PDA

View Full Version : Clark frets light rail’s effects on campus


Chief
05-20-2008, 05:47 AM
http://columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/05/05202008_Clark-frets-light-rails-effects-on-campus.cfm

Tuesday, May 20, 2008
By JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer

Clark College isn’t ready to climb aboard the push for light rail.

Concerns about traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, security, crime and the loss of college property will need to be addressed before officials are ready to endorse a light-rail terminus at their campus.

The college’s concerns are in contrast to what appears to be growing support for a Clark College terminus.

During her Feb. 8 State of the County speech, Commissioner Betty Sue Morris said she was prepared to support light rail if it ended at the college because the federal government would pay the entire construction cost.

Last week, Vancouver transportation officials recommended a Clark College terminus to the city council, primarily because it has the lowest construction cost per rider.

On Monday, college trustees adopted a resolution that supports replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge and extending light rail into Vancouver, but the board will wait before endorsing one of four terminuses being considered.

College President Bob Knight will take that direction to the June 24 meeting of the Columbia River Crossing Task Force, a bi-state group that likely will propose a package of bridge, highway and transit improvements that could cost as much as $4.1 billion.

The college also will mount an intensive 30- to 45-day community process to evaluate potential positive and negative effects of ending Vancouver’s light-rail connection to the Portland MAX system at the former visitors center along I-5 north of McLoughlin Boulevard.

“The negatives outweigh the positives, but the negatives can be mitigated,” Knight said before the beginning of Monday’s meeting.

Crossing officials say a Clark College terminus would require 1,250 parking spaces, presumably in a three-level Park & Ride garage at the former visitors center, with a few other spaces at a surface parking lot north of Kiggins Bowl.

Phil Sheehan, the college’s interim vice president of administrative services, distributed a sheet to board trustees Monday that listed two positive and five negative effects of a light-rail terminus.

On the plus side for Clark College:

* Increased access to bus transit for students, with improved routes and schedules.
* The potential for future expansion of light rail to areas north and east of the college.

The negatives:

* Traffic congestion, particularly if motorists can enter the Park & Ride garage from McLoughlin Boulevard. Access to student parking lots could be impaired by additional traffic, so much so that the college might have to install traffic signals.
* Safety concerns for pedestrians along Fort Vancouver Way and McLoughlin Boulevard.
* Less parking for students. Overflow from the Park & Ride could gobble up street parking and spill into the college’s lots, requiring a parking permit system for students and increased parking patrols.
* Security concerns, including worries that an unattended Park & Ride garage could attract criminal activity.
* Loss of college property, namely the former visitors center, which is being used by the athletic department. The college’s long-term plans call for redevelopment of the site.

John White, a board trustee, wondered if Monday’s resolution should at least mention concerns about a Clark College terminus for light rail.

“I would just not want to have somebody take this resolution out of context and say, ‘Well, they are on board,’ ” he said.

Trustees decided that a letter to the Columbia River Crossing office, along with minutes of Monday’s meeting and the college’s comments on the project’s draft environmental impact study, would be adequate to relay those concerns.

Sheehan said it’s possible the crossing project would revamp the Fourth Plain Boulevard freeway interchange and provide easier access from Interstate 5 to the Park & Ride, thereby eliminating the need to have access from McLoughlin Boulevard.

College officials likely will be looking for other items to make a light-rail terminus more palatable, namely assurances that security and crime won’t be ignored and money for road and pedestrian improvements.

Fort Vancouver Way already is considered a hazardous spot for pedestrians.

In 2002, a French exchange student was struck by a car as she walked across the street. She suffered brain damage severe enough to need 24-hour care for the rest of her life. The city and its insurer subsequently agreed to a $6 million settlement.

In the past six months, a motorist struck a person in a wheelchair, but there were no serious injuries, Knight said prior to Monday’s meeting.

One potential solution would be lowering Fort Vancouver Way to create a pedestrian plaza over the busy street. Knight said he suspects some students would not use an elevated pedestrian bridge, which would be far cheaper to build than lowering the four-lane street.

**SCHNIPP**

As more and more details begin to emerge from the DEIS, you can see the kinds of problems that any light rail project faces.

One simply does not build anything like light rail into Downtown Vancouver without significantly impacting someone. This particular plan to Clark College is more palatable to the city, because they think they can shove it off onto Clark College without a fight, instead of evicting other property owners and taking their property, which is what any other alignment will require.

I'm very glad to see Clark College bow their backs over this a bit, now that they realize it is their land that the Project is considering for taking...

Developing...

cewl

Waterbuffalo
05-20-2008, 03:56 PM
Shall I mention that the Park to the North along Fourth Plain, Waterworks Park has in the past been a crime, drug and stabbing-fight area?

Could Marshall Center and all the Central Park plus Hudson's Bay High School (yeah, there have been for YEARS concern by the Vancouver School of Gangs from Portland coming over the bridge and causing problems at that school. Well just give them Light Rail terminus at Clark College and its a simple walk from there?

Have a lot more to say but I'll hold off comment.

Waterbuffalo
05-20-2008, 04:02 PM
"College officials likely will be looking for other items to make a light-rail terminus more palatable, namely assurances that security and crime won’t be ignored and money for road and pedestrian improvements."

