Twisted Willow Traffic Meeting this Wednesday

Last year developers vested a 100+ home subdivision called Twisted Willows over in Glenrose that proposed to have all the traffic enter and exit on 42nd Avenue on the east side of Southgate. They were asked by the County to redesign their plans to have traffic exiting to Glenrose (and ideally 37th Avenue as well).

There will be a new traffic impact meeting (announcement includes new plan) at 6:15pm this Wednesday, April 15th at Fire Station 81 (6117 S. Palouse Hwy.) to discuss an updated design that will have traffic entering and exiting on both 42nd and 43rd Avenues into Southgate and potentially through Trickle Creek to Glenrose.

I encourage you to look over the proposed new subdivision layout and come to the meeting to ask questions (for example):

What is the estimated amount of traffic related to this subdivision? According to 2009 data from the US Federal Highway Administration, each of these new homes could be creating 9 new car trips a day for a total of over 1,000 new vehicle trips coming into Southgate. Unless the exits to Glenrose Rd. and 37th Ave. are actually built all of those trips will be directed into Southgate and on to Havana Street.

If there are exits to Glenrose and 37th, what are the plans to improve those roads to handle the extra traffic? Currently Glenrose and 37th are built to rural county standards with no sidewalks or bike lans. The intersection of 37th and Glenrose is controlled only by a stop sign on 37th. Additionally, there is a proposed sports complex on the SW corner of Glenrose and 37th that will add even more traffic to the area, is that being considered in traffic impacts for the area?

Will the subdivision roads include sidewalks? Current County road standards require sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Why is the block of Custer Rd. from 42nd to 43rd “To Be Vacated”?

I will post a summary of the meeting after it happens Wednesday.

4 thoughts on “Twisted Willow Traffic Meeting this Wednesday”

  1. I live on the corner of Havana and 38th Ave. I can not make it to the meeting on Wednesday so I have to voice my opinion this way. As it sits now in the mornings I have a hard enough time backing out of my driveway to get on to the road due to all the traffic. Combine that with the current plans that update the use of Havana street after the water main replacement. With bike lanes and planting patches in the way or obstructing the view further. This road will not be designed for this kind of traffic. Its bad enough with all the current speeders on this 25mph road, now we are going to introduce close to another 1000 cars a day? Why is it a housing development that is in the “County” is going to impact the “City” residents? It is not fair to us who have to deal with this inconvenience. It is very clear that the most sensible direction for this traffic is Glenrose. And not just one road out to Glenrose but it should have a few by the looks of it. I say that even though that will also impact my morning commute since that is the way I travel to go to work every day.

  2. Is there any update on this project?
    The city’s estmate for increased traffic onto Havana is way off.
    I live at Cuba and 40th on the dirt road and in 2005 when they opened Cuba all the way in the Summercrest development, we tracked over 700 cars a day then. Prior, it was probably less than 100. The city needs to make access onto 2-3 arterials. Also havana and 37th is already nuts because it is a school zone. This just increases the safety issues.

    1. Lisa, this project was approved after an appeal to the Hearing Examiner. So they are now free to develop if they want. There were some conditions put on the approval. For one, they have to have a second exit out to Glenrose Road through Trickle Creek. So they will be allowed to build a limited number of homes using Havana as the exit, but after 30 or so homes they will need to add that second exit to meet fire code requirements. I’ll dig up the details and do a new post about it.

Leave a reply to Crishna Branth Cancel reply