Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works April 26 20051 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Safety Committee April 26, 2005 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: L. Ward Nelson None Sam Crawford Also Present: Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. PRESENTATION BY WSDOT ON POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE I -5 CORRIDOR BETWEEN FAIRHAVEN AND FERNDALE (AB2005 -190) Todd Carlson, Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) Planning and Operations Manager, submitted and read from a Power Point presentation (on file). They are expanding the direction of the work they're doing. He read through the presentation on the background of the project. Fixing an interchange usually costs around $20 million to $50 million, depending on the urban area. This money is meant to deal with the worst of the worst. Crawford stated he is disappointed with this legislative budget. He asked what DOT is going to do with a list of projects that includes roundabouts on Mt. Baker Highway. Carlson stated those are not there anymore. Neither is the roundabout at the Pole Road and Hannegan Road intersection, unfortunately. Crawford stated it was appropriate for certain legislators to vote against this transportation package. Whatcom County gets the short end of the stick. It's not DOT's fault. Carlson continued to show a map of the I -5 corridor through Bellingham. There are over a dozen interchanges from Fairhaven to Ferndale. Almost all have a problem. The interchanges are divided into three areas, but they will move all the projects forward together. The purpose is to reduce congestion. From the work they've done so far, there is no way to reduce congestion, given the expected population increase. Brenner stated they're not talking about reducing congestion. They're talking about slowing the increase in congestion. Carlson stated that is correct. Traffic is going to get worse. They used to think a lot of the congestion on the Guide Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Meridian was from truck traffic. However, they've found that only half the trucks on the Guide Meridian go as far as Smith Road. That means they are making deliveries to all the different stores there. The question is whether they can divert all those trucks. Options to improve the problem include a new interchange at Smith Road; an improved way of getting from Slater Road to Smith Road, and eventually to the Guide, via a new alignment; doing selective road widening on the Guide; making improvements to the interchange, and; widening I -5. They also looked at what to do to Hannegan Road. They even looked at the effect of widening Hannegan Road. Given all of those options, they will still have more congestion than they will have today and all of these improvements won't solve the problem. All the options are necessary in some measure to improve the circulation on the Guide. They can improve all the locations along I -5 by improving existing interchanges with a new road or selective widening on I -5. They're finished with data collection and preliminary traffic analysis. They have to look at the option of a new interchange at Smith Road, and how the traffic patterns would work. They must also look at how to rebuild the interchange at the Guide Meridian. They must also see how Bakerview operates. The Northwest Avenue interchange shouldn't be there, according to the design standard. However, it operates well by distributing traffic off the Guide Meridian and Bakerview Road. They will also look at the Sunset Drive interchange, which would be impacted by any changes to the Guide interchange. They must figure out what to do ultimately and whether the cost is more than $15 million, and how to spend that $15 million. Brenner asked if the City must contribute to the costs for the portion that is inside the city limits. Carlson stated the City is not required to contribute money. The Growth Management Act makes it clear that highways are the State's problem. Brenner stated the County just widened Smith Road. She asked if the County would be responsible for doing something the DOT needs for Smith Road. Carlson stated the question is whether the State should own the road and make it a state route if the road should be widened further. There are a lot of options to look at and issues to consider. They've talked to many business owners along the Guide. There will have to be constant communications with the neighborhoods. They are working constantly with staff from the County and City to figure out how the State highway system will fit into the community's growth. Brenner asked if the DOT is going to come up with a plan at some point and stick to it. Carlson stated they can come up with a recommendation, which can change as funding becomes available and as situations, technology, and accesses change. Any recommendation would be in a report filed with the Federal Highway Administration. If they want to build what is in the report, they could. If they want Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. to build something different, they would have to go through the process all over again. It is a decision with the Federal Highway Administration. Nelson asked if they evaluate mass transit. Carlson stated the travel, circulation, and forecasting model is the model from the Council of Governments (COG). The COG model has all the