ELSP Project April 6 Comment Summary

Mandy Putney

Description

East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project Public Comments Summary To date, the project team has received 35 comments about the East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project. These comments have been submitted by members of the public at the April 6 Open House (comment forms and on flip charts), by mail, and electronically. The comments indicate that residents are concerned about safety and interested in improving traffic flow and road alignment. Comments about bike lanes, environmental issues, and construction-related impacts have also been received. The comments are categorized below according to the manner they were submitted. All comments received as of April 28, 2005 were transcribed and are included in this document. Public Comments Received at the April 6, 2005 Open House 20 comment forms were returned during the April 6 Open House, out of approximately 85 attendees. In addition, approximately 20 people signed up to attend the Design Charrette in June. Participant Identifications Property owner - 14 Commuter - 6 Interested citizen - 6 Cyclist - 4 Pedestrian - 4 * some respondents did not choose any of the above categories, while others selected multiple categories. General Themes from Comment Forms Amenities to Include in Project • 4 requests for landscaping. th• 5 comments about crosswalks (at Inglewood and also at NE 16 ) • 4 comments about safety for bicycles and pedestrians—various ideas • 6 comments about road ...

Informations

• Publié par: Arga
• Nombre de lectures: 38
• Langue: English

Extrait

East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project Public Comments      Summary To date, the project team has received 35 comments about the East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project. These comments have been submitted by members of the public at the April 6 Open House (comment forms and on flip charts), by mail, and electronically.   The comments indicate that residents are concerned about safety and interested in improving traffic flow and road alignment. Comments about bike lanes, environmental issues, and construction-related impacts have also been received.   The comments are categorized below according to the manner they were submitted. All comments received as of April 28, 2005 were transcribed and are included in this document.     Public Comments Received at the April 6, 2005 Open House     20 comment forms were returned during the April 6 Open House, out of approximately 85 attendees. In addition, approximately 20 people signed up to attend the Design Charrette in June.   Participant Identifications Property owner - 14 Commuter - 6 Interested citizen - 6 Cyclist - 4 Pedestrian - 4 * some respondents did not choose any of the above categories, while others selected multiple categories.   General Themes from Comment Forms   Amenities to Include in Project • 4 requests for landscaping. • 5 comments about crosswalks (at Inglewood and also at NE 16 th ) • 4 comments about safety for bicycles and pedestrians—various ideas • 6 comments about road configuration: center turn lanes or traffic circles; straightening the road at NE 16 th  to eliminate blind spot; make it more like a local street than a highway; don’t add any more street lights. • 2 comments about adding noise barriers of some kind. • 1 request to underground the utilities. • 1 request to relocate the deer. • 1 comment to not do this project because it is not the high growth area and not a good use of transportation dollars.   East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    1 4/28/05

Most Important Issue to Address • 12 comments about improving traffic flow and reducing congestion. Concerns about where the bottlenecks will exist anyway. • 7 comments about safety—for cars, driveway access, side streets, and bicycles. • 1 suggestion that the road remain 35 mph.   Environmental Concerns • 4 comments about wildlife, with 3 noting that deer are a hazard. Maybe plant vegetation that deer don’t like. One other was concerned for wildlife. • 3 comments about water and drainage—concerns about safety with water and ice on the roadway. • 2 comments about plants: 1 said cut as many trees as possible; one was concerned with plant life. • 1 comment about decreased air quality due to increase in traffic speeds and removal of plat land. • 1 concern that this project will use up all the funding and not get anything done.   General Concerns about the Project • 7 comments about traffic: 2 concerns about construction traffic; 1 about speeds along ELSP; 1 general traffic impact statement; 1 question about whether construction would occur during peak hours; 1 statement about not wanting this relaxing 35 mph drive to be turned into a freeway; and 1 comment suggesting 10’ lanes to slow down traffic and potentially roundabouts to slow traffic and discourage “Issaquah/Redmond” traffic. • 6 comments about vision/purpose of project: 2 requests for 4-lanes so the project looks to the future; 1 question about looking at other options; 1 wishing this project could move faster; 1 wondering about timing of the project with SR 202 construction—do we have to wait; and 1 stating they like this idea.  • 4 comments about safety: straightening out the road—limited sight distance at NE 16th; pedestrian crossings; wildlife crossings; school bus stops; and ingress/egress from ELSP. • 4 comments about Right-of-Way: 1 suggesting that both sides of the road share in the property needs; 1 concern about amount of ROW needed; 1 concern about access to houses on the lake side; and 1 concern about grade changes next to driveways. • 2 comments about noise. • 2 questions about parking and access to the King County Trail: Where will access be? Where will cars park? Where will pedestrians cross? • 1 comment about providing traffic and projected growth numbers at the Charrette so the discussion will be based in reality. Need to know projected housing numbers for this area.   Additional Questions/Comments • 3 varied comments: 1 suggesting that ELSP is too long a name; 1 requesting that any cost overruns come from those who approved the project; and 1 suggesti t n h g that the project be delayed until Redmond-Fall City improvements and 244 improvements are completed to assess traffic flow changes.    East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    2 4/28/05

