Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) poured in during July. Concerns about cumulative traffic impacts stand out as universally common threads among community letters. Since these concerns receive remarkably light consideration in the Citizen's Advisory Committee's comments, we highlight them here.
CAC. It is encouraging to see the CAC's 7/25/08 DEIS Comments state that "the proposed enhanced traffic management plan outlined in the EIS would fall short of the traffic mitigation necessary to insure the livability and viability of the surrounding neighborhoods." However, the methods the CAC proposes for mitigation themselves fall short. Among these:
"[Department of Planning and Development] should identify specific actions to be taken and conditions to be imposed on future development in the event that CHRMC fails to meet its trip reduction targets."The first suggestion goes in the right direction; however, why impose reactive "conditions" only after growth has already outpaced mitigation? Wouldn't it be more prudent to benchmark approval of growth increments on trip-reduction and traffic-flow achievements? Furthermore, where are ties between nebulous "trip reduction" efforts and benchmarks for arterial function? Off-site parking might certainly reduce direct trips to the campus while still increasing trips through the bottlenecked Montlake corridor to off-site parking. Having hospital staff & visitors drive past the hospital in order to park at Magnuson and take a shuttle back to the hospital seems like a nonsensical solution for fixing traffic flow.
"CHRMC [should] seek to collaborate with local partners, e.g. UW and U Village on sub-area solutions."The second mitigation recommendation is also a move in the right direction; however, it also comes up short. Where is coordination with the City and the State on solutions for the "Montlake Mess?" Where is consideration of cumulative impacts in this corridor (the upcoming reconstruction of the 45th steet viaduct, 520 construction, light rail construction, in-fill construction, etc.) ? Impacts of the magnitude proposed by the hospital require wider coordination on transportation solutions.
One would hope that the approach taken to transportation in the final EIS is more proactive, more context-cognizant and more comprehensive.
Bryant. Excerpts from a DEIS comment letter from a Bryant family:
Cumulative Analysis:...The Bryant Neighborhood is one of several that manage to function around an already stressed traffic environmental created by the churning vortex of the University Village, the University of Washington, connections to Interstate 5 and State Route 520, a drawbridge, as well as Children’s Hospital, making for a traffic situation so severe that it was actually named decades ago: the well known and often cursed “Montlake Mess.” This intensely congested corridor cannot be bypassed. Due to the extreme conditions that occur along Montlake, the cumulative assessment needs to be re-run to include all growth expected in the area as well as a growth factor to ensure a conservative analysis.
...In conclusion, our family supports Children’s Hospital in its quest to continue to provide world class health care to Washington, Alaska, and Idaho; but we strongly encourage them to do so within a reduced scale project alternative which has not yet been considered. Such an alternative will not include the Hartmann site or will include very limited, fully self-parked development of the Hartmann site; and the total build-out of the entire campus will be reduced so that it is in scale with the existing hospital area and will not require a twenty year build-out. The continued reliance and expansion of nonadjacent parking facilities is simple testament that the use is already struggling to fit here. ...We strongly recommend, based on the facts of the record, that Children’s Hospital’s expansion plans can be scaled back to fit within their neighborhood.
Seattle Community Council Federation. Excerpts from its comments on the DEIS:
It is not possible to mitigate the traffic and transportation impacts associated with the build alternatives in the DEIS. Alternatives involving a much smaller scale expansion should be included in the final EIS. This is because there is no conceivable way to mitigate the impact of 42,000 vehicle trips per day. The comments submitted by Gibson Traffic Consultants demonstrate the many flaws in the data and methodology used to determine trip generation and traffic volumes and outline many other issues and flaws in the DEIS.
Northeast District Council. Comments on DEIS submitted on 07/24/08 include:
Standardized methodology must be used and data provided. There is no trip generation data or traffic counts included for Children’s existing campus or the Hartmann property. The DEIS does not employ the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) methodology and rates, which is the industry standard for determining trip generation data. ...With the information provided in the DEIS, it is impossible to determine if there will be an estimated 8,400 vehicle trips per day, or the 42,000 estimated using the standard Institute of Transportation Engineers formula.More. Additional community comments on the DEIS that have already been posted on this site:
The cumulative impacts of other development in the area must be analyzed in the final EIS. The DEIS fails to analyze the other major development planned in the area. University Village is planning a major expansion, much development is underway at Magnuson Park and plans to replace SR 520 are in the works. The final EIS should analyze these factors to adequately address transportation and traffic impacts, transportation infrastructure needs and concurrency requirements.
- ER Physician Says Hospital Plans Not in Best Interest of this Region's Kids
- Professional Traffic Consultant Pans the DEIS
- Planned hospital will be 1/3rd the size of the Pentagon
- Impacts of a 1.5 Million Square Foot Expansion (A Columbia Tower) are Not Mitigatable
- Laurelhurst Community Club's Preliminary Comments on the EIS
- Carol Eychaner's Review of the Draft EIS
