By H. DAVID KAPLAN, Federal Way resident
I was surprised by your shallow May 9 editorial on the City Center Access Project.
I was a member of the Public Stakeholders Team (PST) throughout the seven-year process. I take issue with your narrow-minded and short-sighted opinion.
I objected to a freeway-like roadway through Steel Lake Park from the outset. The city council knew that when they appointed 32 PST members like me and similarly-minded residents, including city council member Dini Duclos, who worked through Phase One evaluations before she was elected to the council. There were 20 PST members for Phase Two.
There was also a Core Team of 40 members, representing local, county, state and federal agencies involved in public services, land use and transportation. About 60 additional support staff of the Washington State Department of Transportation were involved at various stages throughout both phases.
Both teams were ably guided through the complex process by Maryanne Zukowski, senior traffic engineer in the city’s Public Works Department.
All of us understood that any project that impacted a federal road or interstate highway required that we go through a formal, step-by-step analysis. The structured evaluation had to consider all local options before an interstate highway entrance/exit is determined to be the preferred alternative.
Phase One ran from 2002 to 2005. The initial 47 options were reduced to three by evaluating traffic models and established feasibility criteria. The three were 312th, 324th and “No Build.” The “No Build” option was so-called because no entrance or exit of I-5 would occur, but there would be a widening of the 320th bridge over I-5 and some ramp improvements could be made at the interchange. The two build options were the only ones that would reduce traffic congestion, improve connecticity through the city and improve the level of service. Both the 312th and 324th options were approved unanimously by the Core Team and PST at the end of Phase One.
Phase Two started in 2008. It had three parts. First, consultants provided initial conceptual designs and planning costs. Second, the three remaining options had to be reduced to a single, preferred alternative. Third, environmental impacts of the preferred alternative had to be clarified and evaluated before local, county, state and federal agencies would give their approval to construct that alternative.
The city council’s April 21 action to kill the project came at the end of the second part, so the environmental assessment never took place.
It may appear to your editorial writer that the city council’s actions came as a result of public outcry by neighbors about traffic and impacts on Steel Lake Park. That was only one reason for killing the project. Among the others were: A disastrous impact on county residents east of I-5, the extensive mitigation costs the city would be responsible for, the lack of available funding on any governmental level in the foreseeable future, the need for funding and building the Triangle Project (confluence of I-5, SR 18 and SR 161), and how an unknown route for light rail through Federal Way would impact city roads.
The “six years of labor and $2 million” invested so far were not wasted. The community learned how difficult and complex a road construction project can be, especially when it involved the interstate highway system. The most challenging aspect was to realize the long lead time needed for the evaluation process and the competition for funding from all levels of government. The information gathered gave city administration a better understanding of road usage, how to work effectively with multiple government agencies and possible local road improvements that could still be made now and in the future.
Your editorial states that “a project six years in the making should not have caught these residents by surprise.” I agree. These residents should have been aware what was going on in their neighborhood and throughout their city. It was partly their responsibility to keep up to date with local activities. Few do.
I firmly believe that the city did “focus on proper communications from the start.” Here’s a partial list of how city staff made information available — aside from one-on-one telephone or e-mail communications or word-of-mouth:
1. More than 110 public meetings were held at City Hall, The Commons, and at resident, service groups and Chamber of Commerce meetings.
2. A specially dedicated page was on the city’s Web site since the inception of the project.
3. Core Team and PST meeting announcements were listed on the city calendar online and on the bulletin board in the City Hall lobby.
4. Citizen comment during city council meetings, played live on Channel 21 and repeated several times weekly before the next council meeting, often touched on the project.
5. Newspaper advertisements, editorial columns and public notices in the Federal Way Mirror, Federal Way News, Tacoma News Tribune covered the project, as did Hispanic and Korean publications.
6. Area residents received mailings announcing every open house.
7. E-mails were sent to every resident who attended any public meeting after they listed their e-mail address when signing in for the meeting.
8. Both stationary and flashing large special notice road signs were posted on streets around the city for two weeks before every open house.
9. Four mailings were sent to more than 5,000 residents who would have been affected by either “build” option.
10. Every city newsletter since 2003 mailed to 42,000 households had an article on the City Center Access Project.
11. The Commons outdoor billboard carried announcements for public meetings and open houses.
12. Local Korean radio and television stations carried announcements and interviews.
Finally, your so-called “much needed traffic relief option” had too high a price. There’s more to the quality of life than being able to get in your car and go places quickly without heavy traffic. For me, keeping Steel Lake Park as it is had a higher value than building a third freeway exit in less than a mile. The city council made the right decision.
