs. The council heard from Mike Jaffe of the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments, who discussed traffic trends and projections. Dave Simmons of the civil engineering firm CH2M Hill discussed the various river crossing options that have been developed. Jaffe addressed questions about a trend of decreased traffic on the Marion and Center Street bridges in the last 5 years. Statistics indicate that the traffic numbers were flat in the 1980s- 50,000 vehicles per day- increased fairly consistently to a peak of between 88,000 and 89,000 in 2006, then curtailed to around 83,000 by 2011. Jaffe pointed to several possible reasons for the decline, including the recession and unemployment, a drop in West Salem construction projects, increased gas prices and changes in travel behavior. He also noted that forecasts, which factor in population increases and changes in the economy, suggest that the traffic decline is not likely to continue. Jaffe cited the 2010 Polk County population, 75,403, and the projected 2030 population of more than 117,000. He broke down that projection by area: West Salem is projected to go from roughly 26,000 to 42,000; Dallas from 14,000 to 31,000; Monmouth and Independence from 18,000 to 31,000. Jaffe also showed a map of West Salem parcels available for development as a part of the growth projection in the event of a recovering economy. At an earlier work session, Jaffe also cited projections, which indicated that morning traffic over the bridge at peak hour was about 5,000 vehicles in 2004 and is expected to rise to 9,000 by 2031. Peak afternoon/evening hour traffic and projections for the same years are 4,700 and 7 ,900. The session was primarily geared for discussion among the council, and many councilors had questions, the answers to which will likely become incorporated into the discussion of priorities and tradeoffs. Councilor Laura Tesler wondered if shifting demographics, such as a growing millennia! generation relying less on motor vehicles, could affect river-crossing capacity needs. Brad Nanke wondered about the consistency of cost estimates and project costs of other bridges. Richard Clausen had questions about phasing in the construction stages and when the conversation about funding will surface. Diana Dickey wondered what percentage of the bridge traffic comes from Polk County, and if changes in goods and services within the county has affected traffic levels. Studies show that 56 percent of current bridge traffic are local trips within Salem, 37 percent are regional trips and 7 percent is through traffic. Councilor Dan Clem noted that the bridge project will affect more than just east-west traffic in the region, but all traffic, especially within Salem, by alleviating congestion in key areas. Councilor Chuck Bennett expressed concerns about the estimated 160 homes and businesses affected by the crossing option preferred by the Salem River Crossing oversight team, most of which, he said, are characterized by affordable Page I of2 21112/2012 10:15 AM http://www .statesmanjournal.com/article/20 121221/NEWS/31221 00 16/Salem-council-still-talking-about-bridge housing and small businesses - and in his ward. The council is expected to hold another work session about the bridge project in January. The meeting has not been scheduled. jmuch@statesmanjournal .com or (503) 399-6736, cell (503) 508-8157 or follow at twitter.com/justinmuch Page 2 of2 21/12/2012 10:15 AM Population and Employment Table 1 shows population projections for Polk County and the cities within the county. Overall, the population of Polk County is projected to grow from 68,235, as of July 1, 2008, to 117,557 residents in 2030. The projection for the total population in the county was developed by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) and published in 2004. The projection represents growth of approximately 72 percent for the period, which translates into an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent. Most of that growth is expected to occur in the county's four most populous cities, Dallas, Independence, Monmouth and West Salem. The projection for each of the cities and the unincorporated portion of the county was developed by the county in coordination with the cities in the county. The smallest percent change is projected for the unincorporated portion of the county consistent with the statewide planning goals, state statutes, administrative rules, and the Polk County Comprehensive Plan which are intended to focus growth in urban areas. The major demographic trend occurring during the 20-year period will be a continued increase in the number of elderly persons within the population. This trend, which began during the 1990s, will continue and is attributable both to the aging of the "baby boom" generation as well as the attractiveness of Oregon, and the mid-Willamette Valley, as a retirement destination. Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 195.036, these population projections were developed in coordination with all the cities in the county. Under ORS 195.036, it is the county's responsibility to establish and maintain these population forecasts. Population and Employment 2-1 April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- Willamette river bridge From: Rick As a manufacturer and employer in the Salem area we are very interested in the building of a new bridge to connect the Salem parkway to Polk county. As an alternate route for emergencies and to prevent delays it will be essential. Not only will this allow for more efficient movement, and prevent losses of productivity, but it will provide local jobs. We frequently ship to the west from our facility on the Salem parkway. This will be a much more efficient route. Our primary mission is providing solutions with precast concrete products, so please let us know if we can be of service. I also sit on the board of NUCA ,(National utility contractors association),and our group is able to provide consultation on heavy construction at no charge. We have saved several jurisdictions huge costs by aiding in the planning of projects early on, utilizing the hundreds of years of experience our organizations contractors and suppliers possess. Thank you for your consideration, R Rick Day President/GM Advantage Precast, Inc. PO Box 21713 Keizer, OR 97307 Office: 503-390-2048 Fax: 503-390-1645 Email: [email protected] www.advantageprecast.com file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51024FF5GWCIS ... 