Dear Editor,
This is a response to reader comments posted in the Oct. 23 letter: “Council should reconsider its vote to exclude Main Street undercrossing.”
Mr. Proudfoot (#3): Please see Stephen Clifton’s comprehensive response (#8) to your query regarding the statement “By 2030, trains passing through Edmonds are expected to exceed 100.” Briefly, the information is taken from the environmental study required for consideration of the Edmonds Crossing Project (Project 1A) approved for continuing inclusion in the CIP/CFP.
Mr. Reidy (several postings): I also wish to listen and learn, but like you, can do neither if Project IB (Main Street Undercrossing) is not included in the CIP/CFP. The purpose of reconsideration is to permit the Mayor and staff to study the proposal further, to learn more, to analyze, to refine, to modify as required, to pursue grants as appropriate, and ultimately to report their findings to the City Council. The many well-founded questions you pose, and countless others, will be answered only if Council reconsiders and allows the process to continue.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas J. Tomberg
Edmonds Fire Chief, Retired
As we look at the basic issue of emergency access to the west of the tracks I did not recall if any on the council offered other ideas??? Looks like we have 4 options.
1. Emergency vehicles over the tracks
2. Emergency vehicles under the tracks
3. The train goes in a tunnel under the current grade
4. The train goes over the current grade in an elevated way.
1 and 2 are likely to be the only ones that could be cost effective and be done with the lease disruption to cars, people and trains.
Does anyone know what council has in mind for a solution, or are they just saying no?
The only alternative expressed by council was the sometime-in-the-future multimodal terminal.
Would that multimodal include some form or over or under the tracks?
Over the tracks.
So our city is renovating 5-corners. Which seems to have a very minimal effect on public safety. Why don’t we put our money into something that actually means something, and could save a life.
Thank you for your response Chief Tomberg. A 1994 Edmonds Planning Board Report may be inconsistent with the comment that “The Main Street Undercrossing Project is a practical, doable and financially feasible alternative that can be completed in the near term”.
The Planning Board Report can be found at:
https://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/CityDepartments/PlanningDept/1994%20Downtown%20Plan%20adopted_web.pdf
The 1994 Edmonds Planning Board Report includes the following, found on pages 27-29:
“In 1991 a consultant team, led by Reid-Middleton Associates, presented the Council with the three ferry location alternatives . . . .”
The three ferry location alternatives were as follows:
Alternative 1: Main Street and/or near Main Street at former Anderson Marine site.
Alternative #2: Looks to have been a site a block or two south of Main Street, possibly through the old Safeway property.
Alternative #3: Point Edwards.
I believe the Reid-Middleton team included Hewitt-Isley, Herrera Environmental and Property Counselors, Incorporated. I believe the team led by Reid-Middleton produced a document called the June, 1992 Reid Middleton Feasibility Analysis. I have yet to obtain and review this 1992 Feasibility Analysis.
The 1994 Planning Board Report continued by stating:
“At that time, the Council indicated a preference for the Point Edwards site, largely because of the ferry traffic impacts on the downtown. This alternative was confirmed in the Reid-Middleton study as being the most functionally feasible ferry location. However, the Council desired further evaluation to identify the potential implications of their decision on downtown business redevelopment potential, civic viability and urban design. Apogee Research, Inc. was retained to analyze the economic impacts of each alternative, while Bell-Walker Engineers reviewed traffic impacts and Makers explored the alternative urban design potentials.”
The 1994 Planning Board Report continued by stating that the Apogee, etc. study reached seven conclusions. I’ll just list the first three. The entire 50 page report can be reviewed at the link provided above. :
1. Because of projected increased railroad service, (freight, intercity and, potentially, commuter rail), as well as ferry service, there will be increased conflict between rail and ferry traffic. It is quite likely that this conflict will debilitate transportation service and continue to create a safety hazard for users and local citizens unless the two are grade separated. Therefore, an underpass/overpass is required for ferry access to the ferry terminal.
2. An overpass/underpass at site #1 (Main Street) would create an unacceptable barrier between the waterfront and downtown, adversely impacting business, traffic patterns, visual aesthetics and redevelopment potential. Therefore, Site #1 was dropped from consideration.
3. In the Reid Middleton report, Alternative #3 was estimated to be more expensive than Alternative #2. On further investigation it was found that the underpass of Alternative #2 carries with it numerous technical engineering uncertainties. Therefore, the estimated cost difference between the two options, if any, is significantly less. Further analysis is needed if the project cost comparison is to portray an accurate picture.
I have reviewed the entire 50 page 1994 Planning Board document. It is a quick read and I encourage those who have time to take a quick look at it. The 1992 Reid Middleton Feasibility Analysis might be of value also.
I am particularly concerned with the following two points from the Apogee, etc. study:
1. An overpass/underpass at site #1 (Main Street) would create an unacceptable barrier between the waterfront and downtown.
2. On further investigation it was found that the underpass of Alternative #2 carries with it numerous technical engineering uncertainties. Therefore, the estimated cost difference between the two options, if any, is significantly less.
I’d appreciate others thoughts related to what role the City must play or should play related to accessing the ferry. What about WSDOT’s responsibility?
I ‘d also appreciate more discussion related to why Project 1B couples an apparent City need for public safety emergency access with State ferry access. Is this necessary or would it be better to just address the immediate public safety emergency access issue at the waterfront?
Finally, for those supporting Reconsideration, please consider joining me in requesting that the City’s elected officials provide ALL CITIZENS of Edmonds the complete RULES OF PROCEDURE for City Council Reconsideration. Thanks.