The Puget Sound Regional Council announced Thursday it has approved nearly $2.5 million in funding for two projects in Edmonds — nearly $2 million for the Five Corners Roundabout and a half-million dollars for a street overlay on 5th Avenue South from Elm Way to Walnut Street.
The projects were recommended for funding in September and approved by the council’s executive board following a public comment period.
The PSRC is a regional planning agency with specific responsibilities under federal and state law for transportation planning, economic development and growth management. It helps local governments and transportation agencies address issues that go beyond the boundaries of any individual city or county. The agency’s budget and work program is funded by a combination of federal and state grants, as well as dues paid by PSRC members and from other local sources.
The $1,936,500 for the Five Corners Roundabout is in addition to a $463,000 FHWA Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant already received for the roundabout and right-of-way acquisition.
The two Edmonds projects are among more than $7.9 billion in transportation projects that will move forward in the central Puget Sound region, following Thursday’s action by the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Executive Board to approve the 2013-2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program provides a list of current transportation projects in all four counties of the region – King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish. These projects are funded with federal, state and local funds, including recent federal grants awarded through PSRC.
“Securing federal transportation funding for communities in the region is one of the key roles of the Puget Sound Regional Council,” said Commissioner Josh Brown, PSRC President. “These projects are advancing a better system that gets people and goods where they need to go, provides transportation choices, and helps grow jobs in the region.”
To find out more, visit PSRC’s online Project Map, which makes it easy to zoom in and see projects planned in different parts of the region.
The Transportation Improvement Program is required under federal and state laws, and helps to ensure that transportation projects are meeting regional policies and federal and state requirements such as those under the Clean Air Act.
I am disgusted that we will be spending all this money on something not needed. I have lived here at fivedon’t for fourteen years. This is going to clog up traffic and be a huge expensive mess.five corners is peaceful and quiet as it is. Quit trying to build anothe rLynnwood!
What a waste of money! leave 5 corners the way it is, no change is needed it works just fine.
Find another area either here or in another town, I’m sure there is a far greater need with regards to safety somewhere other than 5 corners in Edmonds!
Could we please have someone who believes this is an important step for safety or otherwise – tell us 3 good reasons why we should spend this much money for something so many people feel should be considered elsewhere?
I have lived near 5 corners for considerably longer than 14 years so I feel at best some qualified to comment on the traffic at 5 corners. What about 3 good reasons not to have a roundabout other than 5 corners is peaceful and quiet. A visit to the area at rush hour / ferry time would certainly debunk that myth. There is considerable traffic back up on 4 of the 5 streets, people charge through the intersection whether it is their turn or not, indecision, delays all of which create a hazardous environment. I am not qualified to say this is the best use of the money but it will certainly help the situation
Points of reference:
These are all WSDOT provided resources.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/BasicFacts.htm
https://youtu.be/vsCoI7lERGE
Those of us that realize that the country is borrowing trillions of dollars from China et al., and paying a horrendous interest, just do not get it! It is so sad, disheartening and an obvious sign that those who promote this project do not have their priorities in order. A few minutes spent at rush hour to get through the inner section is no reason to spend $2.5 million for a traffic circle! Apparently, this is a hard concept to grasp.
Obviously five corners at 5PM is Armageddon! If people have to wait in line to get through the intersection for more than 60 seconds, it is a massive problem, and it is an obvious reason to spend millions of dollars to fix it. I’m sure that this will help with congestion in this area, but is it needed?
Bette,
2.5 million is not for the traffic circle “nearly $2 million for the Five Corners Roundabou…”
Quoted from above. Is “a half-million dollars for a street overlay on 5th Avenue South from Elm Way to Walnut Street.” worth it?
I don’t live in the area but have been through it. I don’t see a problem there. I do, however, see a problem with the amount of money to be spent on a project that is not needed nor is it wanted by the majority in that area. Forget that the money is coming from the government – that means OUR pockets, doesn’t it? I cannot believe that our mayor and council plan to continue with this project against the will of the majority of the people while we have a bad economy, have to balance the budget which they inform us is drastic. A better use for the money and grants?
