~Np --rfN~INrfvNul~AGER

FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF: AGENDA ITEM NO.:

PUBLIC WORKS FILE NO.:

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

/UOOIO

THROUGH: --rfN~INrfvNul~AGER TO: d~'\_~Np CITY COUNCIL ~

FROM: PETER FERNANDEZ, P.E., PUBLIC ~ SUBJECT: SALEM RIVER CROSSING PREFERR ALTERNATIVE - INPUT

FROM CITY COUNCIL TO REGIONAL PARTNERS

ISSUE:

Shall Council authorize Councilor Clem to provide the following feedback to the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team and report back to Council on the results of the Oversight Team preferred alternative deliberations?

1. City Council rejects Alternative 4D as the preferred alternative; and

2. City Council supports the "Salem Alternative," as described in the Facts and Findings section.

Furthermore, shall Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the Oregon Department of Transportation to urge continued attention to maintenance of the Center and Marion Street Bridges to ensure ongoing safety of these facilities?

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Council authorize Councilor Clem to provide the following feedback to the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team and report back to Council on the results of the Oversight Team preferred alternative deliberations:

1. City Council rejects Alternative 4D as the preferred alternative, and

2. City Council supports the "Salem Alternative," as described in the Facts and Findings section.

Furthermore, staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the Oregon Department of Transportation to urge continued attention to maintenance of the Center and Marion Street Bridges to ensure ongoing safety of these facilities.

BACKGROUND:

In August 2012, the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team forwarded its preliminary recommendation for a preferred alternative to the partner jurisdictions (City of Salem, City of Keizer, City of Turner, Marion County, Polk County, Salem-Keizer Transit District, Salem-Keizer School District, and the Oregon Department of Transportation) for feedback. Since that time, Council has been seeking public comment to formulate City Council input back to the Oversight Team and partner jurisdictions.

Salem River Crossing Preferred Alternative - Input from City Council to Regional Partners Council Meeting of June 24, 2013 Page 2

On November 5, 2012, the Salem City Council conducted a public hearing on the 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 and subsequent public meetings.

On April 8, 2013, Council proposed modifications to the preferred alternative and scheduled a public hearing to accept public input on these proposed modifications. The public hearing was held on April 22, continued on May 13, and the record was kept open through June 21, 2013, for the purpose of receiving additional written testimony. During this time, City Councilors, staff, and the public have continued to share information, gather feedback, and refine what is now referred to as the "Salem Alternative."

FACTS AND FINDINGS:

Alternative 4D

The City Council rejects Alternative 4D, which was recommended by the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team. Council understands that the components of Alternative 4D were developed to address all of the future traffic needs of the area. Council has concluded, however, that the social, economic and fiscal costs of Alternative 4D outweigh the benefits that the recommended improvements provide.

The Salem Alternative-Goals

The City Council recommends that the Salem Alternative be advanced as the preferred alternative into the regional Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The intent of this alternative is to focus transportation improvements on what is most important to the City of Salem, and minimize the negative impacts associated with the project.

The most important goal of this project is improvement of multi-modal access and connectivity between the east and west parts of the City. The Salem Alternative achieves this goal with the construction of a new multi-modal bridge that connects Pine Street NE to Wallace Road NW, at approximately its intersection with Hope Avenue NW, and its associated transportation improvements. Specifically, the Salem Alternative:

• Provides regional mobilitv through its inclusion of ramps connecting Marine Drive NW and Highway 22, and direct surface street connections from the east bridge head to the Salem Parkway.

• Improves Salem area street connectivitv by providing residents with direct access between north and west Salem. By relocating the Highway 22 interchange at

JPITLC/:G:\Group\dlrector\Judy\Councll 2013\Jun 24\CCSR24June2013SRXSalemAit_v3_1.doc


Rosemont Avenue NW to Eola Drive NW, west Salem residents will also be provided with direct access to the commercial districts of west Salem.

• Improves cross-river bicycle and pedestrian access by providing for complete multi-modal facilities that will allow citizens in neighboring areas access to regional parks ,and commercial areas on both sides of the Willamette River. The Salem Alternative also seeks to maintain multi-modal connectivity for Front Street N E traffic.

The Salem Alternative also seeks to minimize potential negative impacts by limiting the size of the bridge and amount of elevated structure on both sides of the river. Input from the community indicated that large elevated structures are not compatible with existing neighborhoods. The Salem Alternative minimizes elevated structures on the east side of the river by returning to grade as soon as possible on Pine Street NE, and on the west side by constructing Marine Drive NW as an at-grade roadway. Additional measures to mitigate potential negative impacts will be identified through bridgehead refinement studies that will look at land use, traffic calming, and integration with the existing built environment.

The Salem Alternative-Descriptive Criteria

The descriptive criteria for the Salem Alternative are described below and illustrated conceptually in Attachment A.

Bridge Structure

1. Minimize piers in the main channel of the Willamette River.

2. Limit the number of general purpose travel lanes on the new bridge to no more than four.

3 .. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure on the bridge and connecting roadways.

4. Consider a "signature" bridge design that incorporates the criteria listed above.

West Salem

1. Construct Marine Drive NW as a surface street with a three-lane cross section from Glen Creek Road NW to River Bend Road NW.

2. Construct ramps connecting Highway 22 to Marine Drive NW at Glen Creek Road NW. Consider adding multi-modal features to these ramps to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between the Edgewater Greenway and Wallace Marine Park.

JPffLC/:G:\Group\dlrector\Judy\Councll 2013\Jun 24\CCSR24June2013SRXSalemAit_v3_1.doc


3. Minimize property acquisition needed for ramps to Highway 22, particularly along the south side of the Edgewater Street NW commercial district.

4. Relocate the Highway 22 interchange at Rosemont Avenue NW to Eola Drive NW, and make any other modifications necessary to assure that Highway 22 serves the southwest portion of west Salem (vicinity of Eola Drive NW).

North Salem

1. Minimize elevated structure on east bank of the Willamette.

2. Integrate the bridge landing and ramps into the existing street grid of the area.

3. Maintain multi-modal connectivity for Front Street NE traffic in the vicinity of the bridge.

4. Design at-grade ramps to facilitate the flow of regional traffic to and from Commercial and Liberty Streets NE, and Salem Parkway NE.

General

1. Conduct bridgehead refinement studies to identify mitigation measures that maximize compatibility of the new bridge with surrounding neighborhoods.

2. Acknowledge the need for federal, state and regional participation in funding the Salem Alternative improvements.

Additional Information

A Frequently Asked Questions document is attached and is available on the City's web page (Attachment B). Responses to Councilor questions submitted since April are provided in Attachment C.

Maintenance of the Existing Bridges

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Center and Marion Street Bridges. The ongoing safe operation of these bridges is critical to the health, safety, and economy of Salem and the surrounding region. The City Council recognizes the importance of these bridges and urges ODOT to continue its efforts to monitor and maintain these assets as a critical link to both the region and the state.

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

JPffLC/:G:\Group\dlrector\Judy\Councll 2013\Jun 24\CCSR24June2013SRXSalemAit_v3_1.doc


a number of actions that must be completed before Federal Highway Administration can issue the Final EIS and Record of Decision.

Defining the Preferred Alternative

If the Oversight Team agrees to the Salem Alternative, the staff team will define a footprint and operational characteristics to address the specified criteria. This footprint will be used to identify the performance and impacts of the preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Given the number of changes included in the Salem Alternative, it may take several months to finalize a footprint that all parties find acceptable. At this time, staff does not think that the Salem Alternative will require preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS.

Land Use Approvals

After a footprint for the Salem Alternative is agreed to by the Oversight Team, it 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 Salem Alternative will likely not meet adopted mobility targets for all State facilities. After the Salem Alternative is adopted into the local transportation plans, it will also 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 EIS

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\Jun 24\CCSR24June2013SRXSalemAit_ v3_1.doc


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 SKA TS Transportation Improvement Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.

Attachments: A. Salem Alternative Graphic B. Frequently Asked Questions (June 2013) C. Response to Council Questions

Wards 1, 5, and 8 June 20, 2013 Prepared by Julie Warncke, Transportation Planning Manager

JPffLC/:G :\Group\dlrector\Judy\Councll 2013\Jun i4\CCSR24June2013SRXSalemAit_ v3_1 .doc

ATTACHM ENT A

Salem River Crossing The "Salem Alternative" - DRAFT 6/18/2013

Salem River Crossing Frequently Asked Questions City of Salem Public Works Department June 2013

What is the "Salem Alternative"?

ATTACHMENT 8

The Salem City Council has heard from the community about the Salem River Crossing (also known as the Third Bridge) alternatives over the past several months and, based on the feedback, has developed the "Salem Alternative" (see attached graphic) to respond to community concerns and priorities. The Salem Alternative represents the vision of the Salem City Council to construct an urban scale bridge to connect west Salem to the rest of the City while, at the same time, minimizing displacements and traffic intrusions into existing neighborhoods. The main components of the Salem Alternative are:

11 A four-lane bridge with few or no piers in the water connecting Wallace Road NW and Marine Drive NW to Commercial and Liberty Streets NE at Pine Street NE.

11 Constructing Marine Drive NW in west Salem as a three-lane surface street paralleling Wallace Road NW between Glen Creek Road NW and Riverbend Road NW (this project is already included in the Salem Transportation System Plan).

11 Building ramps to connect Marine Drive NW at Glen Creek Road NW to Highway 22, while minimizing property displacements on Edgewater Street NW.

11 Relocating the Highway 22 interchange at Rosemont Avenue NW further west to Eola Drive NW to align with the City's arterial street system and serve this portion of west Salem.

How much will the Salem Alternative cost?

A cost estimate for the Salem Alternative will be developed once all of the regional partners have reached agreement to advance this concept as the preferred alternative.

Who will pay for the Salem Alternative?

The Salem Alternative would be funded through a combination of federal, state, and local resources. The exact mix of funding is not known at this time, but will be explored as part of developing the financial plan. It is important to note that as a regional project, Salem residents will not be asked to fully fund this project. Early information on possible funding sources is available in the Salem River Crossing Funding Booklet (March 2008). http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/Projectlibrary/FundingBooklet 03.2008.pdf

When will the Salem Alternative be open for traffic?

The Salem Alternative is likely to be constructed in multiple phases. Portions of Marine Drive NW are expected to be constructed within the next five years. The new bridge and the associated changes to Highway 22 will likely not be started until several years after the Final Environmental Impact Statement and other approval processes are completed. Among the tasks to be completed before construction can be started is to identify funding sources, obtain land use approvals, finalize designs, and acquire rights-of-way. Prior to each key phase, the assumptions about development and traffic growth will be reviewed to determine what should be constructed. Advancing the Salem Alternative as the preferred alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement process does not lock the region into building all elements if, in the future, it is determined an element is no longer be needed.

Salem River Crossing Frequently Asked Questions June 2013 Page 1 of 4

What are the main reasons that we need another bridge?