1/25/2013 April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- Third Bridge From: "Byron Hendricks" Councilors Thanks for your service. I encourage you to support moving forward on the third bridge proposal and I believe the majority of the citizens, if queried would feel similar support for a plan so critical to our future. Jobs are critical to all residents of Salem, Marion and Polk County and Oregon. They add health to our communities, revenue to our municipalities and future to our children and grandchildren. I'm grateful for the leaders in the past who understood this and took on the projects that allow us rail, highways (including our two auto bridges), interstate freeways, ports, air service and all the other projects that give us the infrastructure to survive today. It would be difficult to imagine what our area would be like if that important leadership had not prevailed. I 'm reminded of a conversation I had with Bill Long, a well driller approximately 10 years ago. I was attending a water flow test with him one day and we had four hours to kill. He was 81 at the time and was born in Scio. When I asked about the early days in Scio and why it has always remained a small town, he replied without hesitation saying "I remember when I was young, Stayton and Scio were about the same size and Freres Brothers wanted to build their business in Scio. The people of Scio replied they liked things the way they were and preferred they not build there. They went to Stayton and now you see the results". Certainly, I doubt any of us could get that specific for the reason but this history has repeated itself countless times. As leaders, we have to understand the need to listen but also the need to lead. We all know that Oregon has a number of hurdles for companies considering growing/locating here. We still have the responsibility to do what we can to find companies that will locate here to increase jobs and our tax base. There are approximately 14 million people between San Francisco and Vancouver BC which could all be served in one day from factories, distribution centers and others located in most of Marion and Polk Counties. We have a number of companies that have looked in Marion and Polk Counties and most all of them see transportation as critical in their selection criteria (the one item we can control). When you consider the commitment the City of Salem has to economic growth it is substantial and of high quality and to me a source of pride in the forward thinking leadership. Facilitation strong transportation with the addition of the third bridge will allow us to use the resources of our area. Value enhanced agricultural products, wood products, shovel ready land, a skilled workforce and communities that want the brightest future for their citizens. Organic population growth in the US is 1.75% annually. That is over 5.5 million people per year that will place file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51015767GWC1S... 1/24/2013 Page 2 of2 additional demands on our communities, resources and services. We need to make certain Marion and Polk Counties are prepared to meet and benefit from this as it will come and we need to lead for today and tomorrow. With Regards, Byron Hendricks 1220 20th Street SE Salem, OR 97302 503 3713013 file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51015767GWC! S... l/24/2013 April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall - Third Bridge From: TJ Sullivan Dear Mayor & Councilors, I am writing to you to encourage you to move forward with option 4d on the Third Bridge. In the past, we have often underbuilt our transportation facilities only to face expensive corrections later on. There is a vocal minority who want no bridge, they should be quickly dismissed as they do not live in the real world. They will tell you that the future holds less cars and more public transportation and the third bridge goes against this future. While I do believe in the value of Public Transportation, our world is becoming way more segmented than ever and in a lot of scenarios public transportation isn't viable. Also, when I ride the bus I find that we get slowed/stopped in the same gridlock as everyone else. Our transportation system also does more than move people, it moves goods and services. A recent article in the Atlantic Monthly surrounded how companies are choosing where to construct by how easy they can move their product(s). Right now our bridge system is at capacity during rush hour and crisis'. What happens 25 years from now when there are another 15,000-20,000 people in West Salem. We are seeing it on Lancaster and Commercial right now as business choose not to be in locations where the traffic flow constricts traffic trying to get out of their location. Will this be the Council that plans properly for growth or the one that is blamed for future gridlock? The beautiful part about this is that the choice is yours. Respectfully, T.J. Sullivan 503-585-2211 phone 888-363-0908 fax Have you done business with us? Please leave us an honest review of our services at the link below: http ://huggins. w hi rloca l.com/ file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51 01025EGWC1S... 1124/2013 April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- 3rd Bridge From: John Miller [email protected]> To: Salem City Councilors; I understand the issue of the 3rd bridge will be moving to the front burner over the next several weeks. In the past couple of years I have become more engaged with downtown issues. My office is downtown, and my company is helping to make the second footbridge to Minto Island a reality. I believe we have the potential to create an incredible downtown environment, combining the assets of Salem's history, the river, our park system, a trail system for cycling, and soon (hopefully) a way to connect all of these assets together. Another vital piece to this puzzle is removing as much pass-through industrial traffic from our downtown core. I know there are many other considerations regarding the 3rd bridge, but I just wanted highlight that the 3rd bridge is also a critical piece to creating healthy and unique downtown. Which, in turn, is key a healthy overall Salem economy. Thank you for all of the time you give to serving as a City Councilor and your service to Salem. I~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5100D7D2GWC1... 