assumptions for various types of transportation. In this corridor, they won't remove a great load of traffic with biking. There are some places where bike riding and walking is a good share of the transportation mode. Nelson asked how they decide that a mass transit solution is more beneficial than road engineering. Carlson stated the model includes assumptions for that. The amount of capacity that transit can carry isn't enough to preclude the need for additional capacity, in some locations. Nelson asked if the community college, which has increased in population, has an impact. Carlson stated the forecast for the college is in the model. It's already factored in. Transit is critical in the central Puget Sound, and is becoming more so in the smaller communities like Bellingham. Brenner asked if there are interchanges closer together in the area closer to Seattle. Carlson stated there aren't many. That's okay if there is a merge lane. Tim Douglas, 2114 Williams Street, Bellingham, stated he was the mayor of Bellingham in the 1980's. At the time, there was a clear State policy about the improvement of interchanges. Local governments had to have financial reserves to get a project higher up on the priority list for the State. He asked if the State has changed its policy, or if it will be necessary in this corridor to have very active local participation to assure that any of these projects can move forward. Carlson stated the policy hasn't changed. The State prioritizes projects based on cost - benefit. The State has to find the best use of its resources for the best buy. When they talk about interchanges and freeway operations, the price tag is very high. Contributions to State projects will bring down the cost side of the cost - benefit equation. Carl Weimer, 1055 W. Laurel Road, asked the timeline of some of these projects. He asked how local government growth decisions impact these changes. Carlson stated it would take until spring or summer of next year to change the interchange concept from Highway 539 to Ferndale. The southern piece will take another couple of years. Then they must go through an environmental assessment. Then they must decide which project to do and purchase right -of -way. From today, if they are under construction by 2010, it will be fast. It takes about five years from concept to begin construction. Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner asked if the DOT has no concrete plans yet. Carlson stated it does not. That's why DOT wants to do the access analysis. They will work closely with the local jurisdictions. Brenner asked the cost of an interchange at Smith Road. Carlson stated a new interchange there will cost $20 million to $30 million. Local growth decisions are very critical to what the DOT decides. The DOT uses the transportation and land use linkage model. It's based on the growth management decisions the local jurisdictions make. Brenner asked what happens if a local jurisdiction doesn't make good planning decisions. Carlson stated the local jurisdictions make the land use decisions, not the State. The State lives with whatever decisions the County makes. They have no authority to say a decision is a good thing or bad thing. Brenner stated the Growth Management Act gives the State authority under concurrency. Carlson stated highways of statewide significance don't factor into concurrency. For instance, they can't hold freeway operation decisions over a developer who is developing a piece of property. On the other hand, on a facility that is not of statewide significance, it is up to the City and County whether it goes into the concurrency process. On the level of the Comprehensive Plan, it must all fit and work together. The level of service standards for the State highways and the County must all work together. The State can comment. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the review process works at State agencies. The State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) is the collector of comments of other agencies, and then forwards the comments. The CTED advises the Governor on whether the local plans are consistent with the GMA. A State agency has the same standing as anyone else. The coordination efforts of small towns, large towns, and urban growth areas. One town is not an island. There are system -wide impacts. Brenner asked if the State is required to upgrade the interchange at Slater Road if the County decides to build a big development. Carlson stated the Slater Road interchange is one of the best interchanges in the county. The question is whether it's better to hook up to an existing interchange by building a new road instead of building a new interchange. Nelson stated there are long waits at the Slater Road interchange. Carlson stated the DOT evaluates interchanges every two years. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MOST RECENT LUMMI ISLAND FERRY REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL (AB2005 -163A) Brenner stated the two contracts are before the Council. She asked when the council votes on the final plan. Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated he's asking the County Council to accept the current version of the 14 -year program. That will provide direction to proceed with design and grants to secure a new boat. Building the boat will be a future Council decision. He doesn't want to proceed with a design if there is no Council support to move in that direction. The Council will see an extended 14 -year plan in a few months. He will ask the Council to adopt the plan through the six -year road process. Now, accepting the plan, not adopting the plan, will indicate proceeding with design and grants. Brenner referenced comments in the Council packet. She didn't understand some of them, and asked for an interpretation. Monsen stated he doesn't disagree with anything in that document. He's not offended by the idea of an engineering solution versus another solution. Think about the ferry system and what services will be provided now and in 20 or 30 years. They are not looking for a long -term solution for everything. The question is how to start dealing with long -term service to the island. Because of the current condition of the existing boat, a new boat is part of every solution in the next 20 years. Brenner asked Mr. Monsen's expert opinion of the boat's condition. Monsen stated the boat could continue to operate for some time with maintenance and repair. There is little opportunity to stretch its use any more than its stretched. There are more and more operational problems. He recommends proceeding with a new boat. The only question is how big a boat to get now that will provide service for a longer period of time. They went through a deliberate engineering exercise to determine when the boat size becomes more costly and less productive. That level is at a 35 -car boat size. Anything larger will cost more to operate. Enhancing services over the long -term means making onshore improvements. The question is where to invest money now and where to invest it in the future. Brenner stated there have been a lot of claims for fender - benders on the ferry recently. The Council received a letter from a Lummi Island resident who said the Whatcom Chief can operate fine until the age 100. Monsen stated the maintenance and repair costs will continue to climb. Various systems on the boat need to be periodically replaced, not just repaired. Theoretically, the boat can operate another 100 years. However, repair and maintenance doesn't improve it. it simply retains it. To improve through -put, they need to begin to load two cars at a time or cars and pedestrians at the same time. They can't do that with the Whatcom Chief. There is not even a chance to improve service, even if this boat is in a good condition. Boat replacement is an element of every option long -term. They need to continue to look at other long -term scenarios. Nelson asked what will happen to the Whatcom Chief. Monsen stated the Whatcom Chief will remain in service during dry dock of the new boat. Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Nelson asked if they can use the Whatcom Chief during the peak season for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Monsen stated it is a possibility for the future. Nelson asked if the Art Anderson contract still needs to go forward. Monsen stated that if the Council is reluctant about the new boat, then step back. He recommends moving ahead with the new boat. The current vessel at peak hours takes longer than the 20- minute cycle. The current boat cycle at peak times is closer to a 22- minute cycle. The new boat will have a 27- minute cycle time, but the schedule will be every 30 minutes. Richard Frye, 2072 Granger Way, Lummi Island, stated people are leery about endorsing this plan. The proposal defines well the supply side of the problem for this one alternative. It doesn't present figures for other options or what the goal is long -term. There isn't information on assumptions about future use and growth. He is okay with approving the plan as long as the Council does not commit to this particular boat. There is a difference between benefit -cost analysis and determining if something is cost - effective. They need to talk about what the ferry means to people. He knows that the ferry captains are concerned about the design of the proposed new boat, given the kind of water on the ferry route. Brenner stated she was told a cost - benefit analysis had been done, and that this vessel was good to use in this type of water. Monsen stated the cost - benefit analysis was focused on the boat engineering, not service options. Given the average cost per user over the next ten years, this is a better scenario. It is more expensive than a smaller boat on the front end, but the cost will even out. The demand side of the scenario is a challenge. A policy decision about fare structure has a bigger impact on demand than the size of the boat. The County policy direction is that the ferry service should not drive land use directions. They are trying to have a boat that allows alternatives and doesn't artificially create limitations to capacity. Frye stated there are waiting lines that are a cost to the people. A larger boat with longer turnaround times means longer wait lines. Decide to design for peak load or average load. If they design for the average load, it won't take care of the problem. Also, the crew takes breaks during peak hours. Change the work schedule to work around that time. Do some of these analyses to figure out which boat, if any, they need. Define exactly what they're trying to do so they can compare alternatives to the objective. Monsen stated the questions are such that the decisions will still come down to a subjective preference on what to do next. The evaluation won't necessarily come up