In 1980 a Major Review of the Spokane Metropolitan Transportation Plan indicated that 1979 traffic volumes exceeded
the design level of service capacity in the Sprague Ave. corridor between I‑90 and Dishman‑Mica Road. The 1980
Major Review also recognized the traffic impacts of projected development in the far East Valley area and
recommended the extension of the "Fourth Ave. Corridor Improvement east along the former Milwaukee
Railroad right‑of‑way to the Liberty Lake‑Idaho State Line area." 
 

[The above statement by the Spokane County Engineers is hard to understand as 7 lane Sprague Avenue was only 5 years
old at that time and had a tremendous amount of capacity.  All of these projections were based on the assumption
that development would continue in the South Valley area with growth continuing South to Mica and East into
the foothills of Mica Peak.  This was before the Growth Management Act and the establishment of Growth
Management Boundaries. Once the Growth Management Boundary was established, all of these projections were no
longer valid.] 
 

"The 1985 update of Spokane's Regional Transportation Plan confirmed the need for additional traffic capacity in
the Spokane Valley Area South of Sprague Avenue.  It contained a separate section on the recommended improvements in
the Milwaukee railroad corridor." 
 

[Somewhere around this point in time at a Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce Roads Committee meeting, the
Spokane County Engineers announced that they had put this project on the shelf as funding was not available and
they could not show purpose and need at that time. Nowhere in the published history of Sprague Avenue by the Spokane
County Engineers, does it mention that the widening of Sprague Avenue had resolved the traffic issues. The Engineers
used the SMAT's report to justify planning the South Valley Express Way. ] 
 

"During the environmental study for the I‑90 Interchange project, It was decided that the interchange should be
moved southwest to the 2nd Avenue alignment rather than interchange with Sprague Ave.  This provided better access
to the freeway and better geometric alignment.  It was felt that not only did this solve design problems on the interchange
project but also provided a better facility for the east-west commuter traffic traveling to and from the Spokane Valley.

[At this time the Dept. of Transportation, DOT, determined that it would not receive funds for widening I‑90 East
of Sprague Avenue. The Dot and the Spokane County Engineers then began plans to build the South Valley Express Way.
A 4 or 6 lane high speed Express Way from I‑90 to Liberty Lake with access across it  in only about 5 intersections. It
was planned to cut through Dishman Hills.  This created a great concern in the Community.  The Fire District,
School Districts, Environmental Groups, Business Community, Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce and Citizen
groups voiced their objections.  The project would create a wall the length of the Spokane Valley.  A lawsuit was
filed against the County and a change was made from a Express Way to finally a 4 lane 2 way arterial with full access. 
At the very last minute the plan was changed to a one‑way couplet with Sprague Avenue to be one‑way west bound
and the new street to be one‑way east bound. The County Commissioners said that this would address the concerns of the
business community, however it created more problems than it solved  The alignment was changed to not interfere with
the Dishman Hills.  Mitigation to address concerns of Sprague Avenue Property owners included the building of
additional connecting streets between the two one‑way streets and allowing signage on "Appleway" for Sprague
Avenue Businesses. Sound walls, landscaping or insulation would be provided to address noise concerns.   None of
the mitigating measures promised by Spokane County were completed. (Ref: Final Supplemental E.I.S.) 

On the S.R.T.C. Spokane Regional Transportation Committee Web Site it states that  "The Valley Couplet was proposed
by Spokane County to move local traffic off the Interstate 90 facility to improve safety and mobility"  not to resolve
any problems on Sprague Avenue.  The S.R.T.C. also asked these questions " (1) What are the reasonable alternatives to
the problem? (2) How does it fit into neighborhoods, the community or region?  (3) Does it create new or worse problems
in other areas? (4) Does it create division or unity in our community?"  They asked for these questions to be
addressed. They were not sufficiently answered. 
 

"In September 1989, application for funding assistance was made to the Transportation Improvement Board for the
South Valley Expressway (Arterial) project from I‑90 to SR 27 (Pines Road).

In September 1990, Pre‑design funding was approved to do the environmental study and a value engineering study for
the project. An environmental study ensued and the draft environmental impact statement was circulated on August 25, 1992.  A
public hearing was held on the draft E.I.S. on September 16, 1992.  A value engineering study ( Engineers, Citizens and Analysts from around the State critique the project for design,  purpose, need and cost. Pastor Greg Smith of Opportunity Christian Church served on the study for the Spokane  Valley Chamber of Commerce.) was completed in October 1992. several suggestions were proposed by the study. 
These included studying more alignment and lane options. narrowing the facility, eliminating trucks, etc. Several of
the suggestions were studied." 