How about that idea of an underpass on Main to avoid the trains? The money could be applied to that project. It is much needed, if only for emergency vehicles! That area is only going to get worse, especially with the so-called improvements to Harbor Square. I don’t even want to go to that subject any more! I know my arguments against that are a lost cause.
I think we all need to rethink who we will vote into the offices of mayor and city council in the future! They don’t seem to listen to the citizens they are supposed to be serving.
A vast majority oppose the roundabout because it is not needed. City council approved the project becuse most of the money for it is coming from grants. Their rationale was that if Edmonds doesn’t take this borrowed money some other community will. My view was, and continues to be, that we should start an example by not taking the money.
The roundabout has been authorized by city council; the mayor doesn’t have that authority.
The 5th Ave. paving is a real need as the area being redone is a mass of patches resulting from sewer work.
This intersection is complicated due to there being 5 streets that go through it. Those of you that have never tried to traverse it during high traffic volume times need to try it. Especially from Bowdoin Way. There have been many times that the drivers from Main Street and 84th have failed to see the cars on Bowdoin and have cut them off. They see 84th or Main, but not Bowdoin. There have been more than a few incidents of “road rage” there because of this.
Not having to stop there and just yield would certainly speed up going through the intersection. This is a large intersection so visibility should be very good and safe.
If you wanted to eliminate a circle, I’d suggest the fountain at Main and 5th where it is common to see people going the wrong way around it, not yielding to pedestrians, and not yielding to drivers that have the legal right of way (drivers on the right). Don’t believe it, go sit in Starbucks and watch for a little while. A lot of the drivers going through there seem to think that right of way is determined by who gets into the intersection first.
I think the roundabout plans are ridiculous also. The money spent is outrageous seeing that most people in the area don’t want it. Who voted for this? They won’t get my vote next time!
The City has done a very good job of applying for an getting grants for thing that we do not have the budget money to do on our own. The link below shows about $15m in projects that if we were asked to pay for them ourselves would cost the average homeowner about $900.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2012/10/map-illustrates-widespread-impact-of-grant-funding-on-city-of-edmonds-projects/
Many of these grants have specific objectives associated with the dollars, the dollars cannot be shifted at a whim, them must be used to work toward the goal.
So applying for grants is a way to get some of our money back to do local projects. The current govt systems is what it is and standing on a set of principles that says we should not apply for these grants would simply put the money in other communities. At this point getting our share is the name of the game. These moneys are ours that have been sent to the state or federal govts. I have not heard anyone in this election say they plan to cut our taxes and stop creating programs like the ones that fund the list shown. If that is what we want then we should find candidates willing to work for such a new business model but it is unlikely one will come along anytime soon.
I would rather keep the $900 to begin with and then make the decision of what we fund or don’t fund locally but that is not likely to be case in the short run. So with the current system I applaud the city for securing the $15m of grants and at least doing somethings with it that avoid a $900 tax to do the same projects.
Darrol:
I don’t believe that anyone has objected to applying for grants for worthwhile projects. The objections have been focused on the $2.4 million in grants received for a roundabout that is widely believed to be unneeded. The reality is that citizens have no savings in taxes, because it is obvious that citizens would not have voted themselves a tax increase to pay for a project they deem to be not needed.
If we could each rank the 13 projects on the grants list it is likely the opinions would very widely. We have lighting, a trail, some main street changes, and traffic flow all on the list and more. If the public were allowed to vote a tax for each on their own merits it is had to say which would gain a majority vote. During the public discussion of 5 corners project lead by the UW the majority seems to favor the round about when they were briefed on all the issues. So is the oppositing just a vocal minority like the opposition to many things in Edmonds? I don’t know but the job of council is to make the judgement on grants and they have voted for these 13 on more than one occasion. I would rank the round about much higher than some of the others on the list but I also supported a levy to do street overlays even when some on council actively campaigned against fixing our streets. As long as our process is that we can get grant money for infrastruct projects then I would support using this funding method to bring home some of our tax dollars that we already paid.