• Improved Access The existing bridges are the only motor vehicle crossing of the Willamette River between Independence to the south and Newberg to the north. In the event that the existing bridges are not usable due to either a natural or man-made occurrence, the required detour is 25 miles to the south or 60 miles to the north. The Willamette River divides an existing and growing urban area that relies on access to both sides of the river as part of daily life. When the Union Street Pedestrian Bridge was reconstructed, it was designed to only allow emergency use by police and medical vehicles. This is an improvement in redundancy for emergency vehicles, but it does not address the greater need for people to cross the Willamette River to go to work, pick up their children, get to the doctor, take their medicine, and more. Note that because the existing bridges have multiple ramps, it extremely difficult, even in an emergency, to allow two-way traffic flow on one of the bridges if the other is lost.

• Street Connections and Alternative Modes The current single point crossing of the Willamette River in the Salem-Keizer area impacts traffic throughout the City. The requirement that all traffic must flow to a single point in order to cross the Willamette River creates the need for excessive out-of-direction travel and encourages the use of the automobile over other travel modes. Another crossing of the Willamette River will provide more travel choices, help to disperse traffic, and encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.

• Traffic Congestion The Center and Marion Street Bridges together carry more than 80,000 vehicles per day. This volume is comparable to the volumes that travel Interstate 5 each day through the Salem area. Existing and future traffic congestion adds to travel time and increases air pollution. The traffic on the bridges, however, has a much more significant peak in the morning and afternoon. As the capacity of the bridge and connecting streets is used up, the peak traffic will extend for longer periods of time. This is already evidenced by hourly traffic volumes in 2011, which show a peak period extending from one to two hours or more. Additionally, because the west Salem area has a significant supply of vacant land designated for future development, much of it with single and multi-family residences, it is expected that traffic volumes on the ,bridges will increase in the future even with the expected increase in the use of bikes, buses, and other transportation modes. This growth, combined with growth throughout Polk County, will lead to longer periods of traffic congestion in the future.

• Quality of Life and Vibrancy in Downtown The peak traffic conditions have a negative impact on the attractiveness of downtown living as well as walking and shopping in the downtown core. This adverse impact will increase as the peak period of traffic continues to expand. Making downtown Salem a place where people want to live, work, and play has long been a City goal. Constructing another river crossing was one of the most important actions identified as part of the Vision 2020 process to make downtown Salem more livable.

• Economic Development Traffic congestion impacts the cost of doing business in our area. Retaining and attracting economic development is limited by the ability to move goods to and through the region. For the region, another bridge crossing is particularly important for economic development in Polk County. For the City of Salem, a new bridge is important to alleviate traffic bottlenecks approaching and passing through the downtown core. A new bridge will also provide the opportunity for economic development in the vicinity of the bridgeheads. This could be particularly beneficial to the Highland Neighborhood.


Are there other things we can do to make the existing bridges work better?

Significant improvements have been made over the past 20 years to reduce congestion at bottleneck areas. The Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments prepared a graphic and list of projects that have been completed since 1994 or are currently funded, including changes that were identified in the Bridgehead Engineering Study {1998). This information is available on the City's web page. While there remain a few minor improvements that could be made, these would only result in marginal improvements. We are reaching the limit of what can be done to squeeze more capacity from the roadways. Already, traffic congestion is happening for longer periods in the afternoon and evening.

Would we still need a bridge if more people took the bus, walked, bicycled, or shifted their work hours?

The Salem River Crossing Alternate Modes Study (Study) was undertaken in 2009 and 2010 to identify strategies to decrease the demand on the existing bridges in the peak morning and afternoon periods. The Study recommended a series of strategies that could be undertaken by various organizations, including the City, the State, the Transit District, business organizations, and others. Together, these actions could help achieve a reduction in demand over the existing bridges. Based on this analysis, the Salem River Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assumed a larger reduction in demand during the peak period than would be forecast based on current conditions and programs. Even using this reduced demand, our analysis indicates that a new bridge is still needed across the Willamette River in this region. In addition to pursuing construction of another bridge, it is important to continue efforts in the region to reduce demand during the peak travel periods.

Does the Salem Alternative displace houses or businesses? If so, what help do you offer them to move?

The Salem Alternative has been designed to minimize the number of houses or businesses that would need to be displaced. The estimate of displacements will be finalized in the Final EIS. Both the City and the Oregon Department ofTransportation (ODOT) follow the requirements of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act. This act ensures the fair and equitable relocation and reestablishment of persons, businesses, farms, and nonprofit organizations displaced as a direct result of a project. Refer to the following brochures, available on the ODOT website at: http://www .oregon .gov /ODOT /HWY /ROW /Pages/publications.aspx.

• Moving Because of the Highway or Public Projects (ODOT, Form 734-3772)

e Acquiring Land for Highways & Public Projects (ODOT, Form 734-3773)

Why is the new bridge structure so long?

During much of the year, the main channel of the Willamette River at the new bridge location is approximately 1,200 feet wide. The width of the floodway at this location, however, is approximately 3,200 feet. By comparison, the entire floodway width by the Center and Marion Street bridges is approximately 1,200 feet. This additional width requires more structure to ensure that the bridge can function during periods of high flow.

Will the new bridge lead to more flooding downstream?

No, constructing a new bridge will not increase the risk of downstream flooding. The Salem Alternative minimizes the number of piers in the water as a way to reduce downstream impacts. Furthermore, any fill used to construct the bridge must be mitigated by removing a like amount of material in the vicinity of the project. In this way, there will be no rise in flood levels as a result of the project.


What is the condition of the Center and Marion Street bridges?

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Center and Marion Street Bridges. According to the 2012 Bridge Condition Report, the Center Street Bridge had a rating that is considered good while the Marion Street Bridge was rated poor. The Marion Street Bridge rating, however, did not take into consideration $3.2 million of maintenance repairs that were completed by ODOT last year (Statesman Journal, Process Protects State's Bridges, June 1, 2013). Both bridges are scheduled to be inspected again in September 2013. The rating for the Marion Street Bridge is expected to improve as a result of the work done over the past several years. It should be noted that neither bridge was designed to withstand a large earthquake.

Will a new bridge hurt the retail core in downtown Salem?

The Salem Alternative is not expected to have any direct impacts on the retail core in downtown Salem. However, indirect impacts may result from changes in traffic patterns and reduced congestion. Some reduction in traffic congestion could enhance the vibrancy of downtown Salem by making the area more attractive to people shopping, walking, and living downtown. It is also possible that some shoppers might chose to use the new bridge to access shopping opportunities in east or west Salem instead of coming downtown. On balance, it is the opinion of staff that the Salem Alternative will have an overall positive impact on Salem retail shopping areas.

How much did it cost to prepare the Draft EIS? How much will it cost to finish the Environmental Planning Process?

The total cost of the Salem River Crossing project from its inception in 2006 through the publication of the Draft EIS in April 2012 was approximately $5.2 million. ODOT currently has a contract in the amount of approximately $2.4 million to complete the environmental process, which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To date, the City of Salem has contributed approximately $500,000 toward this project. The remaining funds have been federal transportation planning funds.

Does the project really cost $100,000 each month?

No. At the peak ofthe analysis period leading to the Draft EIS, the work product of the professional engineering consultant team, under contract with ODOT, averaged approximately $100,000 per month or less, depending on the scope of work and the number of people engaged in that phase of the project. The costs for the consultant team are minimal while City Council has sought additional input from the community.

How can I get more information?

The City of Salem has posted a lot of information about the City Council process on their website at: www.cityofsalem.net/salemrivercrossing. The Draft EIS and associated background documents are available on the main project website at: www.salemrivercrossing.org.

Questions about the Salem Alternative should be addressed to Julie Warncke, City of Salem Public Works Department, 503-588-6211 or [email protected].

Attachment: Salem Alternative Graphic


ATTACHMENT C

Salem River Crossing: Responses to Questions from City Councilors For City Council Meeting of June 24, 2013

1. Does the Final Environmental Impact Study need to have the final footprint identified for approval?

A footprint will be needed in order to perform the analysis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The scope of the current contract between the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the professional engineering consultant team includes contingency tasks for evaluating a modified alternative. Staff currently believes that this will be sufficient funding to identify the footprint and do the analysis for the Final EIS. This assumes that the partner jurisdictions support the Salem Alternative and that multiple iterations are not needed to reach agreement on a footprint.

2. Would this project affect Pioneer Village? If so, what is the impact?

The Salem Alternative would have minor property-only impacts to Pioneer Village along the east side (including the maintenance shed). No residential units would be replaced.

3. Will any houses be under the new bridge? If not, how close are the nearest houses?

No houses will be allowed under the new bridge. The closest single family residential areas start about 500 feet from the structure on the east side of the River and about 600 feet from the structure on the west side of the River.

4. Would this project require property or displacements from the Rose Haven Mobile Home Park on Front Street NE? Are there similar properties that would be impacted by the Salem Alternative?

There is no right-of-way needed from the Rose Haven Mobile Home Park for the Salem Alternative. There was some confusion generated by the Statesman Journal use of an incorrect image in its article on May 13, 2013, that showed Alternative 3 (no longer under consideration). If right-of-way acquisition had been necessary, the project would have compensated the owners of the homes, as well as the owners of the property. The residents would also have been offered relocation benefits.

Alternative 40 identified one potential residential displacement in the Somerset Heights Manufactured Home Park, located on Wallace Road NW. Impacts from the Salem Alternative, including any to the Somerset Heights Manufactured Home Park, will be identified after the preferred alternative footprint has been agreed upon by the partner agencies. The project will work with the owners of any displaced homes and the property owner if relocations are needed for the project.

5. Have all of the feasible projects associated with the Bridgehead Engineering Study (1998) been completed?

Projects at three of the five locations studied in the Bridgehead Engineering Study (Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments, 1998) have been completed (Areas 1, 3, and 5 in the table below). The projects at the remaining two locations (Areas 2 and 4) are either not feasible or would provide limited capacity improvements.

1

Table E-4 from Bridgehead Engineering Study, with added status and notes

Area Location Minimum build Maximum build Current Status and Notes solution solution (courtesy of Mike Jaffe, Mid-Willamette

Valley Council of Governments)

1 Center Street Replace stop sign Free flow ramp Traffic signal added in 2009 and it has NE bridge with a Traffic with third lane on helged with traffic flow, although gueues on exit to signal northbound Front ramg and bridge still occur. northbound Street NE Free Flow ramp not pursued due to: Front Street 1. Cost/funding, which in 1998 was an NE estimated $4.4 million, and did not include

the cost of any improvements north of Union Street NE. Without additional improvements, the congestion "bottle neck" would occur at Division Street NE. 2. Recognition that building the free-flow ramp would require reconstructing the Marion Street NE bridge spans in stages, plus require a detour bridge, all of which would have a significant effect on traffic during construction.

2 Commercial Change lane Same as Not gursued, although making improvements Street NEat configuration and minimum build for the right-turn was part of one of the EIS Marion Street radius to provide alternatives. In aQy case, improvements to NE two right-turn southbound Commercial Street capacity

lanes (instead of a would be minimal at best. right and right-through)

3 Center Street Stepped Remove signal, The stegged gedestrian crossing was bridge exit to pedestrian build bike and constructed. The new crossing plus southbound crossing ped underpass widening the southbound ramp from the Front Street Center Street bridge has significantly NE reduced congestion on the Center Street

bridge, particularly during the AM peak hour. 4 Marion Street Option lane for New ramp from Neither solution gursued. Microsimulation of

NE bridge Marion Street NE Marion Street NE option lane showed it would create weaving

' exit ramp exit ramp to bridge to Glen on the option lane. Wallace Road NW Creek Road The new ramp to Glen Creek Road NW was

NW/Marine Drive rejected by ODOT because it would create NW additional weaving on the bridge (a safety

issue) plus there were concerns about the new ramp's impacts to the adjoining Marion St. bridge pedestrian walkway and impact to Wallace Marine Park.