  What kind of public amenities would you like the City to include as part of this project (e.g., landscaping, street trees, crosswalks, etc.)? Please be as specific as possible, including location.   ƒ Street trees – noise levels.   ƒ Please do not add any more stoplights along ELSP!   ƒ Crosswalks, sidewalks. Just north of NE 16 th  where road is straight for better view.   ƒ Let’s open the railbed and move cycle pedestrian traffic to a safe location.   ƒ It’s important to maintain good right of way for bicycles. Not many people will want to walk next to the traffic – perhaps the pedestrians can be shunted to the trail.   ƒ Relocate the deer!   ƒ Separate bike lane (or finish the trail)   ƒ Left turn lane to/from NE 16 th  or traffic circle at NE 16 th     ƒ Straighten the road between Inglewood Hill/NE 16 th  (people always cut the corner and drive onto the shoulder, causing danger to pedestrians)   ƒ Crosswalk near NE 16 th  St.   ƒ Center turn lane from Inglewood Hill Rd. to NE 19 th  Pl.   ƒ Crosswalk at 187 th  Ave.   ƒ Landscaping along the lake side.   ƒ Control noise level   ƒ Noise barriers – measure noise levels before and after – ensure we keep it at same level.   ƒ Landscaping, parking, clearing power lines   ƒ Lit crosswalks and access point to trail   ƒ If you are adding curb and cutter, please consider cyclists by minimizing storm grates and manholes in cyclists’ 5-foot lane (i.e., expand lane width as needed) AND increase street sweeping of materials that pile up along curb.   ƒ Don’t do this project. It will spend tons of money, for the least possible improvement. It will destroy many bordering homes’ quality of life. This corridor is East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    3 4/28/05

not where growth will occur. It’s the least effective way to spend transportation  .$$   ƒ Make ELSP look like a neighborhood street and not like a highway (which it does now).   ƒ Either a turn lane at NE 16 th  or a roundabout. I live on the lake side of the road, at 1621 ELSP and it is extremely difficult to get in/out of driveway.   ƒ Flashing lights across crosswalk at Inglewood Hill Rd. and ELSP. Longer crossing time for families, small children elderly, strollers, along the parkway at trail access points. Wide, well-marked bike lanes.   ƒ Underground utilities; please put pressure on utility companies. It is probably cheaper short term to move above ground, but better long term to move underground.   ƒ Landscaping.     What do you think is the most important issue for this project to address?   ƒ Impact to traffic – avoid problems of Redmond -Fall City Rd. – traffic terrible there.   ƒ Sequencing of activities.   ƒ Congestion and flow (compatible with resident safety)   ƒ Implement design that will allow speed limit to stay at 35 m.p.h.   ƒ Travel time to Redmond – a five-minute trip now takes 20-45 minutes.   ƒ Safety   ƒ NE 16 th  St access, north and south and pulling out of my street without getting killed by cars coming 60 m.p.h. around the curve coming north.   ƒ Safe flow of vehicle traffic. Safe ingress/egress from side streets (NE 16 th )   ƒ No reason to increase traffic flow with four lanes, because Redmond will remain a bottleneck. We do need a center turn lane that will allow us to get on the Parkway safely.   ƒ Traffic congestion; thought needs to be given to the increasing number of new houses being built on ELSP which will increase congestion.   ƒ Through traffic, discouraging through traffic, speed   ƒ Cyclist safety   East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    4 4/28/05