1/24/2013 April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- airport, bridge From: Esteemed leaders- First of all, th.ank you for your personal investment in the well being of our community. I appreciate your service. Two items: Thank you for your unwavering support to the infrastructure improvements at the airport. It will prove invaluable in the future. Let me know if there is anything I can do. Thank you for moving the third bridge process forward as expediently as you are able. I support building the alternative that would connect west bound traffic to Highway 22- eventually. I know it may not happen in our working lifetimes, but I think it important to keep through traffic (especially trucks) away from clogging our already busy West Salem arteries. I owned a retail business on a street that was at times "too busy" for people to want to get out of traffic and patronize. I fear future harm to the Wallace Road commercial district if we dump Polk County and coast traffic onto the city traffic. Both of these things involve thinking of the next decade and beyond to the next generation, and your forward thought is to be commended. Sincerely, Brent DeHart Brent DeHart Northwestern Mutual- Fortune's "World's Most Admired" Financial Representative Northwestern Mutual 698 12th Street Suite 145 Salem, OR 97301 Office: 503-798-9262 Fax: 503-798-9263 Cell: 503-551-6463 Emaii: [email protected] Web: www.brentdehart.com fi1e://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51 001 05EGWC1 S... 1/23/2013 April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall - Third Bridge Issue From: Anne Theis To all City Council Members: A third bridge obviously changes the landscape of North Salem and change is never easy. Much has been discussed about displaced residents but what about the new opportunities that will be provided for neighborhoods in North Salem to access much needed transit services? New transportation infrastructure can add needed access to transit services to assist employees in getting to work and considering other modes of transportation. As the largest private employer in Salem, Salem Health has many employees who traverse our bridges on a daily basis, and complain regularly about the traffic backup during the rush hours. It is important that our employees have convenient access to work, as well as public transport options. It is also critical to have timely travel routes for employees and physicians who are on call and required to come to Salem Hospital quickly. This new bridge would also support more timely routes for EMS and other emergency vehicles transporting patients who may need have life threatening conditions. Traffic blockages could affect area residents' ability to get speedy, lifesaving treatment. We support a third bridge here in Salem and hope that you will advance this important infrastructure initiative to sustain growth here in Salem. Salem Health Anne Theis Vice President/Chief Marketing Officer Salem Health 698 12th St. SE Suite 100 P.O. Box 14001 Salem, OR, 97309-5014 503-561-5472 [email protected] www.UnJcedin.com/in/annemtheis [email protected] "The Heart of Healing" Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the email and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy, or use this email or any attachment for any purpose; nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50FFF9DEGWCI... 1123/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall -An open letter to SACC From: Richard Reid Dear Councilor, The following was emailed today. It includes information about the economic impacts of all bridge alternatives. Perhaps when they endorsed a third bridge, the Salem Area Chamber was unaware of the negative impacts of all third bridge scenarios on the business community(?) Richard Jan 20, 2013 Jason Brandt, CEO Salem Area Chamber of Commerce Dear Mr. Brandt, Many appreciate how Salem Area Chamber of Commerce advocates for small business. Your Jan 8 editorial, Third Bridge crucial to regional economy, favors Alternative 4D but faits to mention how that alternative would impact small business and the community. That may be because key facts are being withheld from bridge discussions. The master study that has been guiding and informing discussions from the beginning is the "Economic Resources T echnicat Report." This Report describes the impacts of all eight bridge scenarios under consideration. Although it mentions some economic impacts, the Salem River Crossing website does not link to the Report. In order to get the report, citizens have to know it exists and where to obtain a copy. These job impacts are not listed in the Executive summary or the tables. This may explain why the impacts of Alternative 4D, currently the most popular alternative among those who support a third bridge, are not mentioned in your editorial. The Report states how alternatives 4C and 4D, "would displace between 65 and 75 business units that employ 490 to 510 people and have annual sales of $71.3 to $79.3 million. These businesses are located primarily in the North Salem Business District, but a substantial number of businesses would be displaced on the West side of the river in the Edgewater and Wallace Business Districts. Marion and Polk Counties would lose estimated annual property taxes of $259,000 from these displaced businesses. This represents 0.06 percent of Marion County's 2008 budgeted property tax revenues and 0.14 percent of Polk County's 2008 budgeted property tax revenues. One of the anticipated displacements would affect future operations of a gravel pit in West Satem."[pp 3-256 and 3-257. http://www.satemrivercrossing.org/Projectlibrary/Satem DEIS 3.05 Socioecon.m;11J In fact, the Report shows how each of the eight bridge scenarios would cut through town like a mini hurricane wiping out businesses and homes that have provided income and security to Salem families for many decades. The only gains listed in the Report are time savings of "up to" 11 minutes in travel time from somewhere in West Salem to somewhere in North Salem or 3 minutes from somewhere in West Salem to somewhere in the Central Business District. But even these modest gains would be meaningless because ANY third bridge would destroy scores of businesses. If that happened, there would be tess reason to use the bridge. Think of it, scores of businesses, 490-510 jobs and $70 to $80 million in sales all wiped out just to save someone 11 minutes. How can an "economic case" be made for this? Your intent to study the matter further is exemplary but unneccessary. The facts are in the Report. Instead of another study can our community count on the Salem Area Chamber to defend our small businesses and community from these preventable tosses? file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50FBEA82GWCl ... 