I-205 Corridor Study

Citizens' Committee Meeting #10

March 22, 2001
Meeting Summary

Citizens' Committee Members Present

Roy Rhine, Washington State Patrol		Rick St. Angelo, Friends of Clark County
Art Stubbs, Green Meadows Neighborhood Association		Loyda Timmons, Evergreen Business Association
Joe Gianotti, Marrion Neighborhood		Bryan Halbert, CREDC
John Gentry, Vancouver Fire Department		Tim Schauer, CCHBA

Staff Present

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

Consultants

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

Agenda, 7:00pm - 9:00pm

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Access Steering Committee Feedback
3. Status of Draft Preferred Alternative and Draft Phasing Concepts
4. Next Steps
5. Public Comment

I. Welcome and Introductions

Jamie Damon, JLA, led a quick round of introductions and reviewed the agenda. The purpose of the meeting is to update the CAC on what we heard at the Steering Committee that met earlier in the day.

II. Access Steering Committee Feedback

Cathy Higley, with HDR, updated the group on the morning’s meeting with the Access Steering Committee. Cathy presented the modifications to the alternative, staging, and operational analysis. The Access Steering Committee agreed that the alternative could move forward. Brian McMullen, WSDOT, clarified that this concept can now receive more detailed analysis and documentation in accordance with the Access Decision Report document. It is likely that the concept will be further modified. Brian also explained that a “recommended alternative” at this time simply means that it is okay to continue to work on it. It is by no means a final product. Brian also pointed out that most likely the phasing concepts will change based on funding and balancing the needs. The CAC had the following questions/discussion (note italics are project team comments):

• Was the decision made to accept the low/medium/or high 2025 projections for growth? Public comment-to-date is favoring the high projections based on the GMA update work.
• Concerned about using low/medium projections – we may not be able to afford to wait. The key to this process is comparing the alternative to a “no build” option to show the level of improvements, we must not make it worse than doing nothing!
• The decision that the county makes about where they put industrial/commercial land will effect where the traffic is coming from/going to. Perhaps we may have folks moving within the county more in the future as opposed to commuting out of the county.
• New residential growth is occurring to the north and northeast, also in Camas/Washougal and job growth appears to be in the west. The travel demand is likely to increase east/west in the future.
• Is there any accommodation for mass transit? Any pre planning we can do? Don’t’ forget about Park n Rides. The alternative preserves the median for future possible light rail or other transit options. C-Tran’s future plans are assumed in the regional travel forecast model. There is a planned future Park n Ride at the Padden/83rd avenue interchange.
• Be careful not to paint ourselves into a corner regarding future potential of mass transit. Need to consider future land needs for stations and transit.

Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver, updated the CAC on the 112th connection. Matt stated that further work on that connection depends on the outcome of the Access Decision Report because the potential connection is considered “stage 1” of the overall concept. The CAC had several questions about schedule and when it would be possible to “move dirt.” Matt explained that the outcome of the Access Decision Report needs to go through an extensive environmental process and then engineering/design, before any dirt can be moved; this could take several years. Members of the CAC expressed concern with livability in the area now and how the community would be involved. Matt said that each phase of the alternative would be its own project and that each phase would likely have a citizen’s group and public process associated with it. For example, the 112th connection, phase 1 of the alternative, could have citizen’s group made up of representative of this CAC. Members of the CAC expressed concern about how partially completed projects would affect the livability of the area and whether or not sound walls would go up prior to construction. Brian explained that there would need to be a much greater level of design detail in order to install sound walls along the corridor prior to construction. Sound walls will not be installed along the entire corridor just based on the 112th connection project – if it moves forward. The discussion of sound walls along the corridor will be discussed as potential mitigation as part of the environmental process.

III. Status of Draft Preferred Alternative and Draft Phasing Concepts

Status

Cathy presented options to show how traffic from SR-14 can have access to Mill Plain. “Modification A” provides Mill Plain access from both east-bound and west-bound SR-14. It alleviates traffic weaves. Modification A would require new right of way, it goes into the service area behind the strip mall. CAC members pointed out that we will need to decide how Ellsworth will be improved up to a certain point. Emergency services representatives at the meeting talked about the need to allow for improved accessibility to the area. The fire station on Mill Plain will find it difficult to access accidents that occur in the area between SR-14 and Mill Plain. May need an agreement with the Oregon side to provide emergency services access to the area. Any interim work should not create significant new access problems for emergency services. May need turn-arounds or other interim access measures. Brian said that WSDOT will meet with emergency services to resolve access concerns. There needs to be more design detail to resolve some of the potential access issues – perhaps paved paths to access across lanes?

Draft Phasing Concepts

Phase 1 - 112th connection

• Helps Mill Plain situation sooner rather than later, doesn’t make the situation worse.
• Won’t resolve the weave between SR-14 traffic and Mill Plain.
• Will resolve the concentrated back up at the ramp.
• Still LOS F overall, allows for more free movement, based on corridor analysis.
• Will not resolve much for the corridor on its own.
• CAC comment – still unsure how this really helps. Concerned about if this is the only improvement that occurs, and the rest of the project doesn’t happen.

Phase 2 – South half of 18th St. Split Diamond Interchange

• Eliminates weave conflicts between Mill Plain and 18th.

Phase 3 – South of Mill Plain

• Eliminate south-bound access to SR-14, traffic entering system from 18th.
• CAC comment – potential problem to allow access from 18th to Mill Plain and then take it away.

Phase 4 – SR-500

• Add length to north-bound exit and add south-bound fly over.
• CAC Comment – are you in the right of way at that point? Yes, however we are using some of the median.

Phase 5 – North half of Split Diamond Interchange at 18th

• Attach the north half of the interchange
• CAC Comment – show additional lanes north of SR 500 also.
• Will mainline still be operating ok? Yes, braided ramps accommodate enough traffic and eliminate weaves which allows good levels of service on the mainline.
• Is it feasible to look at a fourth lane for HOV? We become constrained at the Columbia River bridge.

At this point in the discussion the CAC asked if they should take any action regarding the alternative as presented tonight. Members of the project team thought that some show of support would be helpful to convey to the Access Steering Committee and validate the work-to-date that we are on the right track. Some members of the CAC thought it was important to advocate for the alternative, not waste any time and that a “preliminary recommendation” is appropriate to recommend carrying forward further work. The CAC expressed concern that the broader public not see this as a done-deal when meeting with them over the next few months. The CAC decided to forward the following preliminary recommendations:

• Include safety access concerns expressed by emergency services in Modification A.
• Don’t allow the 18th St to Mill Plain access then take it away.
• The CAC present used the five finger approach to show full consensus, for the alternative as presented with the above concerns. Joe Gianotti abstained. The State Patrol expressed their full support for the concept.

IV.Next Steps

Jamie and Lynda David talked about ideas for bringing the concept out to the broader community, these ideas include:

• Potential open houses.
• Displays at Fred Meyer/the mall
• Updated flyer
• Updated Website

The CAC offered the following additional ideas for outreach:

• CREDC meetings
• Chamber of Commerce meetings
• Vancouver Business Journal trade show in May
• May 12 Evergreen Community Parade and Fair
• August 1, Eastridge Business Park community fair
• County Fair in August.

Close

• The meeting adjourned at 9:00pm.