5 Wallace Road Double lanes for Round-about A median was build at the Edgewater and NWat Edgewater Street Wallace Road intersection; it prevents left Edgewater NW on-ramp (to turn from Edgewater Street NW to Wallace Street NW eastbound bridge) Road NW. This provided more green time

and off-ramp from for southbound Wallace Road NW traffic, westbound bridge. reducing congestion especially in the more Remove left turn heavily congestion AM peak hour. from Edgewater More of the minimum build solution could still Street NW to be done, but it would have limited Wallace Road NW improvement on capacity.

2

In addition to the Bridgehead Engineering Study recommendations and choices, there have been other system improvements since 1994 as illustrated on a map provided by the MidWillamette Valley Council of Governments (available on the City's web page).

6. Can we remove the ramp(s) on the eastside bridgehead, which allows for access by Commercial and Liberty Streets NE, otherwise being called the "cloverleaf?"

The ramps that were referred to as the "cloverleaf' were part of Alternative 3. This alternative is not being advanced, but there was some confusion caused by the Statesman Journal printing the wrong alternative prior to the May 13 meeting. The ramps associated with Alternative 4D were intended to provide a direct access to Salem Parkway. The Salem Alternative seeks to minimize elevated structure while providing at-grade ramps that facilitate access to the Commercial and Liberty Street couplet.

7. Why were other river-crossing sites (Lockhaven DriveN, Wheatland Road N, etc.) eliminated during the past 10 years?

The short answer is that locations north of Salem Parkway (Tryon Street NE) or south of the existing bridges do little to relieve traffic congestion on the existing bridges and the approaching roadways in downtown and west Salem. The Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study General Corridor Evaluation (2002) analyzed a range of alternative locations for a new bridge as well as methods to reduce traffic demand without constructing a new bridge. The locations studied included:

1. Northern Exurban (potentially Wheatland Road N) 2. Lockhaven DriveN 3. Chemawa Road N 4. Tryon Avenue NE 5. Pine Street NE 6. Shipping Street NE 7. Hood Street NE 8. Market Street NE 9. Division Street NE

, 10. Union Street NE 11. Pringle Parkway (Ferry and Trade Streets SE) 12. Mission Street SE 13. Cross Street SE 14. Kuebler Boulevard S 15. Southern Exurban

This analysis concluded that the location for a new bridge that best meets the goals related to reducing traffic congestion with the least negative impacts is the Tryon Avenue NE/Pine Street NE corridor. Refer to Willamette River Crossing Capacity Study- Executive Summary at: http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/Projectlibrary!WRCCS-ExecutiveSummary-06.02.pdf

The Salem River Crossing Study reviewed and updated this analysis in 2006 to refine the study area for the EIS. This analysis confirmed that locations between the existing bridges and Tryon Avenue NE (end of Salem Parkway) had the greatest benefit in terms of reducing traffic congestion on the existing bridges and connecting roadways. Refer to Study Area Refinement Memorandum, October 20, 2006, at: http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/Projectlibrary/StudyAreaRefinementMemo 1 02006.pdf

3

8. What is the total assumed impact that alternative modes have on 2031 traffic volumes (for example, bike, walking, transit)?

The regional travel demand model forecasts demand for approximately 7,900 PM peak hour westbound vehicles crossing the Willamette River in 2031. This already assumed some trips by transit, bike, and walking. Because of uncertainty about future transit service and travel decisions, the demand for vehicle trips during the peak hour was further reduced by 8 percent, or 532 vehicles in the PM peak westbound direction. This assumes that the area experiences a significant shift in travel behavior towards greater use of alternative modes of travel. Even with this increase in use of alternative modes, the volumes forecast are greater than can be accommodated on the existing bridges and connecting roadways.

9. What ability does the City have to influence work schedules for other governments, organizations, and businesses in the downtown Salem core?

The City of Salem has limited ability to influence work schedules for other governments, organizations, and businesses in the downtown Salem core. The City has had policies to encourage use of flexible schedules for many years, with limited effectiveness. The City works with other organizations on a voluntary basis to identify ways to mitigate peak traffic congestion, including suggestions relating to parking policies and work schedules. The City does not have tools to require that organizations change their work schedules.

10. Why has the EIS budget blown up from $2 million to $8 million?

The cost to conduct the work necessary to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act depends on a variety of factors, including the range of alternatives studied and the level of public involvement. At the outset, the project team had identified adequate resources to embark on the project- but the full scope could not be developed until the extent and complexity of the alternatives was developed during the first two phases of the project. In order to address these uncertainties, ODOT divided the work into four phases, each with its own Work Order Contract. The scope and budget for each Work Order Contract was established based on the level of effort anticipated at that point in the project. Additional funding was identified and added as the project advanced. The total funding committed to the project (including all four Work Order Contracts) is approximately $7.5 million. Of that amount, approximately $2 million has not yet been expended but is included in Work Order Contract 4.

Phase 1 (approx. $700,000): Data collection, management structure, decision process, public involvement development, purpose and need, evaluation criteria, traffic forecast [11 months; about $64,000 per month]

Phase 2 (approx. $1 ,300,000): Development of alignment alternatives, feasibility screening, evaluation process to narrow range of alternatives [13 months; about $100,000 per month]

Phase 3 (approx. $3,200,000): Preparation of environmental discipline reports and impact analysis, preparation of Draft EIS [33 months; about $97,000 per month]

Phase 4 (approx. $2,400,000): In process. Preferred alternative selection process, Final EIS, land use actions, financial strategy [through end of April- 15 months; approximately $23,000 per month]

11. Do we really spend $100,000 per month on the study?

No. This number was apparently derived using incomplete or inaccurate information. This number was developed by taking the total contract amounts between ODOT and the

4

professional engineering consultant team (including funds not yet spent and funding for contingency tasks) and adding some additional cost for staff time (ODOT and City) to arrive at $7.8 million. This was then divided by 78 months (six and a half years- approximately July 2006 through December 2012) to get $100,000 per month. The reality is more complex (see previous question). At the peak of the analysis period leading to the Draft EIS, the work product of the professional engineering consultant team, under contract with ODOT, averaged approximately $100,000 per month or less, depending on the scope of work and the number of people engaged in that phase of the project. The costs for the consultant team are minimal while City Council has sought additional input from the community.

12. How much is the total cost of the EIS project to go from here to the final EIS?

Work Order Contract 4 includes preparation of the Final EIS. The total remaining budget is approximately $2 million. This includes support for preparing a finance strategy and obtaining required land use approvals (including goal exceptions). There is funding in this contract to analyze a modified preferred alternative, but additional funds may be necessary if there is a need to analyze multiple variations of a preferred alternative. Federal funding to do this work is available through SKATS (our Metropolitan Planning Organization) with City Transportation System Development Charge funds as match.

13. How much has the City contributed to the cost of this project?

Since the inception of the project, the City has contributed $325,000 in cash match and an additional $65,000 in in-kind match. This funding is sufficient to complete Work Order Contract 4 and the Final EIS. If, however, additional work (out of scope) is needed, the City will likely need to contribute additional funds. The City has included in the budget an additional $50,000 of Transportation System Development Charge funds as future match for $500,000 of federal funds programmed in the SKA TS Transportation Improvement Program to undertake steps after the Final EIS is completed. This could be used to supplement the existing Work Order Contract.

5

Kathy Hall -Third Bridge Public Hearing, Item 4c.

From: Tim Hay <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]'' <[email protected]> Date: 5/13/2013 6:14PM Subject: Third Bridge Public Hearing, Item 4c.

Dear Salem City Council;

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT FILED

MAY 14 2013 GITY OF SALEM

CITY RECORDEFl

In regards to tonight's public hearing (item 4c) concerning the additional bridge across the Willamette River. I firmly support the additional crossing. This bridge was needed 20 years ago, it is badly needed today. Traffic is getting worse getting across the river. With the additional housing being built, including the large complex on Wallace road, this will only put an additional strain on our existing infrastructure and third bridge must be built.

Just this Saturday, traffic was backed up to Hope Ave just to get on to the Bridge. The congestion just isn't during commute times, it is happening all the time. Backups also occur up Commercial Street

and Marion Street for those trying to gain access to the Marion Street Bridge to go west.

We cannot keep kicking this project down the road. It is time to move this project to the next step. A no build approach is not the responsible move. This isn't just a Salem issue, it is a regional transportation issue, and Salem needs the congestion relief.

Please move this project forward and don't cave in to the small faction trying to stop this project. The benefits of this project far outweigh the negative aspects trying to be portrayed.

Best regards, Tim Hay

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51912D8DGWCl... 5/14/2013

Kathy Hall -Testimony submitted for hearing on Salem River Crossing

From: Claudia Howells <[email protected]> To: citycouncil <[email protected]> Date: 5/13/2013 6:24 PM Subject: Testimony submitted for hearing on Salem River Crossing Attachments: May 13 3rd Bridge Testimony.docx

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT FILED

MAY 14 2013 ~CITY OF SALEM CITY RECORDER

Please include the attached testimony in the formal record of the public hearing on the Salem River Crossing.

Claudia L. Howells 1045 Cross St. SE Salem, OR 97302

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51912FF9GWCl S... 5/14/2013

May 13,2013

Testimony RE: Salem River Crossing

DOCUMENT FILED

MAY 14 2013 CITY OF SALEM

CITY RECORDER

While I share many of the concerns raised by others on the "Salem River Crossing" project, I wanted to focus my testimony to one area. Before continuing the study of this project, the Council must disclose to the public the full financial impact and answer the following questions:

1. What government will own and maintain the bridge and approaches? The Oregon Depatiment ofTranspmiation has said, for years, that this project will have to be locally-funded, but it is likely that few Salem area residents understand that we, not someone else, will pay for this bridge.

2. How will bridge construction be financed and how will the on-going, and pe1petual, maintenance be paid for? Some earlier testimony suggests that people assume that the project will be paid for out of the Highway Fund, but Council already knows this is not the case. Therefore, it is entirely relevant to compare the cost of construction with, as an example, the cost of improving public transit connections.

3. If it is true that bond repayment could run as high as $400 a yearjor an average home, then what is the impact on the many other taxing districts? Given the history of bond measures in this area, will the bridge have a chilling effect on future funding for schools, parks, police and fire?

Proponents of a 3rd Bridge claim that the bridge is necessary for business. The business community should consider financing the bridge as a private venture. There is nothing in state or federal law that prohibits privately-owned transpmiation infrastructure. In fact, House Bill 2696, before the current Legislative Assembly, would grant the power of eminent domain to a private company interested in building a private tollway north of Salem. Private investment may, in fact, be the only way to finance future major transpmiation projects in Oregon.

If t\le Salem River Crossing were privately financed, it would be the task of proponents to make the case to investors and stockholders, and would likely get more thorough financial scrutiny than this project is currently receiving.