1/22/2013 Page 2 of2 Regardless of their membership, scores of small business owners, at risk of being destroyed by ANY third bridge, are counting on the "consistent and poweliul" Salem Area Chamber protection described on your website. Fortunately there are alternatives to a third bridge that cost less and do more for business and the community than building a third bridge. Will the Chamber join others promoting positive alternatives? Scores of local small businesses and hundreds of their employees are looking forward to your reply. Richard Reid Economic Resources Technical Report http://www.salemrivflmmssJog.org/Projectlibrary/S file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50FBEA82GWCI... 1/22/2013 April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall - Bridge decisions From: Mark Wigg Dear Mayor and City Councilors, Faced with the decision on whether or not to continue the Salem River Crossing Project, please recall that the city faced a similar decision in 1974. Just as today, the traffic models were showing a need for a new bridge. Although the city had invested substantial funds in that study, the city decided to funding that bridge study and to implement incremental improvements at much lower costs. Those incremental improvements have maintained a very good level of service on the bridges for 40 years, except for a couple hours each week day. More importantly, that decision allowed the city to pass other bond measures and allocate the city's limited funds on other important projects. That is the real decision you face. Is building a new bridge more important that all the other transportation and other public works projects that will need bond funds over the next twenty years? If residents agree to pay $500 or more per household annually for a new bridge, how long will it be before they will vote for a bond to pay for a new city hall/police station, improved transit service, better parks, or for other repairs and improvements to streets. The $2million (low estimate) that will be needed to finish the River Crossing Study would be enough to provide a safer route to the Kroc Center or to close the finance gap for the bridge to Minto-Brown Park. If you don't think a new bridge is the most important project the city will face over the next 20 years or is ulikely to gain voter support, save those millions by pulling your support now and implement less-costly solutions to the traffic problems. With appreciation for your service to our city, Mark Wigg p 503 588-2524 c 971 600-6607 POBox 831 Salem OR 97308 file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50F92548GWC1S... 1122/2013 April22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall- Information on Salem 3rd Bridge traffic forecast From: Mia Nelson All, Please find attached a letter from 1000 Friends of Oregon providing new information that could impact the Salem 3rd Bridge traffic forecast. We hope you will find it useful as you consider this important decision. Mia Mia Nelson Willamette Valley Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 520-3763 file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50F3FE04GWCl... 1/22/2013 1000 Willamette Valley Office • 220 E 11'" Avenue, Ste 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 520-3763 • fax (503) 22,3-0073 friends Portland OHice • 133 SW Second Ave, Stc 201 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 4~7-1000 • f'ax (503) 223-0073 • wvvw.friends.org of Oregon Southern Oregon Ollice • PO Box2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 • fax (541) 474-9389 Central Orcg·on Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 January 4, 2013 Honorable Mayor Anna Peterson Salem City Council City of Salem 555 Liberty St SE Salem, OR 97301 Re: Traffic forecasts for Salem Third Bridge study Dear Mayor and Cmmcilors: 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to enhance our quality of life by building livable urban and rural communities, protecting family fanns and forests, and conserving natural and scenic areas. 1000 Friends is a consistent advocate for realistic, fact-based land use and transportation planning. We are concerned about the usc of an outdated population forecast for Polk County to derive the long-range traffic forecast that is a key justification for the Salem Third Bridge. Population forecasts are the cornerstone of all land use and traffic planning. If population forecasts are wrong, then everything built upon them will also be wrong. Salem could experience substantial economic harm if it commits to building and paying for a project that is not a good fit with actual future traffic demands and toll revenue streams. It is clear from a review of the Salem River Crossing Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EJS) that the expectation of a dramatic increase in future traffic loads is a primary rationale for the project. The following text is taken from page 1-12 of the ElS; it includes the first three of the five justifications for the project. Please note that all three justifications are based on assumptions about future traffic demand: The following statements identity the need for the Salem River Crossing Project ·Need Statement #1. Based on available data, the existing river crossing facilities and local bridge system in Salem are inadeqllate for Clll'rent and future traffic demand, reslllting in a need to improve traffic operations in the stlldy area over the No Bllild Alternative conditions. · Nccd Statement #2. Based on available data, the existing river crossing facilities and local b1idge connections in Salem are inadeqllate for Cllrrent and future users (vehicles, fteight, bicycles, and pedestrians) with regard to safety conditions, reslllting in a need to improve traffic safety for all these llsers. ·Need Statement #3. Based on available data, the existing river crossing facilities and local bridge system in Salem are inadequate for current and future freight- vehicle capacitv, resulting in a need to improve freight mobility in the area of the Center Street m1d Marion Street Bridges. [emphasis added] Page 1-13 of the EIS contains a powerful bedrock assumption about this future traffic demand: Afternoon peak- period traffic volumes are forecast to double by 2031, which would increase the duration of the peak period considerably. We encourage you to look carefully at this core assumption - is it really true that bridge traffic will double in the next 18 years? If not, then the integrity of the decision-making process has been compromised, because that assumption was key to the dete1mination that a third bridge was necessary. Wrong inputs yield wrong outputs. On December 20, the Statesman Journal published the attached story featuring comments from Mike Jaffe of the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments. When questioned by the council about the ongoing trend of decreasing traffic loads across the bridge, Mr. Jaffe told the council that according to population projections, the decline is not likely to continue, and that instead, bridge traffic would greatly increase. He cited a projected 2030 population for Polk County of over 117,000 people, a 2030 Dallas population of 31 ,000, and a combined Monmouth and Independence population of31 ,000. When we read this article, we were concerned, because the population projections listed by Mr. Jaffe match the attached projections from the Polk County TSP. That Polk County forecast is in turn based on the 2004 Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) long-range forecast, also attached. The continued use of the 2004 OEA forecast is ill advised, because it is outdated and can no longer provide a sound foundation for your important planning work. Not only was it based on the 2000 census, it was conducted prior to our severe and ongoing economic downturn. It has been recognized in planning circles for many years that the 2004 OEA forecast is unreliable, and more current information is routinely used in lieu of the outdated OEA projections.1 This week, OEA released the draft 2012 long-range forecast, see attached. As expected, it predicts dramatically less growth for Polk County than the OEA's 2004 forecast. As shown by Table 1 below, the 2004 OEA forecast predicted about 45% more growth for Polk County than the draft 2012 OEA forecast. 