Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County presents draft 2025–2045 transportation CFP, highlights active‑transportation additions
Summary
Staff presented a draft 20‑year transportation capital facilities plan that adds standalone active‑transportation and safety projects, removes completed or annexed projects, and defers cost estimates and final prioritization to July work sessions. Councilors pressed for clearer climate impact accounting and coordination with WASHDOT on a major interchange.
Clark County planning staff presented a draft 2025–2045 transportation Capital Facilities Plan at a July 1 work session and said the list is still in draft form while staff reconcile updated regional travel‑demand modeling and the preferred land‑use alternative.
"The contents of this project list is is still in draft form," Harrison Houston, a transportation planner, told the council as he outlined the county's proposed 20‑year project list. The draft uses the DEIS ALT 2 scenario as a placeholder while consultants interpret new model output and prepare updates ahead of a July 15 work session.
Why it matters: the draft CFP identifies funding priorities and projects the county will analyze under the Growth Management Act. Staff said the list satisfies GMA requirements to analyze current and future transportation needs but does not commit the county to build every item within 20 years.
What staff proposed: Houston said the draft removes three large capital road projects and 11 intersection projects from the previous plan—work that staff say has been completed, annexed by other jurisdictions, or no longer justified by PM peak traffic. The county recommends adding three large capital projects and about 20 intersections, plus eight standalone safety projects identified in the county's 2025 Local Road Safety Plan. A notable change is the inclusion of standalone active‑transportation projects (bicycle and pedestrian corridors) driven by House Bill 1181.
On active transportation, staff proposed multimodal level‑of‑traffic‑stress standards and recommended an LTS2 target—"low stress" facilities meant to be comfortable for most adults. Houston said the most important CFP data columns for those corridors are proposed bicycle facility type, estimated missing sidewalk linear feet, and the number of potential pedestrian crossings.
Council questions: Councilor Little asked how the CFP will report climate impacts and greenhouse‑gas outcomes for individual projects. Houston said staff plan to flag policies and criteria that help "move the needle" on VMT and greenhouse‑gas reduction—such as directing growth to urban centers, prioritizing transit, or expanding active‑transportation networks—even if staff are not yet quantifying per‑project GHG tonnage. "We're flagging which policies help us move the needle with greenhouse gas reduction or VMT reduction," Houston said.
The council also raised timing concerns tied to state projects. County Engineer Jeremy Provenzola said he has "heard no change" from WASHDOT on the I‑5/179th interchange schedule and that county construction adjacent to the interchange is still being coordinated for a 2029 start; staff said they are preparing contingencies if the state schedule shifts.
Next steps: staff said cost estimates and a prioritization of the draft project list remain to be completed and that the county will present initial prioritization results at a July 15 work session. Additional chapters and code work tied to the comprehensive plan are scheduled for later July sessions.