It is unlikely that Salem residents will be willing to increases taxes to pay for a project that primarily benefits businesses and people who don't live or pay taxes here, so Council should stop spending the City's scarce resources on this project, and seek another solution. We have streets and sidewalks that are crumbling, parks in need in maintenance, neighborhoods in need of attention. There is nothing about this bridge project that will benefit the people of Salem.

Submitted by Claudia L. Howells, 1045 Cross St.SE, Salem, OR 97302

Kathy Hall- Public Hearing Testimony re 3rd Bridge [Bargen 5/ld/13

From: Bargen Jan <[email protected]> To: City Council Salem <[email protected]> Date: 5/13/2013 8:10PM Subject: Public Hearing Testimony re 3rd Bridge [Bargen 5/1d/13 Attachments: Bargen Testimony City May 13 PH.docx

Dear City Council:

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT FILED

MAY 1 4. 2013i Ci crfl_~F:: SALEM

RECOFmER

Please enter the attached into the public record as testimony at your Public Hearing tonight on the

Revised 3rd Bridge proposal.

I appreciate your consideration.

Jan Bargen

1440 Beaumount Dr NW

Salem, OR 97301

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519148CBGWC1... 5/14/2013

May 13, 2012

Dear City Council:

DOCUMENT Fl LED

MAY l4 2013 CITY OF SALEM

CITY RECORDEFi

Please enter the following into the public record as testimony at your Public Hearing tonight on the

Revised 3rd Bridge proposal-

1. Please delay your decision on the Revised 3rd Bridge proposal until the remaining Neighborhood

Associations have had the opportunity to consider it. I understand that nearly half of them have

considered it, had active debates, and have voted to send you advisory feedback. This proposal will

commit every Salem citizen to a significant tax for decades to come, and all neighborhoods should have

the chance to learn about this and provide you with input.

2. I am testifying against the revised proposal because, while the staff modifications to bridge-

build Option 4D remove a few inessential design features that would have directly devalued my

property, they do almost nothing to relieve the pain of a 3rd bridge in my pocketbook. The design

reductions do not reduce the scale of impact to the environment, the neighborhoods, or businesses

enough to justify the very similar price-tag. And, no further basis of need is provided, despite the

factual questions that have been raised on that topic.

3. I am especially concerned about the tremendous financial burden a decision by the Council

would mean for most people in Salem- for at least 30 years. A significant portion of Salem residents

are· already retired on fixed incomes- and the boomers have only started to hit that milestone. The

extra tax burden is one they can ill afford- and they have the least time to gain any personal benefit

from it. Equally dismal is the prospect of debt for those still early in their careers and starting their

families- they don't have the funds to spare either, and their numbers are not great enough to either

share the financial load or to optimize use of the proposed bridge. Furthermore, the disruption to

Salem's downtown and the regional economy will make it even harder for the young adults and families

to prosper.

4. The options to improve the flow over the existing bridges have not been sufficiently explored,

engineered, or communicated for this past year to have been a fair debate. I am looking back to the

short shrift the 'No Build' option got in the DEIS To this day, too many people react to the 'No Build'

option as if it means 'do nothing' or 'status quo' -not true!

In particular, some options for smoothing traffic over existing bridges that I would like to see

explored more fully are:

• Closing the Marion/Commercial intersection to north/south traffic, allowing traffic coming off

the bridge to flow east without a light- make all of the south-bound traffic belly around along

the river and on down Commercial or over to 12th Street. East bound traffic coming from the

north could turn up Liberty or High after bypassing around, or turn left onto Chemeketa.

• Straighten out the north-bound ramp off the bridge to better mirror the southbound ramp.

• More work on the Doaks Ferry/Hwy#22 adjustments that the revised proposal mentions to take

heat off of the Wallace entrance to the bridge.

• Flesh out additional possibilities mentioned in the earlier bridgehead study.

5. Staggering the traffic: Several commenters have talked about what benefits and efficiencies

could be gained through implementation of more flexible work schedules, especially for jobs located

between the river and the Capitol, or 12th Street. The answer is YES! In 2010, Congress passed a law

mandating all federal agencies to develop and implement a telework policy, articulating goals of

lessening office real estate space and the carbon footprint of government operations and employee

commutes- among other efficiencies to be gained. Maximum eligibility and flexibility was allowed by

the law, and the General Services Administration was directed to develop a model policy (which turned

out very useful and could stimulate thinking for solving this mid-valley problem). I work for the federal

government, and was on the team to negotiate the labor agreement and policy for our agency. We are

only one year into it, and there are some growing pains, but with Oregon's reputation for innovative

public policies, why is it behind the curve on this one? A nudge from the City of Salem in the context of

the resolving improvements to our river crossing could help move things along on this front, and

thereby improve traffic flow during the two "rush-half-hours" that bridge travelers experience.

6. Another strategy I would like to see explored and priced out would be that of developing a 'park

and ride' system near the pedestrian bridge and supported by a shuttle to the Capitol Mall and several

major employment areas in the surrounding and downtown areas. To anyone who says such traffic

conservation strategies are 'not my job', given the mission of the most recent planning effort, I say

resolution of the river crossing will not be resolved in a wise and sustainable manner unless it is

explored in a holistic manner, inclusive of such alternatives.

7. The cost magnitude of this project is so great that we can't afford to "blow it." We've got to

make a wise choice, and then do it as "right" as possible. Many fact-filled cogent challenges have been

raised to this planning process and product. City Council and Staff have not answered them with equally

sound facts and reason. Rather, the questions have been dismissed without being answered. The need

is presumed, rather than substantiated. People who have worked on it a long time seem tired, as if the

only way to "move on" is to build- not true! This has been a flawed process, starting perhaps with too

narrow a mission. And the costs for the process are sunk -let's not get ourselves in deeper by simply

saying build. Rather, let's step back and regroup- re-examine the need basis, first and foremost, and

then also ask whether the mission statement is broad enough to include the alternative and mitigating

strategies that would allow us to pursue the most optimal solution. (Remember, the Task Force was

torn over issues like these last summer- and their result was a deeply divided one, essentially a 10-10

vote, with 7 No-Build and 3 lo-build votes on one side). Let's not make a flawed investment just because

we've been at this so long. Rather, lets salvage the best of everything we've done, reach out to cover

the pieces we learned we missed, and create a better solution altogether.

8. Survey: I was reminded recently that the planning funds include funds for a valid survey of

about 400 people. Before the City commits its people to this long term debt, it would be a good

juncture to use that money and do the survey.

CONCLUSION:

I implore you to stop the current process and "just say no" to building a third bridge- at least

until the need basis is updated, mitigating strategies are explored, bridge head improvements are

detailed in comparable fashion as the other DEIS options, and funding sources besides taxing the people

of the immediate region are identified.

If any of you would like to paint yourself as a champion of the people of Salem, this action is

your ticket:

• You can talk about how you saved the City $100,000 per month right NOW!

• You can talk about how you saved the city and regional populace from "THE BRIDGE TO

DEBT!"

If, however, a majority of you believe a recommendation other than "No Build" should be made

to the Oversight Committee, please reconsider the plea I made to you last November on the precursor

proposal: Send the Oversight Committee back to the drawing board! Ask for the projections to be

updated and credible, ask that the bridge head improvements be engineered comparably so that an

informed and fair debate can be had, and require more study of funding possibilities before we commit

to the building of any 3rd bridge.

Thank you for your time and careful reflection.

Jan Bargen

1440 Beaumount Dr. NW

Kathy Hall - Declining driving: not just the economy or demographics

From: Richard Reid <[email protected]> To: No3rdBridge List <[email protected]> Date: 5/21/2013 8:14AM Subject: Declining driving: not just the economy or demographics

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

~lAY 2 1 2013 CITY 01~ SALEM

CITY RECORDER

CC: Citizenforum Discussion <[email protected]>, <citycouncil@cit. ..

Bridge advocates argue that, "people will always be driving," "the economy will recover," and population "growth" is inevitable.

A recently published study by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund says a societal shift is occutTing and these factors don't matter. Even if the economy improves, marriage rates increase and home sales recover, the cm·centric centuries are over.

Cultural trends have a major impact on community "edge" development as this study and a recent one by the National Association of Realtors confirms. Instead of sprawl we will have urban core infill; construction is more likely to occur along major transportation corridors; urban and inter-urban rail transportation is increasingly preferred over cars.

We can also expect benefits from cleaner air and more physical activity.

Right now, our two bridges have surplus capacity and relatively low-cost, simple changes would get traffic across them safely and efficiently. No matter how the 3rd bridge scenario is rewritten or how the design is re-modified, nothing conceals the fact that a 3rd bridge is unnecessary. Richard

http ://grist.org/news/youngs-ki Il-ea r-cu ltu re/? utm c9mpaign=weekly&utm medium=email&utm source=newsletter&sub email=rob27%40comcast.net

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519B2CEFGWC1... 5/28/2013

Kathy Hall - no 3rd bridge

From: Margaret Stephens <[email protected]> To: "citycouncil@cityofsalem .net" <citycouncil@cityofsalem .net> Date: 5/21/2013 8:46AM Subject: no 3rd bridge

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT Fl LED

MAY 21 2013i CITY OF SALEM

· HFrYF'~ECORDER

I am a homeowner, and property tax payer. I have been following the 3rd Bridge news. My message to you is:

Stop spending $100,000 a month to plan a bridge we don't want and can't afford.

I am not convinced there are sufficient traffic concerns to build this bridge. Additionally, there are always better alternatives than building more roads and bridges to address any true 'transportation concerns.

Margaret Stephens 1830 23rd ST NE Salem, OR 97301

(home owner and property tax payer)

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519B347FGWC1... 5/28/2013

Kathy Hall - No on 3rd Bridge

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT FILED

'MJW'':t3''20l3,, CITYOFS -

From: ANITA OWEN <[email protected]> CITY REco'AlJ~ To: "City council" <[email protected]>, moveOnHelen Caswell <hele ... Date: 5/23/2013 2:29 PM Subject: No on 3rd Bridge

I vote no more spending on the new bridge. About the only users of that new bridge will be West Salem people on route to Portland. I do not believe tax payers in Salem should be stuck with the bill ... l do not feel we should be stuck with any of the new bridge costs. However, we do need to insure our main bridge will survive the big earthquake and still be useable and expedite traffic by better on and off structures and roadways. Property taxes are high enough without planning unneccessary bridges. The schools need our taxes more.

Anita Owen, 503-463-6733,Salem, 97302

"It is not what happens to you .. it's what you do about it that makes a difference." W. Mitchell

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519E27BAGWCl... 5/28/2013

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

Kathy Hall - Facts matter: Two Great Blog Posts on the 3rd Bridge

From: Richard Reid <[email protected]> 5/23/2013 3:22PM Date:

Subject: Facts matter: Two Great Blog Posts on the 3rd Bridge CC: Citizenforum Discussion <[email protected]>, <citycouncil@cit. ..

"Bottom line: today the City of Salem Public Works director admitted that the most impotiant reason to build a Third Bridge isn't a very good reason. Redundancy and safety concerns with the current bridges can be resolved without constructing another bridge across the Willamette."Fortunately, in our community we have thoughtful commentary that is independent of the pro-growth bias published by the Salem Business Journal and the Statesman (business) Journal.

Consider these two insightf!Il comments linked below.

These comments suggest a couple of important questions about growth: Who decides where our community will grow. Who decides how much growth our community can afford?

