I-205 Corridor Study

Citizens' Committee Meeting #5

May 25, 2000
Meeting Summary

Citizens' Committee Members Present

Becky Archibald, Fircrest Neighborhood		David Feldman, Friends of Clark County
Loyda Timmins, East Ridge Business Park		Tim Schauer, Clark County Home Builders
Joe Gianotti, Marrion Neighborhood		Art Stubbs, Green Meadows Neighborhood Assoc.
John Wilson, (alternate for Alex Veliko, ENAG)

Staff Present

Lynda David, RTC		Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Brian McMullen, WSDOT

Consultants

Cathy Higley, HDR		James Gregory, HDR
Jamie Damon, JLA

Agenda, 7:00pm - 9:00pm

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Study Status Report
3. Evaluation Criteria
4. 2020 Transportation Conditions Review
5. Preliminary Location Specific Alternatives
6. Next Steps
7. Public Comment/Close

I. Welcome and Introductions

Jamie Damon welcomed Committee members and made Committee and Staff introductions.

Questions and comments follow, with staff responses in italics.

Question: Page 4 of the [last] meeting summary discusses an "overlook" at 164th off of SR14 - won't that create a backup in an already congested area? Neighborhoods are already concerned about traffic and have further concerns that the overlook may cause a problem.

The overlook is actually off Evergreen; it is unlikely that it will cause slowing or back-ups onto SR-14. People tend to use overlooks on the weekends when the area is not congested.

II. Study Status Report

Staff presentation:

The study is funded through completion (winter 00/01, after FHWA review.) Because of the lost time due to I-695, the Study is on an aggressive schedule. There is time built in during the August, September, October time period for additional review and refinement of the alternatives if needed to ensure community and agency input is incorporated. The majority of work over the summer will be to have the community and the agencies review, discuss, and refine the range of initial alternatives. There will be much public involvement work to do over the summer months. The CAC discussed events and meetings that occur over the summer where discussions regarding the alternatives can take place. Some ideas include:

• Developing a simple packet outlining the alternatives or at least the study information to be attached to the neighborhood newsletters for the neighborhoods most impacted by the study. The City's Office of Neighborhoods distributes the newsletters. The City Office of Neighborhoods is the contact.
• Use some of the language and outcomes from a recent community survey that was conducted by Reilly Research Associates regarding transportation concerns that were outlined in the survey. The City is the contact.
• Marrion and Fircrest Neighborhoods have a "one time use" for the Water Resources Building during the year. It was suggested that we conduct a joint ENAG and VNA meeting/workshop over the summer and use the Water Resources Building for the event. Becky and/or Joe are the contacts.
• The Chamber, the Responsible Growth Forum, and the Home-Builders Association hold meetings over the summer and would be interested. Tim Schauer is the contact.
• The East Ridge Business Association is holding regular meetings over the summer. Loyda is the contact.
• The Chamber is holding an event called the "Chamber after Hours" in July with booths featuring different businesses. Loyda is the contact.
  VNA meets the 4th Monday of the month. ENAG meets the 3rd Wednesday of the month. Alex is the contact. 
• There is a Neighborhood Fair the last weekend in September. The City Office of Neighborhoods is the contact.

III. Evaluation Criteria

Jamie distributed a copy of the input received from interviews organized into issue areas and a draft sample of some criteria statements. Jamie reminded the group that we had begun this conversation at the November meeting last year, however we did not complete the discussion due to the Study being put on hold. Jamie asked the group to review the issues and the sample criteria statements and come to the next CAC meeting with criteria statements that they would like to see a part of a set of Community Evaluation Criteria. Jamie reminded the group that the purpose of the criteria is to enable the group to evaluate the range of alternatives based on what will work best for the community. Jamie asked that the group not rewrite the state, regional, and local planning framework but that they focus on community values and concerns. The criteria will be used in conjunction with the planning framework and policy direction already in place for the region. 

Questions and comments follow, with staff responses in italics.