1 For example, in 2009, when Portland State's Population Research Center was preparing the Lane County coordinated population forecast, the demographers' draft county forecast was much lower than the 2004 OEA forecast. When asked about this by the City of Springfield, PSU responded, "It is the decision of the cities and the County to adopt the forecasts that they feel confident about. The previous [2004] forecasts developed by OEA did not foresee such a big economic downturn. Forecasts need to be revised regularly to account for unforeseen changes that occur and to incorporate recent trends and dynamics that occur after the initial forecast is prepared. Part of the forecasting process is revision. OEA revises their forecasts periodically, and as time and money permit. It would not be 'best practice' for us to base a forecast on old data when new data are available." See page 100, Population Fomcasts for Lane County, its Cities and Uninc01p01ated Area 2008-2035, May 2009, by the Population Research Center College of Urban and Public Affairs Portland State University. 2 Table 1 2004 OEA Forecast 2012 OEA Forecast 2012 Polk County Actual Population 76,625 76,625 2030 Polk County Forecast Population 117,557 104,997 2012-2030 Polk County Growth 40,932 28,372 Note that under the new OEA draft forecast, the predicted 18-year increase for Polk County is only 37% of the 2012 population. It seems unlikely that a 37% population increase in the entire county- which includes many residents who do not routinely drive across the bridge- would translate into a doubling of traffic across the bridge. We strongly suggest that Salem reevaluate the traffic model population forecast inputs, in light of this new information from OEA. We also suggest a thorough review of all other assumptions and data inputs that feed into the traffic model. It is possible that other aspects of the model arc similarly outdated. For example, the model may contain assumptions about per capita vehicle miles travelled (VMT) based on trends from the 1990s. Driving habits have changed since then. The below chart2 shows that Oregon vehicle miles travelled peaked in 2002, and have declined ever since, despite an 11% increase in Oregon's population over the last decade. 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2 Sightline Institute, http:/ldaily.sightline.org/2012/09/04/driving-less-in-oregon/ 3 As shown by the below chart,3 travel over Salem's existing bridge mirrors the larger Oregon trend of flat or declining traffic since 2002. Current bridge traffic levels are 25% lower that the forecast for 2015. Actual Annual Bridge Traffic vs. Projections 0 Both the statewide and local trends preceded the recession and increased fuel prices, and they may continue well into the future. Suggested reasons for the reduction in VMT include: 1. Growth of public transit 2. Reversal of urban sprawl and densification of urban centers 3. Growth of a culture of urbanism, especially among young people 4. Successful application ofwalkability policies 5. Sustained increase in fuel prices 6. Growth of various sorts of e-commerce that reduce car-based movement Prior to committing public funds to a new bridge project, the city should exercise due diligence and determine the likelihood that planning models overestimate future bridge traffic and toll revenues. The greater the level of uncertainty around traffic and revenue forecasts, the greater the fiscal risks the city will incur. A comprehensive review of the bridge traffic model formula, data inputs and assumptions would help safeguard the integrity of the city's decision-making process and protect the city from unexpected revenue shortfalls. 3 Salem Weekly, http://www.willamettelive.com/2012/news/new-bridge-defies-old-mles/ 4 Sincerely, •""k·-t:~~---- MiaNelson Willamette Valley Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 Eugene, OR 97452 541.520.3763 Attachments: December 20, 2012 Statesman Jmm1al article Pages 2-l and 2-2, Polk County TSP 2004 OEA Forecast 2012 Draft OEA Forecast 5 http://www .statesmanjournal.com/article/20 121221/NEWS/31221 00 16/Salem-council-still-talking-about-bridge Salem council still talking about bridge Written by Justin Much Statesman Journal Dec. 20 statesmanjoumal.com Priorities and tradeoffs are what the Salem City Council will focus on in the corning months with regards to the Salem River Crossing Project. The council held a work session Monday to learn more about the project, often referred to as the "third bridge." The council heard from a number of people who have worked on the project, and reviewed various options presented in recent years. Salem's Director of Public Works, Peter Femandez, raised the same questions that were focal points in a Salem River Crossing work session held last month: Is there a need for another river crossing and what does the city hope to accomplish with it? Within the latter, the council was urged to examine the priorities and the tradeoffs. The council heard from Milce Jaffe of the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments, who discussed traffic trends and projections. Dave Simmons of the civil engineering firm CH2M Hill discussed the various river crossing options that have been developed. Jaffe addressed questions about a trend of decreased traffic on the Marion and Center Street bridges in the last 5 years. Statistics indicate that the traffic numbers were flat in the 1980s- 50,000 vehicles per day- increased fairly consistently to a peak of between 88 ,000 and 89,000 in 2006, then curtailed to around 83,000 by 2011. Jaffe pointed to several possible reasons for the decline, including the recession and unemployment, a drop in West Salem construction projects, increased gas prices and changes in travel behavior. He also noted that forecasts, which factor in population increases and changes in the