A democratic community excludes no one. Richard PS- For more thoughtful commentary, check out http://lovesalem.blo~}2ot.com/ and http://salemchenypits.wordpress.com/ r

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jim Scheppke <[email protected]> Date: May 23, 2013 12:36:16 PM PDT To: No3rdBridge List <[email protected]> Subject: [no3rdbridge:999] Two Great Blog Posts on the 3rd Bridge Today

Dear NO 3rd Bridge: Two of Salem's best bloggers weighed in on the 3rd Bridge today ...

"Do we want a more compact city with a lively downtown? Or do we want more sprawl on the edges of the city, the strip mall and larger mall shopping environments this kind of development entails, and a downtown that continues to struggle?"

h11p://breakfastonbikes.blogspot.com/2013/05/Statesman-Journal-third-bridge-trafficdecline-local-issues.html

hrtp://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2013/05/city-of-salem-fails-to-provide-good-reasonfor-third-bridge.html

Jim

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519E3443GWClS ... 5/28/2013

Jim Scheppke [email protected] 503-269-1559

Page 2 of2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519E3443GWCIS ... 5/28/2013

Re: [citizenforum] Facts matter: Two Great Blog Posts on t June 24, 2013 4 (d)

Kathy Hall- Re: [citizenforum] Facts matter: Two Great Blog Posts on the 3rd Bridge

From: Susann Kaltwasser <[email protected]> DOCUMENT FILED

MAY 2 3 20131 To: <[email protected]> Date: 5/23/2013 3:39PM Subject: Re: [citizenforum] Facts matter: Two Great Blog Posts on the 3rd Bridge drt\) Rot~~~~h~¥~ CC: Citizenforum Discussion <[email protected]>, <citycouncil@cit. ..

Since the City of Salem abandoned the update of the Comprehensive Plan (Salem Futures) some years ago, it is not clear how to predict the future and the growth in Salem. Maybe we should do that process first before we plan on bridges.

Susann Kaltwasser

At 3:22PM -0700 5/23/13, Richard Reid wrote:

Fortunately, in our community we have thoughtful commentary that is independent of the pro-growth bias published by the Salem Business Journal and the Statesman (business) Journal.

Consider these two insightful comments linked below.

These comments suggest a couple of important questions about growth: Who decides where our community will grow. Who decides how much growth our community can afford?

A democratic community excludes no one. Richard PS- For more thoughtful commentary, check out http://lovesalem.blogspot.com/ and http://salemcherrypits.wordpress.com/ r


>From: Jim Scheppke <[email protected]> >Date: May 23,2013 12:36:16 PM PDT > To: No3rdBridge List <[email protected]> >Subject: [no3rdbridge:999] Two Great Blog Posts on the 3rd Bridge Today > >Dear NO 3rd Bridge: Two of Salem's best bloggers weighed in on the 3rd Bridge today ... > >"Do we want a more compact city with a lively downtown? Or do we want more sprawl on the edges of the city, the strip mall and larger mall shopping environments this kind of development entails, and a downtown that continues to struggle?" > > httQ://breakfastonbikes.blog2_pot.com/2013/05/Statesman-Journal-third-bridge-trafficdecline-local-issues.html >

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519E3848GWC1S ... 5/28/2013

Re: [citizenforum] Facts matter: Two Great Blog Posts on t Page 2 of2

> 11 Bottom line: today the City of Salem Public Works director admitted that the most impmiant reason to build a Third Bridge isn't a very good reason. Redundancy and safety concerns with the current bridges can be resolved without constructing another bridge across the Willamette. 11

> > http:/ /hinessight. blogs.com/hinessight/20 13/05/city -of-salem-fails-to-provide-goodreason-for-third -bridge.html > >Jim > > --> Jim Scheppke > [email protected] > 503-269-1559

[Non-text potiions of this message have been removed]

_._,_._

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Groun

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest* Unsubscribe* Terms ofUse * Send us Feedback

_,_._,_

Susann Kaltwasser

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519E3848GWC1 S... 5/28/2013

Kathy Hall -Salem Voters should decide on 3rd bridge

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

From: ANITA OWEN <[email protected]> MAY 2 4 2013 To: Salem City Council <[email protected]>, Chuck Bennett <crbe~R%~\LE_~IJ. Date: 5/24/2013 10:57 AM -" RDE:h

Subject: Salem Voters should decide on 3rd bridge

I have heard very few say they would be willing to pay more taxes for the bridge and that they would even use it except in rare occasions. I believe this should be voted on by all that would be responsible for paying for this un-necessary Salem City Council decision to build this bridge before any more money is spent and on the ballot, we should be told what the home owner will have to pay yearly and for how long. Anita

Anita Owen, 503-463-6733, 1-800-366-2022


file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519F4793GWClS... 5/28/2013

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

Kathy Hall - Re: Salem Voters should decide on 3rd bridge LED

MAY 2 4 20131 <[email protected]> .t~ITY OF s ~ From:

To: Date:

<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <crbennett@city~~JJY REco1fo\~ 5/24/2013 11:10 AM

Subject: Re: Salem Voters should decide on 3rd bridge

I am in total agreement with the below -Kathleen Moynihan425 Kearney st SE Salem Oregon 503-363-3530

-----Original Message-----From: ANITA OWEN <[email protected]> To: Salem City Council <[email protected]>; Chuck Bennett <[email protected]>; Laura Tesler <[email protected]>; Mayor Ann Peterson <[email protected]>; moveOnHelen Caswell <[email protected]>; kmoynihan425 <[email protected]>; KATHY PUGH <d pabolition@comcast. net> Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 10:57 am Subject: Salem Voters should decide on 3rd bridge

I have heard very few say they would be willing to pay more taxes for the bridge and that they would even use it except in rare occasions. I believe this should be voted on by all that would be responsible for paying for this un-necessary Salem City Council decision to build this bridge before any more money is spent and on the ballot, we should be told what the home owner will have to pay yearly and for how long. Anita

Anita Owen, 503-463-67330, 1-800-366-20220 www.oregonfundraising.org

J0 I


file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\519F4A96GWC1 ... 5/28/2013

From: To: Date: Subject:

Dear Councilors:

Jim Scheppke <[email protected]> Salem City Council <[email protected]> 5/25/2013 12:48 PM Fix What We Have Before Building Something New

I ask that you read and reflect on this:

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT FILED

MAY 2 5 2013 CCITYITY OF SALEM

RECORDER

http:/ /breakfaston bikes. blogspot. com/20 13/05/Marion-st -bridge-skag it-bridge-deferred-mai ntenance-struct u rally -deficient -statesman-j ou rna l-ed itorial. htm l#mo re

Thank you for your service,

Jim

Jim Scheppke no 3d bridge@comcast. net 503-269-1559

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

Kathy Hall - Fwd: Fwd: Pioneer Village Meeting

From: Terri Moore <[email protected]>

Date: Peter Fernandez <[email protected]>, City Council <citt)9\lp.<;i~r· 5/28/2013 10:56 AM ~ llvUIVIcNT FILED

To:

Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Pioneer Village Meeting Salem River Crossing.pptx MAY 2 8 2013,

- - CITYOFS -·· c1n/ REco~b~~

Attachments:

Additional comments and questions follow the bold responses from Mr. Fernandez.

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Peter Fernandez <[email protected]> Date: Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:37PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Pioneer Village Meeting To: [email protected] Cc: Chuck Bennett <[email protected]>

Councilor Bennett asked me to review your email and provide responses to you directly. I appreciate that you attended the meeting and am delighted to provide this additional information to you. My responses are below your questions. I have them in bold for ease of reference.

Sent from my iPad


From: "Terri Moore <[email protected]>" <[email protected]> Date: May 22, 2013, 8:42:53 AM PDT ,To: "Chuck Bennett" <[email protected]> Subject: Pioneer Village Meeting

Hello Councilor Bennett,

I was disappointed that you weren't able to attend yesterdays' meeting at Pioneer Village, but perhaps you can help clarify some information for me.

Councilman Clem, Mr. Hernandez and Ms. Warncke(?) were the presenters, with Mr. Hernandez and Councilman Clem doing most of the talking. My name is Peter Fernandez, with an "F" not an "H".

My apologies for getting your last name wrong. I did send out a corrected email with the correct spelling of your name. Thank you for your responses and the attachment.

Mr. Hernandez, Councilman Clem and Linda Jennings of Pioneer Village stated that Pioneer Village would not be affected at all; then acknowledged that the maintenance building would need to be removed due to Marine Drive; then, maybe 4 units of Pioneer Village may need to be taken out, but, residents would be relocated.

What is true? As we showed on the map at the meeting, which we left with the Pioneer Village staff

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51A48D75GWC1... 5/28/2013

Page 2 of5

so you can study it in detail if you would like, Marine Drive will impact the utility building on the far east edge of the property. No other impact is planned. What I mentioned at the meeting was that if in the future we (the City and Pioneer Village) felt that the street was too close to the four residential buildings on the east edge of the property, we could consider removing those and creating a larger buffer between Marine Drive and residences that remain. If that occurred then we would work to properly relocate those residents, as required by law. I stress, though, that this is a very big if. I only spoke about it as a possibility if we wanted to create the larger buffer.

I'm concerned by the term "planned". The use of this term allows for changes, possibly significant changes, to Pioneer Village and Marine Drive. The only reason that I can see for a larger buffer is to allow for a larger roadway to allow for additional traffic that may include any Option that would revert back to a 4D-type model. Can you and/ or the Council officially /formally take all of the Options off the table so they can never re-appear at some later date?

In conversation with Linda Jennings on May 16, 2013, Scott Bassett learned that Cameo, Calico and Taybin Streets would become dead-end streets. This plan was not mentioned at all yesterday. Why? Mr. Hernandez and Councilman Clem stated that Marine Drive would be constructed along the east side of Pioneer Village with left turns onto Cameo, Calico and Taybin.

What is true? None of this is true. Cameo and Taybin would have intersections with Marine Drive. Calico, a private street within Pioneer Village, would be served by a driveway. This is what is shown in the plans that we left for the residents to examine in more detail.

Again, the term "plans" is used and plans can be changed over and over. Can you please clarify what you mean by a "driveway" and how Emergency Service Vehicles, like firetrucks will be able to negotiate/turn around using a driveway. Wouldn't a turn-a-round of some type be necessary at the east end of Calico? If so, wouldn't some of Pioneer Village units need to be removed to accommodate the legal space required for firetrucks to turn around? How wide would the driveway be and would it mean the loss of the laundry building? 'How close to the units will this driveway be?

It was mentioned that a sound barrier would possible be built, if Pioneer Village residents wanted one, but Linda Jennings told Scott Bassett that a 12 foot high wall would be built from Glen Creek up to Hope Avenue.

What is true? When the City constructs Marine Drive at the east edge of Pioneer Village, we will engage the property owner and residents on what they would like to see at the edge of the street. As I mentioned at the meeting, this can anything from nothing (such that residents would have direct access to the sidewalk), to plantings, fencing, or some kind of wall. If a wall is ultimately chosen we will also work with Pioneer Village on its height and materials. I doubt, however that it would be 12 feet high.

Will this part of Marine Drive look similar to the Power Point slide that shows 69 feet of total width?

