Tetra Tech Engineering recommended for rail crossings alternative analysis

821
3

The advisory task force appointed by Mayor Dave Earling to review options for at-grade rail crossings alternatives on the Edmonds waterfront has recommended that Tetra Tech Engineering be hired to conduct an analysis of crossing alternatives. The analysis would address safety and traffic concerns caused by increasing train volumes blocking railroad crossings at Dayton and Main streets.

Tetra Tech was selected from a group of five highly qualified companies that submitted proposals to the City. The firm, which has 13,000 employees, is a multi-disciplinary technical organization with three major offices in Washington state. The project manager  will be Rick Shaefer, who has been an Edmonds resident for more than 32 years. Tetra Tech has partnered with Parametrix, Inc., Enviroissues, Walker Macy, and J.L. Patterson to complete this analysis.

“Tetra Tech presented Edmonds with a highly experienced team from top to bottom,” said Edmonds City Councilmember Mike Nelson, co-chair of the task force. “I especially liked their creative ideas and techniques for involving the public in this process.”

A total of $690,000 has been contributed to the Alternatives Analysis study by the Washington State Legislature, the City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, Sound Transit and Community Transit. The study aims to determine the best feasible alternatives to the two at-grade railroad crossings at Dayton and Main Streets, which are currently blocked by 35-40 trains each day along the city’s waterfront and could eventually be blocked by up to 100 trains a day by 2030.

“We have worked for several years to assemble funding to complete this important work,” Earling said. “It’s exciting to be at a point where we can move forward and develop solutions to this important public safety issue.”

The next step in this process will be a public meeting and comment period to give Edmonds citizens an opportunity to suggest new ideas or variations on older ideas for addressing rail crossing issues. Details for a community meeting planned for November will be provided by Oct. 15. For more information, contact Bertrand Hauss, the City’s Transportation Engineer, at Bertrand.hauss@edmondswa.gov, or at 425-771-0220.

3 COMMENTS

  1. I certainly hope those reviewing the track crossing situation remember the old bridge over the tracks that connected Union Oil’s pier to the property on the other side of the track. I believe it was torn down when the city purchased the beach property for a park. Union Oil certainly must have had an easement for this bridge. They had used it for their pipes pumping product of of the tankers at the pier. The easement may be general enough to allow it to be used for vehicular traffic and a new bridge utilizing this old easement certainly appears to be a less costly approach than the what we have seen proposed so far.

  2. Union Oil of California is a defuct organisation dba Unocal. This was a subsidiary of Chevron.

    “Since January 2005, Unocal has been in escrow with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for sale of the Lower Yard portion of the former Unocal terminal. The State of Washington and City of Edmonds have proposed creating a multi-modal transportation hub to be called Edmonds Crossing on the property.”

    Chevron Environmental Management Company

    The upper portion was sold, hence the hill of condos……..Point Edwards

    As our Mayor is mixed in with everything TRANSPORTATION in the state of Washington and wherever for quite some time, along with all his friends and those considered stakeholders, I find it a stretch that no one (citizens) knew this was for sale, but mainly it has not been shared with all citizens of Edmonds. I’ m sure everyone involved in planning and development, construction, etc. are totally aware of this history and what can happen here and does happen.

    It appears to me that it is just about people making money over and over here…….The existing ferry terminal is not even that old…….How much $$$$ was spent on that, how few years ago?

    And most important of all, it is not new news regarding Mr. Buffett and how much business he will have going through here….this has been known for some time and obviously our Mayor would have been well aware. So I say what kind of planning is this, spending over and over. Again, the existing terminal is not that old.

    This type of tear down philosophy planning is ruining our environment and spending wastefull huge sums of taxpayer $$$$$ to give to the select few, developers, real estate, construction, bankers, etc……..with the bulldozer forever running

    It does not take a rocket scientist to see the select few that benefit monetarily over and over.

    also, if the lower portion of the Chevron property had been SOLD, we could have had condos there? huge development?……without anybody knowing a thing……kind of like our beach being offered up for BNSF to buy which was new news to me and shamefull to me as I walk it every day……..I call these backroom deals, when the citizens are not made aware or have not an inkling of what goes on behind closed doors.

    Yes, smoke filled rooms come to mind

    For our Mayor to offer up a portion of our beach to somebody, did the citizens request this?…….those same citizens that dont want any tall buildings?

    Transparency. I believe our Mayor needs to respond to the lack of transparency. Our Attorney General and and our Federal government has called for transparency over and over because it creates trust!

    Trust

    don’t bother with the chorus line….denigrating me does not change the facts

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here