with an obvious answer. If they want to maximize how much they spend on a system, they would design solely for the peak hour, but it will create a massive system that runs empty Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. most of the time. At the same time, they can't scale back to the average because peak hours are important. They will need to invest the next major element on peak times as population grows. Now, the morning peak lasts about four hours long. With the new boat, the peak hour will shrink. There will be the same amount of waiting time over a shorter period of time. For a while, there will be an increase in use for a short time. In five to seven years, they'll be talking about how they lost all the capacity. Nelson stated there are few places to buy ferries. He asked if there is a basic ferry model. Monsen stated Whatcom County gains from the design work that Pierce County has already gone through from its boat purchase. How the boat operates in the system isn't necessarily an engineering analysis. Nelson asked if they would ever use the Whatcom Chief to alleviate the future problem of increased use. Monsen stated it is a viable alternative, but not a solution. Frye stated that given the rate of growth, the new ferry will be full at peak hours as soon as it comes on line. If that's true, then maybe the ferry is too small or maybe they have to have a two -boat solution. The worst world is one where they have to wait longer and pay more for the boat. Brenner stated the elected officials have to balance what is the most efficient for Lummi Island and what is most cost - effective. Lummi Island will never have efficient service during peak hours. Frye stated that it has to, at the very least, provide better service. Brenner stated it may not any be more efficient, but the cost over the long run may make it more efficient. The Council must to take into consideration the fact that it is costing the County more and more for repair and replacement. Art Thomas, 2620 Islandview, Lummi Island, stated he supports the process. The islanders will be up in arms if the County doesn't do something about long- term planning of the transportation system. The plan needs to encompass parking along with ferry capacity to achieve peak time use. It should be included in the level of service. Al Marshall, West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated he is concerned that the Lummi Nation lease for the dock expires in 2010. He doesn't believe a new lease has been pinned down. The Whatcom Chief has limitations so that it wouldn't be able to run into Bellingham. The ferry design should take into account where it's going. Don't go ahead with a design not knowing where the ferry will go. They may end up with a ferry that is not appropriate. Monsen stated that in the last three months, they have made progress with the Lummi Nation. There is a joint venture to build a new Gooseberry Point dock as part of the redevelopment of Gooseberry Point. They have federal funding for a feasibility study. The Tribe may Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. receive federal funds for the dock. As long as they are moving forward, the lease expiration is not an issue. The ability to continue the lease is not going to be an issue. That is a new change, endorsed by the new Tribal Council. Marshall stated the building moratorium in the Lake Whatcom watershed hasn't been pleasant for the County Council. As growth progress in Lummi Island, the residents of Lummi Island will also have serious water issues. When the County increases the capacity of roads, traffic picks up. It may promote growth on Lummi Island until they must have a moratorium. The Whatcom Chief is billed as a 16 -car ferry, but it normally carries 20 cars. He asked the true capacity of a 35 -car ferry. Monsen stated a 20 -car vessel compares with a 35 -car vessel. Fred Kinney, 4164 Legoe Bay, stated he supports the proposed 14 -year plan for the ferry. Accept the plan so they can move forward with financing applications. The peak capacity of the present ferry is 50 cars per hour, with five trips every two hours. The proposed new ferry will carry 70 cars per hours, with four trips every two hours. It is a 40 percent increase in the number of vehicles that can move on or off the island. There is potential for future double -lane loading to increase peak capacity when needed, allowing a 35- vehicle ferry to make five trips in two hours. That is a gain of 75 percent in peak capacity. Increasing the rate at which vehicles can move on or off the island is the key to reducing wait times. Because of narrow lanes and tight loading conditions, emergency situations will result in people being trapped inside their vehicles with no access to the life vests stored inside the cabin of the Whatcom Chief. The result would be tragic. Approve the plan to move forward with a ferry that better serves their needs and is safer. Craig Smith, 2522 Taft Drive, Lummi Island, stated the Lummi Island Transportation Committee recently had a unanimous vote of most of the committee members to ask the Council to support Mr. Monsen. Safety issues regarding the existing boat are very concerning. Many times one cannot get out of his or her car on the ferry. That is a safety issue if there were a fire. They need a new boat to take care of that problem. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Safety Committee, 4/26/2005, Page 9