economy, suggest that the traffic decline is not likely to continue. Jaffe cited the 2010 Polk County population, 75,403, and the projected 2030population of more than 117,000. He broke down that projection by area: West Salem is projected to go from roughly 26,000 to 42,000; Dallas from 14,000 to 31,000; Monmouth and Independence from 18,000 to 31,000. Jaffe also showed a map of West Salem parcels available for development as a part of the growth projection in the event of a recovering economy. At an earlier work session, Jaffe also cited projections, which indicated that morning traffic over the bridge at peak hour was about 5,000 vehicles in 2004 and is expected to rise to 9,000 by 2031. Peak aftemoon/evening hour traffic and projections for the same years are 4,700 and 7 ,900. The session was primarily geared for discussion among the council, and many councilors had questions, the answers to which will likely become incorporated into the discussion of priorities and tradeoffs. Councilor Laura Tesler wondered if shifting demographics, such as a growing millennia! generation relying less on motor vehicles, could affect river-crossing capacity needs. Brad Nanke wondered about the consistency of cost estimates and project costs of other bridges. Richard Clausen had questions about phasing in the construction stages and when the conversation about funding will smface. Diana Dickey wondered what percentage of the bridge traffic comes from Polk County, and if changes in goods and services within the county has affected traffic levels. Studies show that 56 percent of current bridge traffic are local trips within Salem, 37 percent are regional trips and 7 percent is through traffic. Councilor Dan Clem noted that the bridge project will affect more than just east-west traffic in the region, but all traffic, especially within Salem, by alleviating congestion in key areas. Councilor Chuck Bennett expressed concems about the estimated 160 homes and businesses affected by the crossing option preferred by the Salem River Crossing oversight team, most of which, he said, are characterized by affordable Page 1 of2 21/12/2012 10:15 AM http://www .statesmanjournal.com/article/20 121221/NEWS/31221 00 16/Salem-council-still-talking-about-bridge housing and small businesses - and in his ward. The council is expected to hold another work session about the bridge project in January. The meeting has not been scheduled. jmuch@statesmanjournal .com or (503) 399-6736, cell (503) 508-8157 or follow at twitter.com/justinmuch Page 2 of2 21/12/2012 10:15 AM Population and Employment Table 1 shows population projections for Polk County and the cities within the county. Overall, the population of Polk County is projected to grow from 68,235, as of July 1, 2008, to 117,557 residents in 2030. The projection for the total population in the county was developed by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) and published in 2004. The projection represents growth of approximately 72 percent for the period, which translates into an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent. Most of that growth is expected to occur in the county's four most populous cities, Dallas, Independence, Monmouth and West Salem. The projection for each of the cities and the unincorporated portion of the county was developed by the county in coordination with the cities in the county. The smallest percent change is projected for the unincorporated portion of the county consistent with the statewide planning goals, state statutes, administrative rules, and the Polk County Comprehensive Plan which are intended to focus growth in urban areas. The major demographic trend occurring during the 20-year period will be a continued increase in the number of elderly persons within the population. This trend, which began during the 1990s, will continue and is attributable both to the aging of the "baby boom" generation as well as the attractiveness of Oregon, and the mid-Willamette Valley, as a retirement destination. Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 195.036, these population projections were developed in coordination with all the cities in the county. Under ORS 195.036, it is the county's responsibility to establish and maintain these population forecasts. Population and Employment 2-1 Table 1 Population Projections Polk County and Cities within Polk County 2008-2030 Percent Percent Percent AAGR Location 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 of Total of Total Change 1996- 2008 2030 2008-2030 2020 Polk County 68,235 72,845 83,338 95,594 107,118 117,557 100% 100% 72% 2.50% Dallas 15,360 16,706 21,022 25,216 28,957 31,154 22.5% 26.5% 103% 3.26% Falls City 965 983 1,083 1,195 1,285 1,352 1.4% 1.2% 40% 1.50% Independence 8,030 8,588 9,859 11,319 12,995 14,919 12.8% 12.7% 86% 2.80% Monmouth 9,565 10,069 11,448 13,015 14,798 16,824 14.0% 14.3% 76% 2.60% Salem (Polk 22,477 24,406 26,925 30,892 34,515 38,496 32.9% 32.8% 71% 2.50% County Portion) Willamina (Polk 720 801 917 1,052 1,178 1,293 1.1% 1.1% 80% 2.60% County Portion) Unincorporated 11,118 11,291 12,084 12,905 13,390 13,519 16.3% 11.5% 22% 0.90% Source: Popu!atwn estnnatesfor 2008 were developed by the Oregon Centerfor Populatwn Research and Census, 2008. - Dallas: projection is the remainder after the other cities had been projected and was acceptable to the cities, and after the unincorporated Polk County portion had been determined. - Falls City: projection decreases from 1.4% of county total in 2008 to 1.35% in 2010, 1.30% in 2015, 1.25% in 2020, 1.20% in 2025 to 1.15% in 2030. - Independence: projection uses the 2.8%/year from the city's 2008 comprehensive plan update and UGB expansion. - Monmouth: projection is based on the city's request for 2.6%/year. -West Salem: projection includes only the portion of the city in Polk County and is from Marion County's September 2008 draft projections, medium projection (p. 52) for Marion County and all the cities in Marion County, including west Salem. - Willamina: projection includes only the pmtion of the city in Polk County. The projection slightly increases the city's 1.06% share of the county's total population in 2008 to 1.1% out to 2030. - Unincorporated Polk County: projection is for those areas outside city limits. The projection decreases the unincorporated portion from 16.3% in 2008 to 15.5% in 2010 and 1% thereafter every 5-years. In 2008 and 2009, Marion County contracted with the Oregon Center for Population Research and Census (CPRC) to produce population projections to 2030 for Marion County and the cities in the county. Marion County was scheduled to adopt their coordinated projection in 2009. Polk County recognizes that planning is a dynamic process. While the population projections shown in Table 