I-205 Corridor Study

Citizens' Committee Meeting #9

February 22, 2001
Meeting Summary

Citizens' Committee Members Present

Becky Archibald, Fircrest Neighborhood		Loyda Timmons, Evergreen Business Association
Art Stubbs, Green Meadows Neighborhood Association		Bryan Halbert, CREDC
Joe Gianotti, Marrion Neighborhood		Tim Schauer, CCHBA
John Gentry, Vancouver Fire Department

Staff Present

Brian McMullen, WSDOT		Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Don Owings, WSDOT		Lynda David, RTC
		Dean Lookingbill, RTC

Consultants

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

Others Present

Mr. and Mrs. Gunther, Kristine Ridge Neighborhood		John Ho, Skillings-Connolly, Inc.
Dave Peach, Skillings-Connolly, Inc.

Agenda, 7:00pm - 9:00pm

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Overview
   • Where we left off
   • What has happened since we last met?
3. Access Steering Committee
4. Evolution of the Alternatives
5. Next Steps
6. Public Comment

I. Welcome and Introductions

Jamie welcomed the CAC back. John Gentry has replaced Ward Knable from the Fire Department and Alex Veliko had a meeting conflict for this evening and could not join us. Brian McMullen reminded us of where we left off and provided some information about the Access Steering Committee (see more detail in agenda item below.)

II. Overview / Where we left off / What has happened since we last met

The CAC last met on September 21, 2000. After that meeting the Access Steering Committee was formed and has met twice. Work on the alternatives has focused on melding the range of individual components into one viable scenario. As components have been merged, technical issues arose and additional analysis was conducted. RTC sent a status report letter to the CAC in November and contacted the CAC by phone in December to provide an update on the alternatives development process and the work of the Access Steering Committee.

III. Access Steering Committee

The Access Steering Committee is made up of agency representatives from Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SW Region and Olympia headquarters, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), City of Vancouver and HDR. The Access Steering Committee has met in November ‘00, December ’00 and earlier today (February 22, 2001). The purpose of the group is to ensure that the alternative that is developed can meet the requirements of the federal Eight Point Access Decision Report. The Committee has focused on working through the technical aspects of merging the alternative components under consideration.

In November 2000, the Committee directed the project team to look at providing intermediate access along the collector/distributor and to address the weave at SR14 and SR500. In December, the committee further directed the team to address issues associated with the merged alternative. In February the committee reviewed how issues have been addressed and began to discuss the ability for the alternative to be constructed in phases.

IV. Evolution of the Alternatives:

Cathy Higley presented the steps and evolution of how the alternative concepts have been merged into one alternative.

The CAC had the following comments. Staff responses are in italics.

• Will 9th Street be rebuilt? That will increase the cost.
  Yes
  
  
• Is WSDOT really committed to this?
  WSDOT needs to “compete” statewide with needs across the state.
  
  
• Do we need to lobby?
  We need to create awareness of the need for the proposed phased improvements. The time for lobbying is when we get to an agreed upon alternative – we are not quite there yet.
  
  
• Is the phasing an “appeasement”? What if we only get enough money to do one phase – where does that leave us?
  Reminder that the total concept resolves 2025 problems. All phases need to work together.
  
  
• Concerned about 112th ramp needed in the future. What if total- build out of the alternative shows the ramp needs to be removed? Does that throw a hitch into the city’s plans? 
  Maybe not. The process for developing this concept is currently underway and some of those questions will be worked out. We need to see the outcome of the technical analysis before we know its impact.
  
  
• Agree with needing an off-ramp @ Mill Plain from the collector/distributor (C/D).
  
  
• Concerned that there isn’t room for the fourth lane northbound up to Mill Plain. 
  Probably need to pull an existing lane back to squeeze another lane in.
  
  
• What kind of intersection at 112th off ramp?
  A “T” intersection with a traffic light.
  
  
• Can the 2 lanes off at 18th be phased to only do one lane first?
  Yes
  
  
• Does I-205 to SR-500 get 2 lanes for off ramp.
  Yes.
  
  
• Why do the lanes split at SR-500 and one continues north under SR-500.
  It is part of a committed WSDOT SR-500/112th Avenue interchange project already in the works.
  
  
• How does the SR-500 westbound to I-205 southbound flyover figure in dollar wise?
  It would be expensive – a whole new structure. Probably a later phase.
  
  
• Why 2 access lanes southbound from Burton/18th Street after 18th?
  Traffic volumes show that it is warranted.
  
  
• Why couldn’t there be an SR-14 access after Mill Plain?
  Current weave after Mill Plain to SR 14 is very dangerous. Don’t see how another access could be put in.
  
  
• There is a potential weave problem after Mill Plain at I-205 south ramp.
  
  
• Southbound I-205 & SR-14 is still a weaving problem.
  
  
• Give someone the option to peel off to SR-14 at 18th.
  
  
• Downside to have to decide to access SR-14 back at 18th. Signage is a real problem that far back.
  
  
• How will SR-14 access improvements help the southern end movements?
  SR-14 improvements are not a part of the scope of this study. Improvements that the City has programmed for Ellsworth and Lieser are designed to improve connectivity within that central area and probably won’t alleviate much in the eastern area. Ellsworth south of 10th will be widened. There are no plans north.
  
  
• What are the City’s plans for McGillivray - incorporating it with I-205 work?
  
  
• What is the maximum speed limit on the frontage road?
  35 mph.
  
  
• Possibly look at phasing the concept from the North to South.
  
  
• Need to include sound walls for all frontage road development.

V.Next Steps

The next CAC meeting is scheduled for March 22, 2001 from 7:00pm – 9:00pm at the WSDOT conference room (where the 2/22/01 meeting was held.)

The agenda for the next meeting will include an update from the Access Steering Committee – who will be meeting at 9:00am on 3/22, additional information about phasing, and when to go back out to the broader community.

VI.Public Comment

• Is the City working independently of the I-205 CAC on the 112th Avenue slip ramp?
• Concerned whether the concept will really resolve the problems 25 years out.
• What if someone wants information about impacts to a specific home?

The alternative and its phasing plan is not advanced to that level of detail yet. Once a preferred alternative is selected then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process needs to be conducted which will include working closely with all potentially impacted property owners. If you have specific questions, Brian McMullen (WSDOT) or Lynda David (RTC) should be the contact people.