ƒ Hwy 202 is the lynch pin to any traffic improvement for the north end of the plateau.   ƒ A flow of traffic that is faster.   ƒ Not negatively impacting those who live off of ELSP by making ELSP a thoroughfare.   ƒ Backed up traffic, often all the way from Inglewood Hill Rd. to Redmond-Fall City  .dR   ƒ Capacity and safety. And 1 reversible lane for peak am and pm commuting traffic. Straighten out Inglewood Hill Rd and ELSP intersection to reduce accidents and increase visibility! Add left turn lanes where significant number of homes exist.   ƒ Traffic and access for homeowners along parkway.       Do you have information or concerns about environmental resources in the project area (e.g., water quality, flooding, plants and animals, wetlands, air quality, etc.)?   ƒ Concern of noise levels   ƒ This has always been a primary roadway in our region as a result of the topography.   ƒ Get rid of the deer   ƒ No. Cut all the trees you can! BTW: we need to educate drivers to drive in traffic circles.   ƒ Yes, it takes up all the funding and we don’t get anything done.    oN ƒ   ƒ Deer – please consider deer crossing when assessing median, sight distance, and vegetation (make vegetation anti-deer)   ƒ Drainage – drainage runs onto the road, washes sand and rock onto road, and occasionally freezes. This is a hazard to cyclists.   ƒ All of those. Particularly plants, wildlife, flooding and water quality. Decreased air quality due to removal of plats and increase in speeds.   ƒ I’m sure all these issues will be addressed.   East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    5 4/28/05

ƒ Water flows down Inglewood Hill Rd. – increased hazard to traffic – wetter – black ice in winter. Deer and other animals cross near Inglewood Hill Rd. to get down to the lake.     Do you have any concerns about the project?     ƒ Want to know traffic numbers at the Charrette and other types of data so the discussion includes some reality. Projected traffic volumes and projected housing growth in the area.   ƒ Short-sighted government plans for the present. Vision looks to the future. Four lanes – please.   ƒ Concern of noise levels – ensure proper noise barrier.   ƒ Both sides of road should share in adding a new lane – land taken equally.   ƒ Traffic impact.   ƒ Are there better ways to control situation? I.e. would restriction of ‘through’ traffic (Issaquah – Redmond) be a cheaper and more acceptable option? My experience is that many of the speed and congestion issues are not due to Sammamish residents.   ƒ Concerned that it is not implemented (work done) before 202 work is complete. Traffic increased on ELSP during 202 construction and could not support ELSP work at same time.   ƒ I believe we are being short sighted in creating this kind of disruption to revisit single lane traffic. We should absolutely have four lanes and recognize this is the primary highway through this city no matter how it is, or is not developed.   ƒ Slow down the traffic coming down Inglewood Hill and along ELSP. Put in a round-about at Inglew t o h od Hill and ELS and speed bumps – slow traffic!!! Also a left turn land at NE 16 and ELSP. Slow Down!!! Straighten out the curve near  NE 16 th !!!   ƒ Yes! I am concerned about the period of performance. Can work be curbed during peak traffic hours?   ƒ What is the plan for parking and the trail? I am concerned that we will end up with a great trail resource, but people will be parking in all the neighborhoods or along the Parkway.   ƒ Traffic during construction.   ƒ No, I think it’s a good idea. I would really like the project team to consider 10- foot lanes to slow traffic down, also would you consider roundabouts to slow traffic down and discourage “Issaquah/Redmond” through traffic?   East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    6 4/28/05

  ƒ Too many to list. Number of driveways. Change in grade of adjacent property driveways. Noise. Turning a relaxing drive at 35 mph into a freeway. People can’t cross safely to get mail or to beach or trail. Wildlife crossings. School bus stops.   ƒ The project needing additional property and taking some of my property, which I’m hopeful to short plat once the moratorium is lifted.   ƒ The ability to safely and quickly enter onto ELSP from NE 16 th . This becomes a concern if a center turn lane is added to ELSP. And the combination of the speed and limited sight distance south of NE 16 th  St.   ƒ Planning schedule does take time! Too bad, we need changes now.   ƒ Traffic gridlock on ELSP while under construction. Do not begin project until Redmond- Fall City improvements to Gray Barn are completed and Redmond Fall City/Inglewood Hill Rd. intersection is completed. Increasing capacity should be primary concern, not bike lanes and trees. Safety should be second concern!   ƒ KC trail. Where will access be? Where will pedestrians cross? Where will the cars park?   ƒ Driveway access to houses on the lake below the parkway.     Do you have any additional questions, comments, suggestions, or concerns? (Attach additional pages, as needed.)   ƒ Think about changing the name of ELSP, it is too long!   ƒ I would like to see any cost overruns on this project come directly out of the assets of those foolish enough to approve it.   ƒ Spend money wisely – increase capacity and traffic f t l h ow. Delay project until impact of Redmond-Fall City improvements and 244 improvements are  completed to assess traffic flow changes.     Comments and Questions Captured on Flip Charts   Alternate approaches ƒ No improvements o Fix 202/lights (overall and at intersections) o Speed enforcement   ƒ Identify source of traffic – 228 th  – fix first? ƒ Alternate approach: use funds on 228 th  to reduce vehicles on ELSP, then come back to ELSP with enhancement elements. General ƒ Proposed project grade/driveway issues East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    7 4/28/05

