|
What's Happening |
|
The Sellwood Bridge project is a 24-month planning effort to develop a locally-supported alternative to address the long-term
transportation deficiencies posed by deterioration of the bridge. Because the study involves federal funds, the county and its
local, state, and federal agency partners are following a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning process. NEPA is a
1969 federal law that ensures that governments give proper consideration to the environment (natural and human) before undertaking
major projects that will require federal funds to build.
For the Sellwood Bridge project, Multnomah County is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to comply with NEPA. An
EIS is a document that determines the significance of social, economic, or environmental impacts of a proposed project. The EIS
summarizes the major environmental impacts, outlines issues, examines reasonable alternatives, and identifies a preferred
alternative for the project. A Notice of Intent
to prepare the EIS was published on the Federal Register on November 9, 2006.
A key element of the project is creating a decision-making process guided by a Community Task Force (CTF), Project
Management Team (PMT), and Policy Advisory Group (PAG). The aim is to create a logical path with major decision points along the
2-year project schedule. The decision process will be organized into these six decision points (click on the image below to enlarge it):
Click on the Decision Points below to read more about each.
|
1. Establish Decision
Process and Structure
This first decision point ensures understanding and agreement about how decisions
will be made –what process will be followed and the roles, responsibilities, and
membership of the various groups.
This decision point was formally reached on June 7, 2006, by the Policy Advisory Group. The
Decision-Making Structure and Process memo has
been finalized and will be used throughout the project.
|
2. Define Purpose and Need
This decision point defines the problem to be solved and establishes a factual, defensible
basis for why the problem is authentic and important. It defines the specific transportation
needs that will provide the framework for future work.
The Purpose and Need Statement, which has been recommended by the Community Task Force
and adopted by the Policy Advisory Group, now requires agency concurrence.
A presentation regarding the Purpose and Need was given to the Community Task Force, along with the Structural
Deficiencies and Roadway Deficiencies memos.
The bridge has numerous deficiencies, including:
- Poor structural condition, with a limited service life
- Weight restrictions, which have forced an average of 1,400 trucks and buses each
day to find a different river crossing route
- Geologic instability on the west end that has resulted in land slides
- Narrow travel lanes with no shoulders or median
- Short stopping distances and lines of sight for motorists
- Traffic that is at capacity during rush hours
- One narrow sidewalk insufficient for bicyclists and pedestrians
- Poor connections to established trails at each end of the bridge
- Tight ramps at west end that cannot easily accommodate large vehicles
- High risk of structural failure in the event of an earthquake
- A National Bridge Inventory sufficiency rating of 2 out of a possible score of 100
|
3. Establish Evaluation Framework
This decision point creates a “tool” to assist with assessing and comparing alternatives.
The evaluation framework “tool” will set criteria and quantitative performance measures
for gauging the effectiveness of alternatives—how well they solve the identified
problems and how well they perform against the broad range of stakeholder values.
The Evaluation Framework
was adopted by the Policy Advisory Group on January 29, 2007.
|
4. Develop Alternatives
This point in the decision process determines the full range of alternatives to be considered.
The aim is to ensure that stakeholders’ ideas get a chance to
play out as concepts and are put on
the table for consideration. Any alternatives that do not meet the minimum requirements or are clearly
inferior to the other alternatives are eliminated.
The Community Task Force recommended and the Policy Advisory Group adopted a list of
alternatives
to be considered in June 2007.
|
5. Screen Alternatives
This decision point evaluates the alternatives against the criteria developed by the Community Task Force
(Evaluation Framework)
to see which ones perform better. The Alternative Evaluation Memo
explains this process in more detail. As part of this step, a small group of selected alternatives is given a more detailed analysis in the
environmental impact statement (EIS).
The Policy Advisory Group adopted, on October 19,
five alternatives
to be considered in the draft EIS.
|
6. Select Preferred Alternative
This is the current phase of the project.
During the sixth decision point, detailed data developed for the draft EIS will be used to
re-evaluate the remaining alternatives against the evaluation framework. The public will be asked to participate in the
selection of a locally preferred alternative. The results of the draft EIS will also aid in the selection of that alternative.
The locally preferred alternative must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Local approval is expected
in early 2009. Approval by FHWA is expected in 2009.
|
|
|
There will be focused public outreach prior to each of these decision points to
ensure that the public is involved in the process in a meaningful way. You will
have the opportunity to comment on issues before the various project groups make
recommendations at each decision point. It is important to get involved in this
process because your input will help shape the parameters of this project.
|
|
The Sellwood Bridge project is a planning effort to develop a locally-supported
alternative to address the long-term transportation deficiencies posed by deterioration of the bridge.
|