Comment: Any changes to I-205 will impact neighborhood livability. Green Meadows Neighborhood is very concerned about noise issues on the freeway (both sides of the freeway.) There is a petition being signed by the neighborhood regarding noise and WSDOT should be doing something about it. The criteria should include something about noise issues because this is so important to the community.

Comment: Noise is a detail dealt with when we have a project identified. We don't have a project identified yet. Spending a lot of time talking about noise issues here is outside of the scope of this Study. 

Comment: We need to be aware that freeway noise is a big issue to the community and any gatherings or events that we hold will bring people out who want to talk about noise, whether it is in our scope or not.

WSDOT staff suggested that in a future Study handout, newsletter or on the Study's web site a "frequently asked questions" (FAQs) article could provide a brief response outlining how noise impact is dealt with as part of project development by the state. 

Comment: The community needs to be made aware of when and where sound walls are considered. Staff should be prepared to answer questions the community may have on noise and need to communicate their message clearly. How do corridor segments relate to each other and why do some segments have sound walls and others do not? 

IV. 2020 Transportation Conditions Review

Cathy reviewed the 2020 Baseline transportation conditions (which includes projection of what transportation conditions could be like in the year 2020 after all of the programmed improvements are built; potential I-205 improvements are excluded from this baseline analysis which will serve as a comparison with I-205 improvement alternatives.) Cathy noted that some of the issues that the CAC has brought up do not show up on the maps as a result of running the model but that those issues are being tracked. The value of the CAC is that they provide the on-the-ground experience that the model cannot always replicate. 

Questions and comments follow, with staff responses in italics.

Question: Will the alternatives include transportation demand management (TDM) recommendations that can be shared with the City and the County?

Yes. 

Cathy then walked through the alternatives development process chart showing all of the steps involved. Alternatives development steps: 

1. Develop location specific alternatives to solve individual problems; 
2. Package the location specific alternatives into sets that work together (approximately 4 alternative packages will be developed); 
3. Review the packages with the CAC/TAC/Community/Agencies; 
4. Add 1 or 2 more packages based on input; 
5. Review all of the packages and input received with the CAC/TAC - begin to evaluate; 
6. Hone the packages down to 2 - 3, refine packages as needed; 
7. Review the packages with the CAC/TAC/Community/Agencies; 
8. Use input received to develop a preferred alternative.

Question: If there were only 4 alternatives, would we cut them down to only 2?

If we only ended up developing 4 alternative packages (as opposed to a maximum of 6) then we would winnow them down to 3-4. 

Note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is one of the agencies to evaluate the alternatives during the fatal flaw analysis/review occurring over the summer.

Cathy distributed a set of parameters (attached) that were developed by the TAC in order to provide some boundaries for the alternatives. 

Comment: The alternatives need to not preclude alternative modes.

Comment: Need to consider the HOV Study that was completed by RTC following the Transportation Futures Committee recommendation. Some of the state funds available for transportation will be used specifically for HOV projects.

Yes, we are building off of that.

Preliminary Location Specific Alternatives

Cathy and James presented the preliminary location-specific alternatives for the CAC to review and discuss. The alternatives included options to address location specific problems. These alternatives have not been packaged to assess the overall system impact. The alternatives represent what is feasible from an engineering/technical point of view only - not what is fundable, best for the system, and environmentally feasible. Some of the options reviewed included interchange improvements at 83rd Street, SR-500. Mill Plain and SR14.

Next Steps

• HDR will post MicroStation files of the option concepts to their FTP site for those committee members who are able to download and review more closely.
• HDR will mail a set of the maps to Loyda and Becky.
• RTC will follow-up with absent CAC members. 
• Jamie will follow up with Loyda, Tim, the Office of Neighborhoods, and ENAG/VNAG about upcoming meetings and events over the summer.
• Jamie will add Art's email to the email list.
• The next CAC meeting is scheduled for June 22, 2000 from 7pm - 9pm at the Evergreen School District Conference Center.