1. Introductions and Background to the Project

Transcription

1 Fort Steuben Bridge Removal Project JEF PID No Meeting Minutes of the Stakeholder Meeting 10:00 a.m. Noon Convened at ODOT D Reiser Avenue, New Philadelphia, OH IN ATTENDANCE: REPRESENTING: John Brown...BHJMPC Michael Paprocki...BHJMPC Domenick Mucci...City of Steubenville Michael Dolak...City of Steubenville Eric Washburn...U.S. Coast Guard Bob Whipp...WVDOT Matt Perlik...ODOT-CO Mike Pettegrew...ODOT-CO Kevin Davis...ODOT-CO Waseem Khalifa...ODOT-D11 Tom Stratton...ODOT-D11 Amber Hewitt...ODOT-D11 Becky McCarty...ODOT-D11 Jim Marker...ODOT-D11 Tom Corey...ODOT-D11 Roxanne Kane...ODOT-D11 Greg Gurney...ODOT-D11 Ralph Trepal...Wilbur Smith Associates Suzann Rhodes...Wilbur Smith Associates Jim Koenig...Wilbur Smith Associates 1. Introductions and Background to the Project The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in conjunction with Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) hosted the first of two stakeholder meetings on at the ODOT D11 office in New Philadelphia, OH. The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Roxanne Kane, ODOT D11 Planning Administrator, who announced the purpose of the meeting was to provide an introduction and background to the Fort Steuben Bridge Removal Project and an overview of the proposed planning process. Ms. Kane welcomed the attendees and introduced the ODOT D-11 Project Manager, Wassem Khalifa, and the consultant team, Ralph Trepal and Suzann Rhodes of WSA. Those in attendance then individually introduced themselves. A copy of the sign in sheet is attached to these minutes. 1

2 Using a power point presentation, Ralph Trepal started the meeting by providing a brief overview of the presentation and agenda for the meeting. A copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes. Mr. Trepal then asked all attendees to verify their attendance by completing the sign-in sheet if they have not done so already. Mr. Trepal presented maps and graphics identifying the project s Study Area and Project Limit, OH side right-of-way properties, and WV side right-of-way properties. Suzann Rhodes continued by briefly explaining the background of the Fort Steuben Bridge and its current conditions. Mr. Trepal continued by illustrating the bridge s roadway cross section and structural deterioration. As a result the bridge is functionally obsolete to meet current expectations and requirements for safe operations and is structurally deficient. Mr. Trepal presented the existence of the Veterans Memorial Bridge as being an excellent alternate route and provided a table showing drive times under current conditions and projected drive times assuming the Fort Steuben Bridge closed. A VISSIM simulation of traffic using the Veterans Memorial Bridge with current traffic volumes (assuming the Fort Steuben Bridge closed and Market Street Bridge still open) was provided. The VISSIM illustrated that the pedestrian crossing time (near the bottom of the hill on University Blvd. just north of where the US 7 ramps enter the Veterans Bridge going east) was adequate and that the traffic flow at all intersections and traffic weave locations will be acceptable. The one location of traffic concern is the left turn stacking from NB State Route 7 onto University Blvd exceeds the existing left turn length. However, this is an existing condition and is not caused by the closing of the Fort Steuben Bridge. Michael Paprocki, BHJMPC Transportation Study Director, commented that the traffic signal phasing has been changed from what the VISSIM model is using for the traffic signal at the intersection of University Blvd. and OH 7. WSA agreed to review the traffic signal timing and phasing at the intersection and adjust the modeled traffic signal, the simulation, and the travel time table accordingly. Mr. Paprocki added that the intersection of US 22 and Main Street (Weirton, WV) contains a merging problem onto the highway due to the increased grade and number of trucks. Mr. Trepal pointed out that BHJMPC s study included the closure of the Market Street Bridge. The closure of the Market Street Bridge is not a part of this project; under the Fort Steuben project conditions and study area the traffic at this intersection will operate at Level of Service C which is acceptable. Ms. Rhodes provided a brief summary on the background of the project and asked the attendees if they had any questions to that point; no further comments were given. 2. Overview and Status of the Proposed Planning Process Ms. Rhodes explained the project will follow steps 1-3 in ODOT s PDP process and gave an overview of the proposed planning process. Ms. Rhodes presented the status of where 2

3 WSA was in completing the process. Attendees were asked if they had any comments on the proposed planning process. No comments were given. 3. Proposed Public Involvement Plan Ms. Rhodes continued by presenting the proposed Public Involvement Plan. She confirmed the time and dates for the upcoming Contractor s Meeting (January 30, 2008 at D11), Future Stakeholder Meeting, and Future Public Open House in Steubenville. John Brown, BHJMPC Executive Director, commented that the time for the future stakeholder meeting was 10 a.m. and not 12:30 p.m. as noted in the presentation. Ms. Rhodes stated the slide would be changed to reflect the correct time. Ms. Rhodes further discussed additional elements to be used to involve the public in the project development process by the availability of a public information link on the ODOT D11 web site, project map and poster displays in public areas, and by utilizing the stakeholder and public working meetings to relay problems, needs and goals of the project and to collect ideas. John Brown, BHJMPC Executive Director asked, Since there is only one public open house offered, how will the public will see the final results of their comments. Mr. Brown added that he would like to see a follow-up to the final public meeting so that the public s comments are taking into consideration. Roxanne Kane, D11 Planning Administrator, responded that holding only one public open house for a project is not unusual. And the final report and decisions would incorporate comments from the public. She offered that possibly as a follow up to the public open house meeting, project information could be presented via press release or other information provided to the City and MPO for their distribution locally. Waseem Khalifa, ODOT D11 Project Manager, added that the D11 web site will help to inform the public of project information. Mr. Brown also commented that BHJMPC would like to add stakeholders to those participating in the project. Mr. Brown mentioned that additional parties from Hancock County, WV, including the owners of Half-Moon Industrial Park, the Economic Development Director for that area, local business- and land-owners on the WV side of the bridge, should be involved in the public involvement process. Mr. Brown agreed to compile a list of additional stakeholders and provide it to WSA and ODOT D-11. ODOT agreed to review the additions and revise the stakeholders listing for the next meeting. Ms. Kane indicated that 35 stakeholders were invited to this meeting. She provided the group with a copy of the current stakeholder s list and list of attendees at this meeting. Ms. Rhodes indicated that the revised list would be included with the meeting minutes and announcement sent to them for the next stakeholder meeting. 3