The map that was shown also had an extension of 5th Street, running north through residential home(s) on Cameo Street, to join Hope Avenue to the north, making this another street that would come from Hope Avenue (Marine Drive being the other) to run through house(s) on Cameo and border Pioneer Village.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51A48D75GWCL. 5/28/2013

Page 3 of5

Is this true? This is true. The extension of 5th Street to Marine Drive has been in the plans from the beginning. City staff have been in contact with the impacted property owner for many years. He understands that if he ever wants to sell his home the City will purchase it from him in advance of the Marine Drive project being constructed.

What is the purpose of extending 5th Street? How wide will it be? How will the width affect the 4 Pioneer Village units that face 5th Street? Will the 2 gazebos be removed? How much lawn space be lost, bringing the (widened) 5th Street closer to their front doors?

It was stated that the intersections at Hope Avenue and Glen Creek will have traffic signals, thereby slowing down traffic. However, I suspect those intersections will be eliminated to allow traffic to flow freely to Hwy. 22, meaning that the proposed roadway at Glen Creek would become elevated.

Could this be true? This is false. The purpose of Marine Drive is to allow traffic an alternative to Wallace Road. We will, however, work to limit driveways to private properties onto Marine Drive.

Where will all of this traffic be coming from, other than the current streets already built? Will additional streets and more multi-storied apartments be built? If so, how many? I'm concerned that Wallace Rd. seems to be the dividing line between renters to the east and homeowners to the west. Are any single family homes being built east of Wallace Rd? Are any multi-story apartments being built to the west of Wallace Rd?

The width (in feet) of Marine Drive, including bicycle and pedestrian pathways, plus sound barrier wall, was not mentioned, but with federal restrictions of using Wallace Marine Park property, how 'is it possible to not affect the residential units of Pioneer Village?

What is true? Marine Drive is currently planned to be 60 feet in width. The width will vary at intersections depending on the number of turn lanes needed to accommodate traffic.

Again, there's that word "planned". Sounds like this width is very likely to be increase as traffic funnels from 5 to 3 lanes (including a turn lane). I have real concerns regarding the significant increase in traffic that brings safety and health concerns for the residents of Pioneer Village. Right now only local traffic regularly travels on the east edge of Pioneer Village and noise levels are almost negligible. This will change greatly as well as the exhaust levels. Most of the residents on that end have respiratory issues. What will be done to protect them?

Lastly, would it be possible to be sent a copy of the multiple page handout that was distributed at the meeting yesterday as there weren't enough for everyone. The multi-page hand out was a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that I made. I have attached here for you.

Thank you for the attachments. Could you please send a copy of the map that specifically had Pioneer Village and the nearby streets that would be affected?

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51A48D75GWCl... 5/28/2013

Page 4 of 5

I appreciate your time and honesty in responding to these questions as my friends and neighbors in Pioneer Village deserve to know the truth. I want to assure you that the information you receive from the City of Salem staff is-and always will be--the truth. Please be aware that the staff has no stake in the issue of whether a bridge is constructed or not. It is our job to evaluate the options and provide our elected officials the best information and analysis that we can. It is my pleasure to provide you and your neighbors with this, and any other, information that you may need. If you have additional questions, or would like more information, please let me know.

With multiple versions and multiple changes over that past months, I hope you can see why I have concerns about what the truth is. What I (and others) have heard is the salesmanship from you to the City Council of creating an expressway from the Parkway to Highway 22 with little to no regard to the opinions and concerns of the Neighborhood Associations. They care about their neighborhoods and what happens to them, both the physical and the economic, as in increased costs on property tax bills as well as the loss of value to their homes. We want to trust you and the Council to be good stewards with the monies we give you. But I (and others) are not seeing that when $100,000 a month is being spent on projects that we don't want and money is not spent on projects we do want. I'm only hearing that 1 or 2 members of the Council are listening to their Neighborhood Associations. Why aren't All members of the Council listening and following the requests of their Neighborhood Associations? I'm not seeing that same concern from you as you do the presentations. The presentations are all about building bridges and roadways and not following through on solutions that have yet to be completed. It should be your job to listen to wha~ the Neighborhood Associations and individual citizens have to say, but it appears that a handful of builders and developers have your and many Councilors' ear. I (and others) hope that you and other Councilors will hear what the residents of Salem are saying: No Bridge; stop spending $100,000 on modifications or changes to previous designs and use the money that we gave you on local improvements that haven't been completed. fix the roads and streets. Retrofit the current bridges for seismic events. Work with the State on staggering their workers hours. You, yourself stated that only 7% of the bridge traffic goes northbound. This means that 93°/o goes elsewhere. Why should $600-$800 million dollars be spent for 7°/o of the problem? And no, I don't believe that the costs will end at $800 million.

I hope that you and the City Councilors paid real close attention to the comments in the Statesman Journal regarding the need of another bridge. There isn't one.

Unless the City Council formally and officially declares all Options and versions of the Salem River Crossing dead, I (and others) will continue to believe that all "plans", "planned" and "planning' that are currently being used will one day resurrect itself back into a version of SRC.

What can you and the Council do to earn back my (and others) trust?

Respectfully,

Terri Moore 465 Cameo St. NW Salem, OR 97304

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51A48D75GWCl... 5/28/2013

Peter Pernancfez, P. P,,

Public Works Director City of Salem 555 Liberty Street SE, Room 325 Salem, OR 97301-3513 503.588.6008

Page 5 of 5

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51A48D75GWC1... 5/28/2013

Page 1 of 1

DOCUMENT FILED Kathy Hall- Third Bridge MAY 6 1 2r·1

ccJc, f, ,''" "'' I, J~c~kC?L c J ,cLti£C,,ce 1~ ;;;, ,ck' i 5ci,h;±<cc"1:Y,81cfC, !' ;.5~,;;'\; ;c;,c,!!;l,,{j

From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Attachments:

"Kevin Mannix" <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> 5/31/2013 11:12 AM Third Bridge "'John Miller'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> imageOO 1. gif

Dear Mayor Peterson and Members of the City Council:

CITY OF SALtM CITY RECORDER

As a Salem resident and an involved citizen, I encourage you to support the proposal to move forward with a third bridge across the Willamette River, with the modifications recommended by your staff and endorsed by the Salem-Area Chamber of Commerce. This project needs to proceed because it is a key element to the continued development of a comprehensive transportation network. It will relieve congestion on local streets while providing state traffic with a much better link to the coast. There are short-term challenges as such a program is implemented, but the long-term benefits far outweigh the short-term costs.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kevin Mannix Kevin L. Mannix, PC 2009 State St. Salem, OR 97301 503.364.1913 ofc 503.362.0513 fax 503.949.0422 cell kevin@!lJannixlawfirm.com

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51A88595GWC1... 5/31/2013

Kathy Hall- Fwd: [no3rdbridge:1146] Oregon: Driving Downhill I Sightline Daily

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

,,,,"','' , ,,,,,','"'"'£c',,"'<f,, ,,, ,,,, 'x'" ,,;,;,L,, "90€ t:.f'M,EN~F,Ft,lE 0

From: Jim Scheppke <[email protected]> To: Salem City Council <[email protected]> Date: 6/13/2013 4:49PM Subject: Fwd: [no3rdbridge:1146] Oregon: Driving Downhill I Sightline Daily

Dear Salem <:;ity Council:

JUN 13 20131 CITY OF SALEM CITY F1ECORDER

Please read this and reflect on it. Your assumptions about the inevitability of future traffic congestion in Salem are all wrong. "Peak car" is real. Peak hour traffic on the Marion Street bridge is no worse than it was in 1995 when West Salem had a lot fewer residents.

I expect your decisions to be based on evidence. If they are, you will vote 'no' on the Salem Alternative on June 24th.

http:/ /daily.sightline.org/20 13/06/12/oregon-driving -downhill/

Oregon: Driving Downhill

Statewide gas consumption and vehicle travel have been falling for years.

There's a lot of history packed into this chart on Oregon's vehicle trends: the seemingly relentless driving boom of the 1950s through 1990s; the decoupling of gasoline consumption from vehicle travel after the OPEC crisis and the economic downturn in the late 1970s; and, most recently, the peaking of both gasoline consumption and vehicle travel in the late 1990s and early 2000s, respectively.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51B9F81DGWC1... 6/13/2013

~ O'l ...-I ... 0 .... I: Ql u ... Ql a. l1l Ill l1l

<!i' :I l1l :> l1l :I 1: 1: <(

In Oregon, both gas consumption and vehicle travel have fallen back to the levels of the mid-1990s.

600% - Vehicle miles traveled

500%

400'%

300'% -

Gasoline consumption

200%

100%

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Page 2 of4

But perhaps even more telling is the following chart, showing the same trends adjus'ted for population growth:

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51B9F81DGWC1... 6/13/2013

Page 4 of 4

need a new, bigger highway can be an uphill battle.

Jim Scheppke j [email protected]

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\51 B9F81 DG WC 1... 6/13/2013

Kathy Hall- New Bridge

From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments:

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> "City Counsil" <[email protected]> 6/16/2013 4:57PM New Bridge grad.gif; image.gif; butterfly _top.gif; butterfly_ bottom.gif

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT FILED

JUN 16 2013 CITY OF SALEM

CITY FiECORDER

Please listen my plea. My neighbors and I do not want a new bridge in our community. We do not need another bridge.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51BDEE76GWCl... 6/17/2013

Kathy Hall - Let your people know

From: Mark Wigg <[email protected]> To: salem city council <[email protected]> Date: 6/17/2013 7:20AM Subject: Let your people know

Dear Mayor and City Council

It is time to Let Your People l<now:

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

>'t)fJOI:JMENT,FtbEQ<,,

JUN 17 2013 CITY OF SALEM

CITY RECORDER

1. That pushing for a new bridge means not reducing congestion for 15-20 years or more.

2. That most commuters currently inconvenienced by congestion will not be commuting over the bridges by the time this "solution" is constructed.

3.  That even if council approves a smaller local bridge now, that

decision will need to be reevaluated and a freeway-style bridge with far more greater impacts is likely to be the bridge design that is selected in the future. The bridge you vote for today will not be the bridge we get.

4. That the city and state will need to spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours of staff time pursuing a bridge alternative.

5.  That if a bridge alternative is approved, the city will spend millions of dollars buying and demolishing homes and businesses, leaving devastated neighborhoods for decades. Look at the northeast quadrant of Market Street interchange for an example of what will happen to Edgewater and North Salem.

6.  That the bridge alternatives may someday reduce congestion for some people crossing the river but will increase congestion to intolerable levels during rush hours between Salem and Keizer.

7. That over the last 40 years studies have identified at least four other 'better' locations for a bridge and that in 10 or 20 years a new council may decide that another location is better.

8.  That the fixation on building a new bridge is preventing us from doing the seismic retrofits and other repair work needed on the existing bridges because it diverts limited funds and staff time.

9.  That the city has lower cost ways to reduce congestion that could be implemented more quickly and for far less money.

10.  That Salem's Transportation System Plan predicts that the state and federal government will contribute less than 2 percent of the cost of a new bridge, so most of money will need to come from Salem residents.

11. That Salem's Transportation System Plan predicts that the city will have only 37% of the money it needs for capital improvement projects over the next 20 years not counting a new bridge.