1 constitute the county's obligation under state statute to establish such projections, these figures only represent the best estimates available at this time. The numbers are not static, but are subject to change as new information becomes available. Polk County recognizes its obligation to maintain such forecasts in the future and that this obligation requires ongoing coordination with both the state and the cities in the county. Polk Population and Employment 2-2 2004 OEA OFFICIAL FORECAST Forecasts of Oregon's County Populations and Components of Change, 2000 - 2040 Total Population Note: populations as of July 1 Base population of July 1, 2000: Totals estimated by PRC, PSU and age-sex details estimated by OEA based on Census Bureau's distributions. Oregon's age-sex detail may not match with the short-term forecast released in the OEA's Economic and Revenue Forecast Prepared by Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, State of Oregon Release: April 2004 Estimates (PSU) FORECAST Area Name 2000 20Q;I 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Oregon 3,436,750 3,541,500 3,618,200 3,843,900 4,095,708 4,359,258 4,626,015 4,891,225 5,154,793 5,425,408 Baker 16,750 16.500 16,471 16,498 16,717 16,957 17,135 17,221 17,304 17,460 Benton 78,300 80,500 82,138 85,721 88,995 91,982 94,549 96,517 98,235 99,886 Clackamas 340,000 353,450 363,240 391,536 424,648 460,323 497,926 536,123 576,231 620,703 Clatsop 35,700 36,300 36,734 37,162 37,652 37,939 38,290 38,643 38,983 39,368 Columbia 43,700 45,000 45,977 48,292 50,882 53,562 56,354 59,024 61,623 64,411 Coos 62,800 63,000 63,112 63,386 63,897 64,259 64,634 64,929 64,919 64,839 Crook 19,300 20.300 21,035 23,051 25,249 27,590 30,125 32,796 35,569 38,553 Curry 21,200 21 '100 21,115 21,530 22,112 22,671 23,057 23,225 23,299 23,432 Deschutes 116,600 130,500 139,994 158,792 178,418 197,150 214,479 229,933 244,069 257,088 Douglas 100,500 101,800 102,958 106,379 112,043 117,632 123,341 129,062 134,713 140,619 Gilliam 1,900 1,900 1,917 1,946 2,016 2,101 2,187 2,275 2,366 2,464 Grant 7,950 7,650 7,578 7,553 7,562 7,583 7,610 7,637 7,646 7,678 Harney 7,600 7,300 7,203 7,454 7,779 8,098 8,415 8,745 9,120 9,584 Hood River 20,500 20,500 20,698 21,998 23,485 25,027 26,667 28,404 30,310 32,498 Jackson 182,200 189,100 194,005 208,370 223,464 238,865 253,881 268,385 282,669 297,496 Jefferson 19,150 19,900 20,491 22,168 24,079 26,065 28,298 30,831 33,390 36,094 Josephine 76,050 78,350 79,956 84,186 89,211 94,385 100,001 105,552 111,133 117,216 Klamath 63,900 64,600 65,330 66,968 68,851 70,595 72,631 74,924 77,366 80,159 Lake 7,450 7.400 7,411 7,428 7,468 7,525 7,543 7,559 7,576 7,614 Lane 323,950 329,400 333,855 347,494 365,639 387,574 409,159 430,454 451,038 471,511 Lincoln 44,600 45,000 45,365 46,945 48,776 50,379 52,039 53,710 55,364 57,247 Linn 103,350 104,900 106,023 110,123 115,156 120,465 126,140 132,133 138,717 146,260 Malheur 31,750 32,000 32,328 33,826 35,552 37,312 39,122 40,854 42,629 44,519 Marion 286,300 295,900 302,913 323,128 344,443 367,018 388,898 410,022 429,824 448,671 Morrow 11,100 11,750 12,286 13,581 15,011 16,520 18,101 19,703 21,358 23,122 Multnomah 662,400 677,850 687,073 711,909 735,445 756,390 778,028 800,565 821,768 842,009 Polk 62,700 64.000 65,434 72,845 83,338 95,594 107,118 117,557 127,019 135,937 Sherman 1,950 1,900 1,893 1,933 1,986 2,043 2,081 2,102 2,127 2,165 Tillamook 24,300 24,900 25,401 26,589 27,897 29,097 30,094 30,887 31,538 32,146 Umatilla 70,850 71,100 71,495 75,271 79,701 85,242 90,660 95,844 101,001 106,149 Union 24,550 24,650 24,804 25,596 26,545 27,551 28,535 29,525 30,586 31,793 Wallowa 7,250 7,150 7,147 7,315 7,611 7,892 8,112 8,232 8,431 8,783 Wasco 23,850 23,550 23,420 23,753 24,297 24,896 25,670 26,563 27,522 28,653 Washington 449,250 472,600 489,742 542,678 599,377 660,367 723,669 788,162 854,164 920,852 Wheeler 1,550 1,550 1,557 1,563 1,591 1,597 1,614 1,622 1,636 1,652 Yamhill 85,500 88,150 90,098 98,932 108,812 119,011 129,850 141,505 153,549 166,776 2012 OEA DRAFT FORECAST DRAFT: FOR REVIEW ONLY Forecasts of Oregon's County Populations and Components of Change, 20 l 0 - 2050 Prepared by Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, State of Oregon PRE-RELEASE: FOR REv1EW ONLY Estimate FORECAST Area Name 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Oregon 3,837,300 4,001,600 4,252,100 4,516,200 4,768,000 4,993,500 5,198,300 5,393,500 5,591,200 Baker 16,185 16,243 16,324 16,383 16,408 16,388 16,348 16,293 16,290 11);215: 16,210 Benton 85,735 87,500 90;831 94,451 98;019 101,372 104,571 107,769 1!1,189 85,995 86,785 Clackamas 376,780 393,203 421,647 452,531 482,459 509,427 533,858 556,595 579,712 378,480 381,680 C1atsop 37,070 37,631 38,403 39,288 40,001 40,454 40,693 40,879 41,154 37;14E) 37,190 Columbia 49,430 51,327 54,434 57,836 61,014 63,802 66,300 68,618 71,018 49,625 49,680 Coos 63,035 63,097 ' 63,695 64,108 64,205 63,891 63,391 62,881 62,659 62,960 62,890 Crook 21,020 21,299 21,954 22,837 23,899 25;101 26,310 27,538 28,894 20,855 20,650 Curry 22,355 22,309 23,221 24,159 24,918 25,412 25,755 26,034 26,402 22,335 22:,295 Deschutes 157,905 165,869 181,317 197;495 213,183 227,545 240;500 252,108 263,200 .158,875 160,140 Douglas 107,690 1!0,549 1!5,841 121,208 125;929 129,695 132,840 135,680 138,755 107,795 108,195 Gilliam 1,870 1,957 2,054 2,159 2,263 2,357 2,448 2,540 2,646 1,880. 1',900 Grant 7,460 7,404 . 7,313 7,193 7,025 6,784 6,489 6,163 5,852 7,450 7,450 Harney 7,445 7,434 7,422 7,384 7,315 7,218 7,116 7,016 6,930 ..7,375 7,315 Hood River 22.385 23,678 25,663 27,823 29,938 31,830 33,420 34,750 35,964 22,625 22,875 Jackson 203,340 210,037 224,465 23~,498 253,378 265,380 276,040 285,893 295,835 203,950 204,630 Jefferson 21,750 22,649 24,206 25,740 27,140 28,382 29,559 30,681 31,803 21)845 21,940 Josephine 82,775 86,050 91,2.46 96,689 101,582 105,638 109,207 112,475 115,843 ,82,820 82,775 Klamath 66,505 67,347 68,9[4 70,396 71,563 72,342 72,958 73,578 74,360 66,580 66,740 Lake 7,890 7,921 7,937 7,949 7,932 7,894 7,867 7,858 7,891 7.,885 7,920 Lane 352,010 361,551 378,123 395,612 411,230 423,297 432,787 444,871 457,874 353;155 354,200 Lincoln 46,!35 47,575 49,4[6 51,159 52;557 53,541 54,302 55,004. 55,877 46,1.55 46,295 Linn 116,840 121,567 128,882 136,681 144,192 150,997 157,216 163,177 169,383 11T340 118,035 Malheur 31,345 32,230 33,228 34,199 35,039 35,693 36,212 36,667 37,144 31,445 31,395 Marion 315,900 331,927 355,361 381,122 406,590. 430,533 453,367 475,772 499,144 318,150 320,495 Morrow 11,175 11,725 12,454 13,214 13;945. 14,604 15,205 15,775 16,382 11,270 11,300 Multnomah 736,785 769,165 807,689 845,778 880,352 910,111 936,661 960,571 983;392 741,925 748,445 Polk 75,495 80,181 87,971 96,537 104;997 113,009 120,663 128,083 135,623 75,965 76,625 Sherman 1,765 1,737 . 