Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Quiet Zone 122nd Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clark County Directs Staff to Pursue Quiet Zone Petition, Seeks $20,000 to Restart UTC Process
Summary
Clark County staff briefed the council on Sept. 24 about restarting the UTC petition process to pursue an FRA‑approved quiet zone at the 122nd Street railroad crossing, and councilors directed staff to pursue a diagnostic meeting and prepare a petition, with an estimated $20,000 to cover the application work.
Clark County public works staff briefed the council on Sept. 24 about a long-running neighborhood effort to establish a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)-approved quiet zone at the crossing near 122nd Street. Staff sought direction on whether to pursue a third petition to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) and to secure roughly $20,000 to carry the application and diagnostic work forward.
Ken Later, the county’s Public Works director, introduced the topic and recognized Scott Sawyer’s service. Paul Morin, a project manager, reviewed the history: a mountable median (the “quick curb”) design previously received conditional approval from the FRA as an alternative safety measure, but BNSF Railway objected and refused to sign a waiver required by the UTC petition process. Morin summarized the consequences: “BNSF expressed concerns about the elimination of train horns... limited lane widths and sight distances, dual trap traffic, and the type of vehicle traffic at this location.”
Morin told the council the crossing inventory shows an average of 39 trains per day (passenger and freight), passenger-train speeds up to 79 mph, freight speeds up to 60 mph, and an average daily vehicle crossing of about 660 vehicles. Staff presented two conceptual treatments and a wide range of cost estimates: a quick-curb center median option (preliminary estimate in the low hundreds of thousands) versus a BNSF quad-gate option with an estimated cost in the low millions.
Staff asked the council for direction to proceed with a required diagnostic-team meeting and to refile a petition with the UTC; Morin and Later told council the immediate funding need to complete the application process and required meetings is about $20,000. The county has previously withdrawn petitions to the UTC (in 2019 and 2025) when staff attempted to negotiate alternate measures with BNSF. The UTC staff has said a more recent diagnostic-team meeting would have been appropriate prior to the county’s 2024 resubmittal.
Councilors debated whether county funds should be used for a neighborhood livability improvement that staff said would not rank high on countywide road-funding priorities. Councilor Young said county road funds should prioritize system-wide safety and expressed hesitation about using limited county dollars for a local livability project. Other councilors representing the affected area and members of the public urged the council to move forward; several councilors volunteered that community members might contribute and that the county could explore non-road funding sources.
On the record, multiple councilors indicated support to authorize staff to proceed with the diagnostic meeting and to prepare for refiling the petition; staff said they would return to a full (Tuesday) council meeting as a separate business item with cost and funding options identified, and with the county engineer present. The chair said the council needed “three thumbs up” to provide direction; several councilors responded affirmatively. Later told the council the estimated UTC/application timeline could range from 30–60 days to prepare the filing and then another six to nine months for hearings and scheduling if a hearing proceeds.
No final construction funding decision was made on Sept. 24. Council direction authorized staff to pursue the next procedural step (diagnostic meeting and re-entry to the UTC petition process) and to prepare a Tuesday business item that would specify funding sources for the $20,000 application cost and the potential larger construction costs (estimates shown to council included roughly $350,000 for the quick-curb scenario and about $2,150,000 for the quad-gate scenario). Staff also committed to notify the community when the item returns to the full council agenda.
The county will return with a business-item packet that explicitly identifies recommended funding sources, updated cost estimates, and the county engineer’s analysis. If the UTC and BNSF objections cannot be resolved through the petition process, the county may need to consider alternative design options or shared funding arrangements with the neighborhood and other partners.