Here is what all of us are asking? I think it a numb shell I am wanting to ask Tri-met and C-tran's board who will be operating this, how are you going to alleviate these concerns about the Clark County citizen's, Clark College Trustees and Administration and others?

Chief
05-20-2008, 05:25 PM
That's all fine and good, but remember that the City of Vancouver is crying poverty about Police and Fire right now, so where are they going to get the additional funds they will need to keep the promises about crime at Clark College??

It's all about the money WB...

cewl

Waterbuffalo
05-20-2008, 10:19 PM
Hate again to say it but agree with you.. its all about billions of dollars and its priority.

Should Downtown get 3/4 of City of Vancouver money for various projects and the rest of the City/Annexations will suffer because of it?

Chief
05-21-2008, 05:24 AM
Should Downtown get 3/4 of City of Vancouver money for various projects and the rest of the City/Annexations will suffer because of it?


Go to the head of the class for coming to the single salient point that the members of CAVE have. They are not all wrong about the things they choose to be concerned about, it's the way they choose to try and solve those problems that gives me pause.

But the issue of taxpayer financed development in the Downtown core has been an issue for over a decade, and isn't likely to change any time soon.

Waterbuffalo
05-21-2008, 06:57 AM
Its going to be for the next City of Vancouver Mayor and Administration to decide.

Chief
05-21-2008, 08:00 AM
Which reminds me, has Part Deux of the Leavitt Plan been released yet??

Waterbuffalo
05-21-2008, 08:36 AM
mrgrn

I really do not KNOW.. Did you check the website?

Waterbuffalo
05-21-2008, 08:47 AM
Now three subjects The Leavitt City Assurance Plan must address:

Columbia River Crossing, Light Rail, Fire and Safety (they just had a city council retreat on the subject????) What new projects does he see in the future for areas outside of Downtown Vancouver? All I hear about is downtown Vancouver?

Tim: Downtown Vancouver, Historic Reserve and this area has been covered to death, please focus on OTHER areas I'd suggest Northeast Vancouver where the City is looking to annex further and more development is occuring. Yeah, I am talking the areas North of Fourth Plain and 112 to the East, All the way to Columbia Tech Center or the City of Camas line.

Now that Futurewise has got 2500 acres to your North thrown out of the Urban Growth Boundary, what are you going to do?

How are you going to effectively C-tran without a tax increase? This is NOT light rail but Bus operations..

These comments are not just for Tim but for any candidate that will be running in the 2008 or 2009 Mayoral Race.

Chief
05-21-2008, 08:53 AM
Great points WB, especially when you start looking toward what the City hopes to accomplish by annexing Orchards and Hazel Dell, beyond getting more money to spend on Downtown Vancouver...

Waterbuffalo
05-21-2008, 09:04 AM
They can't grow into Camas? (uh oh is that a bad idea.. Annexing Camas?)

Futurewise is preventing from them growing into the North Central part of Clark County that's just north of them and Hazel Dell is looking like it might turn into its "own" city, so what is left?

Cannot grow into Vancouver lake because of the Port and Ridgefield up to the North.

Orchards North and South is the only logical logical place? Where is the City putting most of its significant investments outside of Downtown? If its not around Orchards, I'd bet my Eastern Vancouver/Camas is the other.

Chief
05-22-2008, 06:47 AM
Let's get back on topic here...

What would i8t take to "mitigate the negatives" as Clark's Prez is saying about this??

Who pays the additional costs to mitigate anything??

How do you mitigate using the last piece of developable land on the Clark Campus for a park and ride garage??

What is the advantage here if a third of the parking is built someplace else, and additional bus service has to be set up to get those people to the Loot Rail terminus??

Is it really wise to force an increase in traffic like this on the student body at Clark??

If this is what it takes, how is this really worth doing?? No matter where you turn, there are fatal flaws in all of this, and I'm glad Clark College spoke up.

Waterbuffalo
05-22-2008, 07:17 PM
The parking garage and park and ride parking lot will be paid for by the the Feds? Now the maintenance and operation costs of the facility probably will be paid from some type of local financing.

To say that Light Rail is not going to have local costs is Fraud in my book.

How are they going to mitigate the last piece of developable land? Please give me more information on what do you mean by "mitigation.."

Even "IF" they do or do not build this parking facility at Clark, I thought the original plan was to include a stop at Clark college?

Even if they do or do not build the Light Rail or CRCP past Clark Chief, Clark has been exponentially growing, so parking and traffic is going to be an issue. And with Hudson's Bay kids parking on Clark College's south end parking spots, traffic into Clark College campus is going to be a problem.

If there are any problems like the Reserve's comments about disturbing Native American burial sites and the historic trust grounds to Clark College's issues with crime and vagrants on its "open air" campus.

Its some thing Bob Knight, Royce and Elson are going to have to deal with and speak up on.

Chief
05-23-2008, 05:45 AM
That's part of the problem here WB, is that even with the DEIS, we still don't know exactly what it is they want to build, how much it costs, or how exactly we will pay for all of this. All we have is an approximation, but we are being asked to just accept the whole thing as is, even in light of the comments we see coming out of Metro and the City of Portland.

What they do not get is that Clark County is in a different State with different laws, and we simply don't have the kind of tax structure that Oregon does that lends itself to raising the kind of money it would take to run this show.

Can you imagine what it would cost if Clark County had to cough up everything for the Columbia Crossing Project??