1,719 1,723 1,736 1,752 1,768 1,779 1,801 1,765. 1,765 Tillamook 25,260 25,739 26,724 27,717 28,617 29,357 29,985 30,562 31,205 . 25,2;35 25,305 Umatilla 76.000 78;974 83,478 88,512 93,863 99,036 104,049 109,104 114,519 76;580 77,120 Union 25,810 26,908 28,074 29,249 30,349 31,358 32,374 33,997 35,812 . 25,980 26,175 Wallowa 7,005 6,975 6,947 6,901 6,838 6,75[ 6,633 6,495 6;377 6,9f}5,- 7,015 Wasco :25,235 26,041 27,366 28,76q... 30,090 31,237 32,262 33,186 34,143 25;300 25,485 Washington 531,070 569,431 622,174 678,206 733,911 786,757 836,314 882,463 927,572 536,370 542,845 Wheeler 1,440 1,408 !,379 1,354 1;333 1,312 1,287 1,268 1,254 . i ,435 1,425 Yamhill 99,405 104,961 114,228 124,348 134,190 143,231 151,536 159,368 167,292 99,850 100,550 April22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall - Salem River Crossing public hearing From: Curt Fisher Dear City Council and staff, Please include the attached document into the public record for the ongoing public hearing on the Salem River Crossing. In addition to this summary, I urge council and staff to carefully read the entire 24 page report and use the evidence presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon to inform your decision on a preferred alternative. The not-so-subtle subtext to the debate over a third bridge is the question of how Salem is going to manage future growth. Will we tax ourselves to encourage more sprawl in Polk Co. or will we welcome quality growth, and the economic benefits that go with it, into our urban core? Alternative 4D sends the obvious signal that the oversight committee favors more sprawl over quality growth. So much so that we have been asked to remove nearly every building on the south side of Edgewater Dr. to make room for the OR-22 connector. The evidence provided by 1000 Friends mal Instead of encouraging Polk Co. sprawl we should be welcoming new growth in Salem and let it drive demand for quality growth projects like Sustainable Fairview, North Downtown redevelopment, the Marion Parkade redevelopment., and the Sustainable Cities proposals for Commercial St. south of Mission. Evidence shows the returns on these investments will be much higher than on sprawl and much more revenue will be returned to the city to fund essential services for our children and grandchildren. Hope you fmd this information helpful. Sincerely, Curt Fisher file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50F3F82DGWCl... 1/22/2013 MORE EXTENSIVE 1000 friends of Oregon IS MORE EXPENSIVE ...... - ..... How Sprawl Infrastructure Bankrupts Oregon Communities, and What We Can Do About It Oregon's physical infrastructure is an investment in the future of its residents and communities. Unfortunately, many Oregon communities are making the wrong bets. They're falling behind on maintenance, taking on debt, and raising taxes to pay for it all. Why is this happening? A big part of the answer is the shape of communities. Some development patterns create much higher public costs than others. Land-extensive sprawl costs a lot more for infrastructure than more efficient development, especially when totallifecycle costs are included. But there is an alternative. Quality growth directs development into existing communities and creates walkable neighborhoods with mixed land uses and transportation options. At the same time, it saves communities millions. In these difficult fiscal times, quality growth is the best fiscal bet for Oregon's future. Unfortunately, current Oregon law does not require cities to consider the fulllifecycle costs of infrastructure when making growth decisions. It's time to change this. By considering the full costs of infrastructure, we can hold leaders accountable and help communities step back from sprawl's fiscal edge. It's time to make a choice to transform how we make choices. Read more within. About this document This document is a summary ofkey findings from our 2013 report, "More Extensive Is More Expensive," an analysis ofsprawl-induced infrastructure costs and recommendations for what Oregon can do to address this growing problem. Download the foll version ofthis report at www.friends.org/infrastructure and public facility maintenance and population growth. Cities are being slowly strangled. " -League of Oregon Cities executive director Mike MacCauley, in a press release announcing an ECONorthwest study into Oregon infrastructure budgets 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON By the numbers: The Quality Growth Difference $1 0,1 00,000,000 Total estimatedsavit)gs for reducing sprawl and making moreefffc;ient use of urban land to accommodate 20-40years ofgrowthin the ,1\ustin region, according to a landmark "Envision Central Texas;, report. · • · The ratio ofper"acreprop erty tax revenu.es for a retail storeing walk(]ple area vs. a big box shoppiqg center. ·~!'JaPC()nstruction and ma·int ofra,,en()y.s, sprawl-induced infrastructure uu;m<>IaiJ without digging any deeper. ·~~~~J~i;~il;ii>• eqlploya tool known as Fiscal Impact Analysis to assess trirCitiLI.~~~{~ different styles of development. 1000 friends of Oregon April 22, 2013 4 (b) Kathy Hall - Bridge From: "Mike Read" K Hall, I am neither a supporter nor detractor from the bridge but do believe that Salem has a problem with East-West transportation. I have drawn a map (attached) of Salem showing the major roads with their speed limits and it is very enlightening. I am a former engineer and currently a real estate appraiser and travel the area every day in a 25 miles radius around Salem. Regards, Mike Michael N. Read Appraiser & CVR Specialist Lie. C000913 0 R Lie. 1101849 WA 3373 Willamette Dr. N Keizer, OR 97303 file://C:\Documents and Settings\khali\Local Settings\Ternp\XPgrpwise\50EBFD6DGWC... 1/22/2013 Oregon, United States, North America .Z~D? B.P.}.f:N zUj ~a:<:elgreanBd, .... NE_ ,. -· !t; _': 219· Keh:er 0 99E 4ft '. if!' •'" '\ ,:,Hay-es'lille ~·" 8 (1 !_ '221 ~~u_fman :.Rd /lj£ _ _Sur:myv!ew ?::~ ~~- ~\_ ~Gt~n.cr~~k ___Rd NW iP· r/ i"·! -·· Stat_e___ st 51 wl ~... , ~,"' ,,: Mrn;.~;;~o~.-vn .:, Z-~ -4 5 NJ 1:> H "·''"' cJti 'C!I\CiCI 55 !V\ \(' t+ 55+ /VWK Copyright© and (P) 1988--2010 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers. Ali rights reserved. http://wNw.microsoft.com/streetsl Certain mapping and direction data® 2010 NAVTEQ AI! rights reserveO, The Dat:a for areas of Canada il"lcludes information taken wi\11 permission from tA!nac!ian authorities, Including:© Her il!.ajestythe Queen in Right of Canada,© Queen's Printer for Ontario. NAVTEQ and NAVTEQ ON BOARD are tradema!Ks-of NAiffEQ.@ 2010 Tela Atlas North America, I no. All rights reserveO. Tela Atlas ancl Tele Atlas North America are lraclsrmrks cfTE:Ie Atlas, Inc.® 2010 by Applied C--aographic Systems. All rights reservad_