12. That the city and state have solutions to manage emergency bridge closures so that two-way traffic over the river can be maintained and emergency vehicles can use the Union Street Bridge if needed.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51BEB8C3GWC1... 6/17/2013

Page 2 of2

We can work together for real solutions to congestion, but this fixation on building a new bridge is preventing us from developing those solutions. It is time to let people know the truth about the third bridge. It is not going to solve the congestion problems we face today and it is diverting our energy from finding real solutions.

With appreciation for 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\51BEB8C3GWC1... 6/17/2013

Kathy Hall- Third Bridge "One Best Reason" responses

From: Brian Hines <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: 6/17/2013 8:10PM Subject: Third Bridge "One Best Reason" responses

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT FILED

JUN 17 2013: err cn-l OF SALEM

RECORDER_

Thanks to the four councillors who have responded to my request to share their single most important reason for a Third Bridge.

I look forward to learning how the other four councillors and the Mayor feel. Remember: only a few sentences are asked for, though a lengthier response is fine also.

Here's a linlc to a blog post I wrote today about the responses to date: http ://hinessight. blogs. com/hinessight/20 13/06/ salem -city -council-members-on-why-build -a-thirdbridge.html

--Brian

Brian Hines Salem, Oregon USA brianhines1 @gmail.com http://twitter.com/oregonbrian (twitter) www.brianhines.com (web site) www.hinesblog.com (blog) www.churchofthechurchless.com (other blog)

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\51BF6D45GWC 1... 6/18/2013

Kathy Hall - New Bridge

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: "City Council" <[email protected]> JUN 17 2013, Date: 6/17/2013 10:27 PM Subject: New Bridge Attachments: grad.gif; image.gif; butterfly _top.gif; butterfly_ bottom.gif

~<?ITY OF SALEM CITY RECORDER

Dear City of Salem council. I attended the West Salem City Council meeting this eve. I liked the idea of the new bridge plan. I disagree with the location of the 3rd bridge the location on Wallace is not a good location this area of Wallace is already extremely busy. A better location would be further north on Wallace like north of brush college road. There would be less housing and neighborhoods to disrupt. Please consider my suggestions.

Thank you, Debra Sample Home owner and resident of West Salem

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51BF8D47GWC1... 6/18/2013

Kathy Hall - Salem River Crossing

From: Brian Hines <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: 6/18/2013 10:04 PM Subject: Salem River Crossing

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

c c • c ·"· ,, .. L ... r5ocuJ\lfENlFltttrl JUN 1 9 20\3ol

CITY OF SALEM CITY RECORDER

Ms. Hall, this is testimony in opposition to the "Salem Alternative" Salem River Crossing option which I am submitting into the public record prior to the June 21, 2013 deadline.

I have followed the debate on this issue with interest, having lived in the Salem area since 1977. I regularly use the current two Willamette River vehicular bridges, along with the Union Street Bridge.

I'd be in favor of another Third Bridge if there was a demonstrable need for one. However, I have seen no good arguments from Third Bridge proponents that come anywhere near to justifying the expenditure of $600 million (or more) on another river crossing.

Last month I asked Peter Fernandez, City of Salem Public Works director, this key question at a forum featuring him and No Third Bridge leader Scott Bassett. This is how I described the question and answer in a blog post I wrote about the forum:

I asked a great question at today's DemoForum session on whether a Third Bridge is needed in Salem, Oregon.

"Mr. Fernandez, what is the single most important reason Salem needs a Third Bridge? And please support your reason with some facts."

The answer City of Salem Public Works director Peter Fernandez gave was direct, concise, and straightforward.

Also ... proof that a Third Bridge isn't needed, just as No Third Bridge spokesperson Scott Bassett argued at the forum.

Consider this: Fernandez is a smart guy.

Also, he's an experienced engineer. He has been intimately involved with Third Bridge planning for years. He's speaking at a forum filled with people skeptical about the project. The Mayor and several city councillors are in attendance.

Public Works Director Peter Fernandez is going to come up with the very best answer he can to my question.

I asked for the single most important reason. Numero Uno. #1. The words most likely to make opponents of a Third Bridge think, "whoa, maybe we really do need this thing!"

So how did Fernandez respond?

By saying that the single most important reason is that there is only one way into and out of West Salem. Redundancy and safety were the top reasons a Third Bridge is needed. He said that the bridges are seismically unfit. Currently serious accidents on the bridge tie up traffic for long distances into neighborhoods on both sides of the

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51COD967GWC1... 6/19/2013

Page 2 of4

river.

Sort of true.

But these are lousy reasons to spend $600 million or so on a Third Bridge. Scott Bassett explained why when he took the microphone in response to Fernandez' answer to my question.

Obviously Salem already has two bridges, or we wouldn't be talking about a Third Bridge. Fernandez' reference to one bridge probably meant that the current bridges each are four lanes going one way, westbound or eastbound. But Bassett pointed out that plans already exist for some lanes to be reversed on a bridge if an accident shuts down the other bridge.

Further, the Union Street walking/biking "pedestrian" bridge is capable of handling emergency vehicles. And there is another bridge across the Willamette in Independence, about twenty minutes away. So a $600 million Third Bridge wouldn't offer much additional redundancy.

A new bridge would, however, be much more likely to survive the 9.0 Big One earthquake which will hit western Oregon eventually. It isn't a question of "if," but of "when." The geological historical record proves that.

Bassett addressed this issue in his remarks. The current bridges need to be retrofitted. He said they were designed to remain standing after a powerful earthquake, but not to remain usable. (Of course, many roads likely won't be usable after the Big One either.)

The situation is akin to what my wife and I faced. We live in a house that was built in the early 70s, before building codes required stricter earthquake standards. Instead of buying a newer house, we spent way less to retrofit our home and garage.

Peter Fernandez' answer to my question points to the wisdom of doing the same thing with the current bridges: retrofit them; this can be done for tens of millions rather than hundreds of millions of dollars.

Bassett discussed improvements to the road connections that could be made at the ends of the current bridges. These would take care of congestion problems -- even though tellingly, Fernandez did not mention traffic congestion in his Most Important Reason response.

Bottom line: today the City of Salem Public Works director admitted that the most important reason to build a Third Bridge isn't a very good reason. Redundancy and safety concerns with the current bridges can be resolved without constructing another bridge across the Willamette.

Now, I realize that Third Bridge proponents have a whole bunch of reasons for why $600 million should be spent on another river crossing. I get the feeling thatthis is an example of "throw stuff against a wall and see what sticks." Which isn't the best way to do large-scale transpmiation and land use planning.

I asked Peter Fernandez for the One Best Reason the City of Salem is pushing for a Third Bridge. As noted above, he is one of the most knowledgeable and experienced advocates for the bridge.


Page 3 of 4

While there certainly are secondary reasons for a new Salem River Crossing, I wanted to know the One Best Reason -- since if the best reason isn't very good, the other reasons will be worse. I appreciated the crispness and clarity of Mr. Fernandez answer: redundancy and safety.

The question that sprang to my mind immediately after hearing this answer was: are there other ways to assure multiple safe ways of getting across the Willamette River? As the excerpt from my blog post makes clear, yes, there are.

I've learned from No Third Bridge leaders that Salem River Crossing engineers have assured them that the current bridges can be seismically retrofitted (i.e. emihquake-proofed) for hugely less than the cost of a Third Bridge. Here is a pmiion of an email received from them:

1. It is possible to retrofit the existing bridges to withstand a major emihquake. 2. The cost of a retrofit would be 25-40% of the cost of a new bridge of similar length, or about 10% of the cost of Alt 4D. 3. A new bridge is not needed for emergency vehicles, we have the Union St Bridge for that. 4. The congestion reduction designs proposed in the bridgehead study have not been implemented and they could reduce congestion at the bridge heads for much less cost than a new bridge. 5. The 'preferred' alternative (4D) would reduce congestion at some intersections but would make congestion much worse at others especially for the intersections between Salem and Keizer. 6. Alt 4D would devastate the Edgewater and Pine/Broadway neighborhoods. 7. The cost of Alt 4D would reduce the city's ability to pay for other important projects.

So redundancy, safety, and congestion concerns can be addressed without building a Third Bridge, and at a vastly lower cost. There is no need for a new Salem River Crossing, whether this be the "Salem Alternative" or any other design.

A final comment: nothing seems to prevent the "Salem Alternative" from being just a tempormy bridge design option. My understanding is that if this project continues into its next phase, something I hope won't happen, any of the previously-considered designs-- including the freeway'ish 4-D --could spring back to life. Are-vote by the Salem City Council could throw the "Salem Alternative" into the design trash can.

Suggestion: before the City Council votes on the "Salem Alternative," the motion should include language making clear that this design option is the only possible acceptable bridge design for the City of Salem. This would reflect the oft-heard statement from City officials that "we have listened to what the public wants and have altered the bridge design accordingly."

I hesitate to use a negative term from old-style car sales techniques. But what the heck, I'll use it! Bait-and-switch.

This is my #2 worry, the # 1 worry being that the City Council and Mayor will vote to move ahead with a Third Bridge even though there is no demonstrable need for one. Namely, that the bad "Salem Alternative" design will be supplanted in a year or two by one of the even worse designs, it's temporary function being an attempt to tamp down public opposition to a Third Bridge.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue.

I'll be way more thankful when plans for a Salem River Crossing are shelved, and the focus is on retrofitting the existing bridges. The goals of seismic safety and better traffic flow can be achieved at a much lower cost, and with no or minimal disruption to existing homes and businesses, by improving

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51COD967GWCI... 6/19/2013

Page 4 of4

what we have rather than spending $600 million or more on a unneeded and unwanted new Third Bridge.

-- Brian Hines

Brian Hines 10371 Lake Drive SE Salem, Oregon USA brianhines1 @gmail.com http://twitter.com/oregonbrian (twitter) www.brianhines.com (web site) www.hinesblog.com (blog) www.churchofthechurchless.com (other blog)


Kathy Hall - City Council, Salem River Crossing

From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: 6/18/2013 10:25 PM Subject: City Council, Salem River Crossing

Department Email

Last Name: Staehlin

First Name: Sandra

Phone: 503-588-5700

Email: [email protected]

Email Body

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

JUN 1 9 20i3 CITY OF SALEM

CITY RECORDER

Dear City Council, It would be better to have the new bridge road enter Marine Drive, with all the traffic from the new bridge then going from the entry point to Brush College Road, instead of proceeding from Marine Drive straight over to Wallace Road. There are several reasons this would be a better choice. One, there are residential streets and new apmiment buildings along Wallace Drive, between the proposed entrance of a new road extending from Marine Drive, and Bruch College Road. It is better to divert the through traffic to Brush College Road on Marine Drive, and use Brush College Road intersection for the entry of all traffic from the new bridge onto Wallace Road. There is already a great amount of entries and exits, and also of U -turns due to the barrier in the middle of Wallace, in that stretch 'of Wallace. Salem will continue to grow, and that area along Wallace, prior to reaching Brush College, is a prime area for the growth to spread out, and still me near downtown Salem. It would be better for now, and for the future, to divert all the traffic you possibly can, to enter Wallace Road from the new bridge at Brush College, rather than the proposed new road connecting Marine Drive and Wallace. That stretch already has a lot of wrecks due to a lot oftraffic, and the speeds people travel in that stretch are often 55 mph, even though single family homes and apmiment buildings are filling up that area and enter on Wallace. I lived in Rosewood Lane Apartments, on Wallace west of Brush College Road, and while I lived there, a car was exiting the apartments onto Wallace, and the driver didn't see a car coming up Wallace from Salem, and hit that car on Wallace, causing the car to careen off at an angle and run into a patio support post, causing injury to the driver. Luckily for the apatiment dwellers, it hit the post, and didn't go through a wall. People that lived along Wallace Rd. in the Rosewood Lane Apartments, told me that it was very frightening to live there in winter when roads were icy, with big trucks and cars sometimes sliding on the ice. Two, it would be better to have all the traffic on from the new bridge travel along Marine Drive clear to Brush College Road, because there is already a traffic light at that intersection, that current drivers are used to. Since Salem's population will only grow, it seems a better choice to have the entrance from Marine Drive be at Brush College Road than the proposed entrance on a new road to be constructed, much fmiher west toward Salem, thereby bringing big trucks to a fast-growing residential stretch of Wallace Road.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51C173A5GWCl... 6/19/2013

Kathy Hall - Public Testimony on the 3rd Bridge

From: To: Date: Subject: CC:

Jim Scheppke <[email protected]> Kathy Hall <[email protected]> 6/19/2013 8:44AM Public Testimony on the 3rd Bridge Salem City Council <[email protected]>

Dear Salem City Council: This is testimony for the public record on the Salem River Crossing project.