4 4. Draft Purpose & Need and Initial Goals Ms. Rhodes presented the draft purpose and need for the project: Purpose: To remove the existing structure in an efficient, environmentally responsible, and safe way. Need: The replacement bridge is already built and is open to traffic. The Fort Steuben Bridge is structurally deficient. The Fort Steuben Bridge is functionally obsolete. and the initial goals of: Mobility and Access Risk Environmental Impacts Human Impacts Right of Way Ms. Rhodes concluded the section by asking for comments. None were received. 5. Preliminary Alternatives Ralph Trepal presented preliminary alternatives for the removal of the Fort Steuben Bridge. Mr. Trepal described Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) alternatives and possible conditions after the elimination of the OH and WV bridge approaches. Mr. Trepal then described multiple alternatives for demolition of the bridge deck, stiffening truss, cables, towers, and foundations. Bob Whipp, WVDOT D6 Engineer, questioned the location of the proposed cul-de-sac on the WV side of the bridge, and why its location is not near the current entrance to the City of Weirton Water Treatment Plant. Michael Paprocki, BHJMPC Transportation Study Director, also inquired about the location of the proposed cul-de-sac, recommending signal modifications at Birch Drive pending. Mr. Trepal commented that the location of the proposed cul-de-sac would be discussed with WVDOT. Domenick Mucci, Mayor of Steubenville, commented on the remaining footprint of the bridge being used for future park development. Mr. Mucci also inquired about keeping the piers of the bridge for carrying a possible utility line across the Ohio River to the City of Weirton. Eric Washburn, U.S. Coast Guard representative, stated that the piers would have to change ownership (ODOT would no longer own them) before the bridge is removed and a new permitting process would have to take place in order to justify keeping the piers. 4

5 Mr. Washburn added that if the permit(s) were to not be approved, the City of Steubenville would then be responsible for the removal of the piers since they are a hazard to navigation. Greg Gurney, ODOT D11 Acting District Deputy Director, commented that the state could not transfer the piers for only one dollar ($1) if they would be used in the future to make a profit by the purchaser. Greg Gurney, ODOT D11 Acting District Deputy Director, inquired about the time allowed to remove the towers / piers of the bridge. Mr. Washburn, representing the US Coast Guard, mentioned that Coast Guard approval of demolition plans will require an agreement that materials dropped into the river from the demolition will have to be cleared to produce a navigable channel within 24 hours. He indicated that the navigable channel required is typically a minimum of 350 feet. He said this 24 requirement does not include removing the piers at the same time as demolition debris. The Piers would need to be removed but could be removed later. He indicated that the spans over non-navigable waterways may have up to 48 hours to be cleared from the water. He indicated that the river is very busy with barge traffic and could not be shut down for long periods of time. He suggested that the Army Corps locks data be reviewed to determine exactly how many tows were on this section of the river. Wilbur Smith agreed to review river traffic in this area of the river. Mr. Trepal added that he didn t seem to think the timeframe was going to be a problem and that the piers would be removed within the allotted time. 6. Summary and Conclusions Mr. Trepal concluded the presentation by recapping comments and recommendations provided by the attendees. Mr. Trepal asked for any final comments. A confirmation of all comments made during the meeting was read by Ms. Rhodes. Ms. Rhodes explained that no final decision has been made as to how to remove the bridge. The decision on how to remove the bridge would be made based on: the comments and involvement of the stakeholders; with consideration of the best technical information; using information on the costs for each alternative; and making certain all decisions remain within the legal requirements set by the Coast Guard and other state and Federal regulatory bodies. An evaluation matrix would be prepared and presented the next stakeholder meeting and at the public meeting / open house so that everyone can understand how and why the alternatives were selected. Details for the second stakeholder meeting were discussed. Mr. Brown added that a potential site for the public meeting / open house will be Jefferson Community College, but that he needs to confirm that location. 5

6 Domenick Mucci, Mayor of Steubenville, explained that he understands that the Fort Steuben Bridge will be removed but feels that ODOT needs to look at the entire impact of this action. He stated that he realized that a lot of money will be invested in this study, in intersection improvements and in removing the bridge. He asked is this the best investment of money for everyone. He is concerned that the City is being left even more disadvantaged. Removing this bridge further hampers the economic situation of the entire region to attract business and industry. ODOT agreed to provide a summary at the next stakeholders meeting of how its funds have been invested in Jefferson County over the last 10 years. The consultant team and Ms. Kane thanked the group for attending the presentation and confirmed that the meeting minutes would be completed as soon as possible and sent to ODOT for approval and mailed to the stakeholders together with the announcement for the next stakeholders meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. 6