I applaud our city leaders for “taking the money” for the vision it represents to improve the citywide infrastructure for years to come. The roundabout helps establish a neighborhood identity for businesses and future commerce in that location. The transportation plan also calls for improvements for 84th Ave which will eventually connect with the new crossing at Hwy 99. Infrastructure takes decades to develop. Those of us offering our opinions here may never see the full benefit of this single project. I believe the roundabout will be an improvement that the city can build upon.
If you look on page 181 of the proosed budget, where capital projects are listed and look at the 11th line you will see
212th SW @ 84th Ave (Five Corners) Roundabout
2012 estimated expenditures $216,900
2013 budget $3,134,200
I know I am often accused of not knowing the facts by certain council members but please tell me how that makes the project a $2.5 million project?
I am just reading the report, but it doesn’t add up to me.
I am not commenting about the merits of the project one way or another, just asking about the math.
Harry:
An excellent observation! The grants for the roundabout total $2,399,500. The budget appears to be $3,351,100. That puts the city on the hook for $951,600 – before any overages! I recall that when this project was approved the city was obligated to footing an amount equal to 13.5% of the grants, or about $324K. Perhaps my memory is bad. Hopefully this will be all clarified at the next council meeting.
Thanks for your questions regarding funding for the project. The difference in the numbers being discussed relates to underground utility work the City has decided to do at Five Corners in the intersection underneath the project. The water lines here are quite old and would need to be replaced in the not too distant future anyway so we decided to do it now before the Roundabout is built. This will make replacing those old lines much cheaper than having to tear out portions of the Roundabout to get to them later. The cost to replace the water lines at this location is approximately $700,000. This expense, which is necessary with or without the roundabout project, is part of the 2013 water line replacement program and will be entirely paid for by the Water Utility. If you add that cost to the approx. $324,000 in developer paid traffic impact fees being used for match you can more than reconcile the difference between the $2,399,500 in grants and the $3,351,100 in the capital budget.
I should add that all of these numbers are from the 30% design estimates and are perhaps 9 months old now. Within the next month we will have the 90% plans and cost estimates available. That will provide more definitive information. Ultimately, however, we will not have precise numbers until the project is bid in the spring of next year.
Thank you for the clarification, Phil.
I like Phil Williams. He always has his facts straight and never ducks a question.
1. True cost. The first cost of any two choices is a poor way to compare. Life-cycle cost is the best (present value of future costs, a.k.a. net present value). When comparing modern roundabouts to signals for a 20-year life cycle (the standard period), modern roundabouts usually cost us much less. Costs to compare include: first cost (design/land/construction), operation and maintenance (electricity, re-striping, etc.), crash reduction, daily delay (what’s your time worth?), daily fuel consumption, pollution (generated), area insurance rates (this costs more where it is less safe to drive). Each of these things, and others, can be estimated for any two choices and everyone near or using the project area will pay some portion of all of these costs.
2. Safety. Modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersection in the world. Search IIHS for FAQs and safety facts.
3. Efficiency. Modern roundabouts are slow and go intersections. Slow and go also means less delay than a stop light or stop sign, especially the other 20 hours a day people aren’t driving to or from work. Average daily delay at a signal is around 12 seconds per car. At a modern roundabout average delay is less than five seconds. Signals take an hour of demand and restrict it to a half hour, at best only half the traffic gets to go at any one time. At a modern roundabout four drivers entering from four directions can all enter at the same time. Don’t try that with a signalized intersection.
I agree that roundabout will be relatively safer since all approaching it will know what to do, in their turn.
(By the way, did anyone correct commenter above who believes Main & 5th is also a roundabout? No, it’s a 4-way stop. Turn signals are required as well as the normal right-of-way procedures for ALL 4-way stops.)
A couple of months ago, I sat in the parking lot at that corner on my phone and for 20 minutes I saw 10 to 12 cars NOT stop at this intersection. I can’t imagine being a student at the High School or walking over to Chase Lake and having to deal with this intersection. For better or worse, it is already being treated as a roundabout. I like the idea of a roundabout with better pedestrian crossings.
Ms. Bauer I think if you read my earlier post, you’ll see that I referred to 5th and Main as a “circle” and not a roundabout. I can assure you, I know the difference.