05 - Reconsideration ZukowskiRequest for Reconsideration
Case No.: SPR-05-0091-YL -- Wal-Mart Supercenter
Standing
My name is James Zukowski. My mailing address is PO Box 858, Yelm, Washington 98597. I
was sworn in and have testified at the public hearing for this case on Monday, August 29, 2005.
Having done so, I am an interested part of record that disagrees with the decision of the hearing
examiner, and am requesting a reconsideration of said decision in light of the errors and facts
listed below.
Erroneous Procedure/Incomplete Record
1. Included in the Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision of November 1, 2005 is a list of
"exhibits that were submitted and made a part of the record." Excluded from this list of
exhibits were at least two video tapes illustrating flooding conditions in the area, and a
sample drive in Yelm traffic during a typical period of congestion. I have also been told that
numerous letters, cards, notes, and emails that were provided at the end of the comment
period were not included either.
2. Mr. Erich Armbruster from Transpo Group provided several elements of testimony that,
when taken together, along with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) from Transpo Group,
provide an inconsistent methodology leading to an incomplete record, and therefore
erroneous interpretation of relevant materials, for use by the Responsible Officer and the
Hearing Examiner:
a. When considering pedestrian interactions within the Synch~o traffic model, Mr.
Armbruster indicated that a number of the assumptions made are "industry standard
decisions." When questioned by Mr. Bricklin about this, there was no significant
explanation aside from the essential message that there was no specific direction from
either the City or WSDOT regarding the values to be used, so industry standard
decisions were made.
b. Mr. Bricklin, quoting from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) on pg 16-1: "The
methodology does not take into account the potential impacts of downstream congestion
on intersection operation." Mr. Bricklin explained that this basically means that if one
intersection backs up into the prior intersection, that is not taken into account in the
methodology. Mr. Armbruster affirmed Mr. Bricklin's assessment. And pg 16-3: "For
oversaturated conditions, demand must be used" (emphasis added).
c. Mr. Armbruster's credentials include him as part of the Transportation Research Board,
more specifically the Highway Capacity and Quality Service Committee, which is
Request for Reconsideration by James Zukowski
Case No.: SPR-OS-0091-YL -- Wal-Mart Supercenter
Page 1 of 3
responsible for developing and maintaining the HCM. According to his resume (Exhibit
122), he "has conducted and supervised research into various aspects of the software
and methodologies including simulation, queuing at signalized intersections and
modeling of two-way left turn lanes."
d. Mr. Armbruster testified that the Synch~o program model can be affected when
significant queuing occurs. Essentially, the analysis "breaks down" under those
circumstances.
e. The Transpo Group TIA is aware of potential queuing situations: "...some queuing is
expected to occur on-site at the SR 510 Bypass south driveway. However, this queue
would occur on-site and not result in any blockages or queuing conflicts on the City
streets." (Exhibit 11, pg 28). They fail to acknowledge that queuing situations already
exist on the City streets.
£ Mr. Armbruster's reliance on "industry standard decisions" should also extend to
following the directions in the Manual (HCM): for oversaturated conditions -- including
queuing, where demand must (not should be used. Transpo's failure to do so reeks of
pandering to the client's desires, rather than providing an independent analysis. This
calls the entire TIA into question as an error resulting in an incomplete record, and
therefore an error in interpreting relevant materials. This is especially important as Mr.
Armbruster is part of the committee responsible for the development of the HCM, and
should therefore be aware of and pay heed to any limitations and specifications.
3. Regarding the unsignalized intersections, Transpo and the City apparently do not heed the
guidelines provided in the HCM, Exhibit 1 lb: "Two-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS
is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is
because the performance of a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is more closely reflected
in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall.... With this in
mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay for all movements) for atwo-waystop-
controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion." (Emphasis added.) Evidently,
the City places a higher priority on mainline traffic flow at the expense of the hundreds of
vehicles trying to use these intersections, calling for an average of the entire intersection
even though the Manual advises discretion.
4. Regarding the Yelm Loop Road, also known as the Yelm Bypass and/or "Y3," there are
several items of contention:
a. There are several references in various exhibits and testimonies to both the Y2 and Y3
loops, frequently as a combined Y2/Y3 loop road. As provided in other testimony and
exhibits, only the Y3 loop road has had any funding identified, and that is onlypartial.
Request for Reconsideration by James Zukowski
Case No.: SPR-OS-0091-YL -- Wal-Mart Supercenter
Page 2 of 3
The Y2 section has not had any funding identified, and should therefore not be included
in any consideration, since the Comprehensive Plan requires concurrency, including
projects that are "authorized and being planned, funded, and implemented" (emphasis
added). Since the Y2 project has no funding designated, it should not be considered in
any evaluations. If the Y2 portion of the loop project was included as part of the
analysis, this is clearly in error, and the report must be completely dismissed, voiding
the MDNS.
b. According to the Transpo Group TIA (Exhibit 11, pg 13), "The completion of the SR
510 by-pass, and the associated shifts in travel patterns as provided by City staff and
their consultant, is incorporated into the 2010 evaluations described in this report." Yet,
according to Mr. Armbruster's testimony, the TIA is not dependent on any of the Y2/Y3
improvements. There is evidently some inconsistency here.
c. The City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) is quoted by the Hearing
Examiner (Finding 48): "Planning for the future is the City's responsibility and the City
has identified traffic improvement projects in its Six Year Transportation Plan (2006-
2011) to include the SR 510/Yelm Loop (Y3)..." However, including the Y3 L.oop in the
STIP is misleading. As testified at the hearing, the WSDOT website states that
"construction planned to begin in 2011 (subject to funding availability)." Since the
City's STIP erroneously assumes that the Y3 Loop is in service by 2010 instead of 2015
at the earliest (based on current projections), a new TIA is clearly required to assess
whether the added traffic by the applicant's prof ect from 200fr2015 can be reasonably
absorbed by the existing road network.
d. Since the supplied TIA is incomplete, even with supplementation for the 103~d Avenue
extension, then obviously the Responsible Officer erred in evaluated the application as
well, and the MDNS is inappropriate; a new TIA and a comprehensive Environmental
Impact Study should therefore be required.
Conclusion
Since the Responsible Officer relied on this incomplete information for his assessment of the
application for the MDNS, and therefore erred in interpreting the appropriate materials required
for a proper evaluation, and since the hearing examiner also relied on this incomplete
information is his evaluation of the record, I ask for the decision to be reversed, that the MDNS
be rendered void, and that a full, comprehensive Environmental Impact Study be required by the
Applicant.
Request for Reconsideration by James Zukowski
Case No.: SPR-OS-0091-YL -- Wal-Mart Supercenter
Page 3 of 3