        ƒ Add roundabout   ƒ Speed/radar sign   ƒ Crosswalks – needed   ƒ Approximately 17 driveways from Inglewood to Redmond Rd. ƒ Maintain rural road.   ƒ Sound deaden pavement   ƒ Accidents – rear end – going off road   ƒ Capacity/safety overall fix East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    8 4/28/05

                  Parking ƒ Parking for guests, when snowing ƒ Winter conditions – spacing   ƒ Parking near Inglewood intersection and u-turn activity south of Inglewood Turn options ƒ Two-way left-turn lane will make it easier to pass   ƒ If considering left turn lanes, why not a reversible lane at peak hours?   ƒ Center lane for turning at 16 th /18 th  Pl. NE   ƒ Right turn/left turn – visibility issues     Trail ƒ Trail will create additional pedestrians and conflicts   ƒ Don’t want parking for the trail at south end, neighborhoods, or on the roadway. Construction ƒ Avoid/minimize impacts to residents during construction   ƒ Noise levels during construction and from finished project – how to address and avoid impacts to neighborhoods and homes Environmental Comments ƒ Steep driveways   ƒ Stream under bridge runs all year   ƒ Stormwater is a major issues; drainage ditches adjacent to roadway are always  lluf   ƒ Stormwater problems from hillside development (catch basins plugging)   ƒ Historical 22’ culverts – blocked?   ƒ 5+ drain pipes from PCTU – 44”   ƒ Proposed project impact to wildlife ƒ Eagles (5?) in the area/ nearby trees, maybe osprey ƒ Deer   East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    9 4/28/05

      ƒ Deer population decline Questions ƒ How many accidents have there been?   ƒ What about improving Sahalee instead?   ƒ How can you create gaps for people turning left onto the Parkway? ƒ Why are we spending $1/2 million on signalization of the Thompson Hill Road and Parkway intersection?   ƒ Why bike lanes when trail is adjacent to the roadway?   ƒ Does the project include undergrounding of utilities?   ƒ During construction how will you accommodate traffic, joggers, and bicyclist?   ƒ Where will the trail parking be located?   ƒ What will the construction sequence be?   ƒ What will the effect of the Redmond/Fall City Road project be on Sammamish and ELSP?   East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments   01  4/28/05

  Public Comments Received 4/7/05 – 4/20/05   The project team received four comment forms and eleven emails after the Open House.   Comment Forms received by mail   Participant Identifications Property owner - 2 Interested Citizen - 0 Commuter - 2 Pedestrian - 0 Cyclist – 1   * some respondents did not choose any of the above categories, while others selected multiple categories.   What kid of public amenities would you like the City to include as part of this project (e.g., landscaping, street trees, crosswalks, etc)? Please be as specific as possible, including location.   ƒ Crosswalks, electric speed detectors have helped to slow down traffic. More Caution signs for wildlife crossings. NO SIDEWALKS – you can put in raised curbs to protect the bike riders on the bike trail that is already there.   ƒ No sidewalks. Look at what Redmond did on West Lake Sammamish.   ƒ It currently looks fine the way it is. If changes are to be made, please bury the utility lines.   ƒ Leave it natural and pristine – do not proceed with a project. Save tax payers money by lowering speed limit to 30 m.p.h. for safety, add crosswalks and additional radar/speed monitoring signs.     What do you think is the most important issue for this project to address?   ƒ To direct traffic to 228 th  for north to south traffic. If the city center is there so should the larger roads traveling north to south.   ƒ Traffic flow and bicycle use – Safety   ƒ Traffic congestion near ELSP and SR 202.   ƒ Get cars off the parkway by providing park & ride/public transportation to the plateau via 228 th  – the natural traffic corridor.     East Lake Sammamish Parkway Project April Public Comments    11 4/28/05