A proposed amendment to the WSU Forest development agreement is returning to committee after raising concerns at the March 19 City Council workshop.
The amendment allowing for an additional traffic signal on state Route 410 would also reverse language in the agreement that allowed it to pass in 2009.
As the city of Bonney Lake looks at attracting commercial and medical development to its 40 acres of the Washington State University forest, it plans to extend the section of 204th Avenue East south of state Route 410 to connect to the highway by 2015. An analysis of the project by the Seattle firm, Transportation Engineering NorthWest, indicated 410 traffic flow — though slower overall with the new arterial — would be better guided by a traffic signal than by an unsignaled right-turn-in/right-turn-out system adjacent to the highway’s eastbound lane.
However, to lobby the state Department of Transportation for a signal installation, the council would need to amend the original WSU development agreement; the language of which expressly prohibits a traffic signal at the future arterial.
The original agreement — which gave the city control of 47.4 acres of the forest — passed 6-1 on Dec. 22, 2009, but only after initially failing by a 4-3 vote. The council recessed and returned a half-hour later to add the signal prohibition before a revote.
“It was going to fail (without the prohibition),” Mayor Neil Johnson said.
But now, more than three years later, the prospect of no traffic signal is proving a deterrent for large retailers, Johnson said.
“We’ve met with commercial interests who were saying — retailers like Kohl’s — who were saying they couldn’t exist here if they have right-in-right-out only on the highway,” Johnson said.
When the amendment was presented at the March 19 workshop, Deputy Mayor Dan Swatman expressed trepidation over nullifying the one thing that ultimately allowed the agreement to pass. In 2009, he was one of the initial four “no” votes on the agreement. Swatman told the council March 19 that while he didn’t disagree with a traffic signal in principle, he disagreed with the contradiction to the 2009 vote and urged them to consider all the alternatives before deciding on a signal.
“(A signal) was unacceptable to the council at that time and me at this time,” Swatman said in an interview Friday. “What you can’t say is, ‘I can pass this whole package now, and come back X number of years later and change this part I didn’t like.’ The whole agreement might have been back to the drawing board in that case. The city got 40-something acres under the current deal; if we had gotten everyone on board for a traffic signal, I don’t know, we might have gotten 50.”
In the workshop, Swatman challenged the notion, presented by Councilman Jim Rackley, that a light was necessary for attracting development from large retailers; as an example, he pointed to South Hill’s Costco, which uses separate in and out lanes in lieu of traffic signals.
The other three “no” votes to the original 2009 deal — David Bowen, Laurie Carter and Dan Decker — observed the workshop from the audience as private citizens. Only two of three 2009 “yes” votes — Councilmen Mark Hamilton and Rackley — remain. If the three remaining members of the 2009 council hold fast to their opinions four years out, that leaves four votes up in the air if the amendment is ever brought to a regular meeting; three “no”s or two “yes”s would be needed for the amendment to be struck down or passed, respectively.
However, the workshop discussion was halted by the engineering argument, presented in the council’s study materials and mentioned again by Rackley, that a signal would speed traffic flow on 410. The puzzlement on that point prompted the return to committee, so that traffic engineers could be brought before council to explain the point.
For his part, Hamilton said he thought the only way to truly improve 410 flow would be by widening lanes.
In the analysis summary provided by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, travel speeds on the highway from Eastown to downtown were measured in both directions, then estimated to account for the 204th Avenue East arterial both with and without a signal. Present speeds were measured as 231 seconds eastbound and 196 seconds westbound. With the arterial and no signal, travel times were estimated to increase to 458 seconds eastbound and 275 seconds westbound. With the arterial and signal, travel times were estimated to gravitate toward the middle: 346 seconds eastbound and 253 seconds westbound, essentially an addition of one to two minutes to the original travel time. Likewise, arterial level of service — a qualitative letter rating for determining effective traffic flow off side roads — was determined to deteriorate with the new arterial road no matter what, but less so with a traffic signal.
Michael Read, the public engineer who prepared the analysis summary, was on leave and unavailable for comment on how travel time estimates were calculated.
Swatman believed the specific argument from traffic flow was beside the point, he said.
“Right now the focus is on this one specific issue of traffic flow,” Swatman said Friday. “The people who are for a signal are saying, ‘Now let’s prove to the other council members that traffic flow will be improved,’ and they’ll bring in very smart people who will explain the improved flow that will come with a light, instead of trying to figure out another alternative.”
Swatman said in the workshop, he was “disturbed” that city resources were being used to work against a decision made by council. Johnson responded he had used his own time.
“As mayor, it’s my job to bring items before council for consideration,” Johnson said. “I’m going to bring it forward (whether) the majority doesn’t like it, or the minority doesn’t like it.”
Johnson said Friday he was not sure when the issue would be brought back before the Community Development Committee, but added that it could be a long process before the proposal returned to council.