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

DOCUMENT FILED

JUN 1 9 2013 c1f\YR%SALE:M

ORDER

Of all the reasons you should vote 'no' on the Salem Alternative, or any alternative to plan to build a new bridge north or south of the existing Marion and Center Street bridges, the best reason is one of simple geography.

Unlike Portland, Salem has a unique hourglass shaped floodplain that has only one narrow crossing. It is the only feasible, affordable place to site bridges, and we already have eight lanes, plus the Union Street bike and pedestrian bridge, built at this location.

I implore you to "just say no" to a 3rd bridge. Then you can immediately set about to solve the peak hour congestion problem at the ends of the existing bridges by:

• Allowing free parking at the end of the Union Street Bridge in Wallace Marine Park and promoting biking and walking to West Salem commuters. • Working with the State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services, to promote flexible work schedules and increased telecommuting for West Salem commuters who work for the State. • Work with the Salem-Keizer Transit District to improve transit service for West Salem commuters, including the possibility of bus rapid transit service or a streetcar line, as members of the Transit District have suggested. • Work' toward building the improvements to the ends of the existing bridges that were developed in the 1998 Bridgehead Engineering Study, to provide free-flowing traffic north from the Center Street Bridge to Front Street on the east side, and free-flowing traffic n01ih from the Marion Street Bridge to the new Marine Drive on the west side. • Work with ODOT to develop and implement a plan to retrofit one of the existing bridges to be usable after a major Cascadia subduction zone earthquake in the next ten years.

These are all positive steps you can take today to improve connectivity between West Salem and the rest of the city. I hope you will see the wisdom in doing so.

Respectfully,

Jim Scheppke 1840 E. Nob Hill SE Salem

Jim Scheppke [email protected] 503-269-1559

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51C16F57GWCl... 6/19/2013

Kathy Hall - Testimony on Third Bridge for the Public Record

From: Roberta A <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Date: 6/19/2013 10:26 AM Subject: Testimony on Third Bridge for the Public Record

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

''·~ "DD'Cntvn:NT'FILED

JUN 1 9 20Bt UITY 01= SALEM

CITY fiECORDER

CC: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <bnanke@cityofsa ...

Dear Kathy; Dan,

I am writing to give my testimony for the public record about the proposed new bridge re the Salem River Crossing project. I have written to Councilor Dan Clem before, as well as had a letter to the editor printed in the Statesman Journal, about my concerns. Specifically, I am concerned about cost and environment.

To repeat myself: At the June 17, 2013 West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting I asked a question which was not answered in today's reality. I asked about flexing government workers' hours; I was told they do so already.

Before retiring, I was one of those workers who flexed my hours. I can tell you from first hand experience that there is not a concerted effort to flex workers' hours. I'd have to guess that those in decision making positions have not sat down and discussed how to

And, I was told there are bus pass options; this would be more workable if there was adequate bus service.

The downside is that I felt my question was discounted. The upside is that I got a glimsp of whether the suggestion o'f flexing workers' hours was seriously considered. My conclusion is that it was not.

And therefore, I conclude that congestion is not the concern of those who will make the decision about a third bridge. The cost of the ongoing studies, the cost to me of my decreased home value while my taxes have continued to go up, coupled with the projected cost of a bridge are hugely disproportionate to the congestion problem. I must conclude further that the real goal is the benefit to developers/builders.

My other concern is environmental. The flood plain in this part of West Salem is so wide and precarious that the cost of building the bridge in the intended location is ludicrous. The disturbance to flora and fauna is heartbreaking. Has Climate Change been considered? I suspect not.

Back to the June 17 meeting ... when I see West Salem residents voting yes, knowing that they don't want the bridge but are willing to vote against their own conscious because they will receive more money to move than to stay, I have to question the livability values of those who force such a compromise from residents.

These concerns are so seldom mentioned that I have to guess, again, that they do matter-

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51C1875CGWC1... 6/19/2013

they would make a difference if the true impact was known. All this, when the bridge is not as needed as much as better bus service, more attention to our education system, shoring up fire and police, etc ....

I don't want a third bridge. Please, put the funds invested in this ongoing project to better use. Thank you.

Roberta Cade

1735 Wallace Rd NW

Salem, OR 97304

one simple fix,

Unlike Portland, Salem has a unique hourglass shaped floodplain that has only one narrow crossing. It is the only feasible, affordable place to site bridges, and we already have eight lanes, plus the Union Street bike and pedestrian bridge, built at this location.

I implore you to "just say no" to a 3rd bridge. Then you can immediately set about to solve the peak hour congestion problem at the ends of the existing bridges by:

• Allowing free parking at the end of the Union Street Bridge in Wallace Marine Park and promo.ting biking and walking to West Salem commuters.

• Working with the State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services, to promote flexible work schedules and increased telecommuting for West Salem commuters who work for the State.

• Work with the Salem-Keizer Transit District to improve transit service for West Salem commuters, including the possibility of bus rapid transit service or a streetcar line, as members of the Transit District have suggested.

• Work toward building the improvements to the ends of the existing bridges that were developed in the 1998 Bridgehead Engineering Study, to provide free-flowing traffic north from the Center Street Bridge to Front Street on the east side, and free-flowing traffic north from the Marion Street Bridge to the new Marine Drive on the west side.

• Work with ODOT to develop and implement a plan to retrofit one of the existing bridges to be usable after a major Cascadia subduction zone earthquake in the next ten years.

These are all positive steps you can take today to improve connectivity between West Salem and the rest of the city. I hope you will see the wisdom in doing so.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51Cl875CGWC1... 6/19/2013

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

To the Salem City Council. Written Testimony for the Public Record On the Salem River Crossing

Sandy Smith 2514 Hazel Ave. NE Salem, OR 97301

DOCUMENT FILED

JUN l 9 2013 CITY OF SALEM

CITY I~ECORDER For many years, I have attended meetings about the Salem River Crossing. More recently, I have also attended City Council meetings where the "third bridge" has been under discussion. I must say, it has been disappointing. Once again, decisions are being made without regard to the average people whose lives will be affected most. It is clear to me that the councilors and the mayor already have their minds made up. I have been told that "a bridge will be built," as if that's just the way things are headed. Also, that it won't be built for twenty years. And yet, I have still not heard a good reason. At the last neighborhood meeting I attended, the best reason seemed to be because people on Wallace Road get backed up in traffic. Lancaster, anyone? Another reason I've been told is to connect North Salem to West Salem. You know what? North Salem and West Salem are already connected. The other bridges work fine and are very close to North Salem.

I fear that this is really about business. And business is not the be-all and end-all. Unfortunately, the leaders in Salem seem to believe this, and so Salem will never become a hip, vibrant town that people want to visit or move into. Livability is being sacrificed. Other places, more thriving places, consider the "return on Community;" I suggest you take this idea more seriously. Salem already has a number of recently built structures that stand vacant and decrepit after only a few years. We need to stop investing big bucks in pie-in-the-sky ideas that don't live up to the hype. All the data suggests that the future is in biking, walking, living close-in, and working from home via technology. THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE INVESTING IN.

My final point of testimony is about socioeconomic injustice. For the sake of argument, let's pretend this is 1958 and we really do need another bridge. We can imagine that a lot of people need to cross the bridge all day long and that there is a real need for an additional bridge. That gas is cheap and available, pollution isn't a problem, and everyone is in love with cars and highways. There's still the problem with PLACEMENT. You can't just build a bridge that dumps traffic into the middle of a neighborhood. Highland is a neighborhood. We are not industry or downtown or vacant land or even farmland. Highland is a neighborhood where people are on the streets, walking and playing, riding bikes, going to school. It is immoral to continue to rip apart the lower income sections of town. Even talking about putting the bridge there lowers the value of the land and causes a lot of empty houses and lots. Shame on all of you if you don't keep looking for better options. And I do mean any bridge at all that would serve carsjust so we are clear. If you must have a bridge, please keep looking for a place that doesn't dump into actual neighborhoods.

The best option is to fix the perceived problems. Right now the traffics signals and lanes are set up inefficiently. If there were safer and consistent bike lanes, more people would ride. And everyone knows the buses don't run enough hours and whether or not that's what you deal with, it is still part of the overall picture. And that is what City Council needs to do is step back and take a look at the big picture. The future is not the past. People and Community are more important than business. City Council should listen to all the good ideas brought before them by the people who live in Salem and not just those with financial gain in mind. And to think you all need to vote unanimously is ridiculous. It would be heartening to the people of Salem to believe you are not all just a rubber stamp for the men in suits.

I am sorry if that last part sounds sarcastic. Print always sounds worse than in person. I knew the people didn't have a chance, but my college-aged daughter told me I wasn't much of an American if I didn't think my voice would be heard, so I have given my three minutes and now my written testimony on account of her.

Sincerely,

Sandy Smith Highland

Kathy Hall -Salem Alternative

From: Cindy Culpovich <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 6/19/2013 4:57PM Subject: Salem Alternative

CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dear Ms Hall and City Council,

June 24, 2013 4 (d)

JUN 1 9 2013 CITY OF SALEM

CITY RECORDER

I would like to let you know that I am opposed to building a third bridge here in Salem. We don 1t need it, it 1s too expensive and there are other solutions to remediate any congestion problems on the third bridge. I recommend completing those things that were already suggested back in 1998 to modify the bridgeheads. We also need to make the existing bridges earthquake safe before we even consider building a new bridge.

I hope you are hearing those of us who are using the voice of reason to cry out against this huge mistake.

Thank you!

Cindy Culpovich 645 Mule Deer St NW Salem OR 97304

file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51ClE2F8GWCl... 6/19/2013

rn~J~N ~ ~ ~13~ w rvJi_ ~

DOCUMENT FILED

JUN 202GB CITY OF SALEM

CITY RECORDER

June 24, 2013 4 (d)