[One of the questions asked was " Why are you building this facility" as need and purpose was not evident. The answer
was "The money was available, so we took the plans off the shelf, dusted them off and submitted them for approval and
they were approved."  Remember these plans were put on the shelf when it was decided to widen Sprague Ave. because
the Railroad right‑of‑way became available.  To promote the project, the County Engineers predicted as many as
58,000 vehicles per day would want to travel East and West in the area of Sprague Avenue by the year 2010.  At that
time Traffic counts on Sprague Avenue were about 32,000 vehicles a day.  The County did not explain to the public that
these projections were based on expected growth of the south valley area (before Growth Management Boundaries) and
the purpose was to siphon traffic off I‑90.  The County Engineers did without a doubt mislead the public as to the
purpose of this Arterial and the DOT was encouraging the County to build it as they did not expect to find the funding
to widen I‑90 in the future. In 1989 Spokane County  submitted an application for funding to the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB).  The name Valley Expressway was dropped and it was called the "South Valley Arterial" because of the overwhelming opposition of the public to an Arterial called a "Expressway.] [In 1993 public hearings were held on Spokane County's plans for the South Valley Arterial and on the Draft EIS prepared by Jones and Stokes. There was tremendous opposition from the public to the plan.  All testimony is documented in the EIS.  At that time the plans for the arterial were as follows quoted from Spokane County Public Works Brochure]

 "In 1994 or 1995, the Dept of Transportation will reconstruct the interchange at I‑90 and Sprague Avenue.  The off and on ramps will connect to the South Valley Arterial at 2nd Avenue and Thierman Road. Several options have been considered for the arterial east of this point:

1.  A six lane arterial from Thierman Road to Dishman Mica and four lanes to University Ave

2. A four lane arterial from Thierman Road to University Road

3.  A six lane arterial from Thierman Road to Dishman Mica Road.

4  A six lane arterial from Thierman Road to Pines Road (SR27)

5.  Making 2nd and 3rd Avenues a one way couplet beginning at Thierman Road. A two way arterial would be used east
of Park Road.
 

 Option #one is preferred since the critical need is to move a large amount of commuter traffic between I‑90 and
Sprague Ave to the south and east valley residential areas.  Dishman Mica Road, 8th, 16th, and 32nd Avenues will be
used to distribute the traffic into these areas.  Terminating the road at University Avenue would provide access to
the University City business area and the Spokane Transit Authority's Valley Transit Center.  [At this time the DOT had in their 10 year plan to build an interchange at University and I‑90. Spokane County in anticipation of this, widened University from Dishman Mica Road on the south to just north of Sprague Ave.  The Spokane Valley Chamber Transportation Committee urged the County to build University through to Trent Ave. to help relieve traffic on Argonne Rd. and Pines Road.  They said it was a higher priority than the South Valley Arterial.  When the Evergreen Interchange was built the DOT removed the University Interchange from their plans. The  cost of the South Valley Arterial in 1993 was estimated at approx. $17,500,000. of which Spokane County would pay $3,300,000. from their share of the State gasoline tax. the TIB would fund $11,600,000. and the DOT  for their share of the Interchange connection with I‑90 $2,500,000.] 
 

The quotes below are from the Final Supplemental E.I.S.  The objections by the Public and the Business community to the E.I.S. prepared by Jones and Stokes was the lack of any economic study on the effects of the couplet. They did not use any of the data from the D.O.T.'s  E.I.S. on I‑90 and their traffic reports on I‑90's effect on Sprague Ave and north and south traffic on Argonne and Pines.  The Growth Management Plan was being developed at this time but Jones and Stokes would not consider it because it was not done.  The above was all confirmed by a call to California where their report was prepared. They said they did not use any other information except what was provided by Spokane County and S.R.T.C. and that was only on Sprague Ave.  In their assumptions on traffic volumes based on the
S.M.A.T.S. report they also ignored the fact that Sprague Ave. had been widened from 4 lanes to 7 lanes and there is no mention of that in any of the E.I.S. reports.  The anticipated traffic volumes were exaggerated in my opinion to justify building the arterial. Present day (2004) traffic counts at Bowdish, Pines and East on Sprague are actually less than in 1997.]      
 

"The transportation analysis conducted for this supplemental E.I.S. also confirms the need for additional traffic capacity.  For example, by the year 2010, the existing through traffic volumes at the Sprague Ave. intersections between Thierman and University Road are expected to increase 27% to 55%. Road improvements are necessary to accommodate the projected traffic increases in the Spokane Valley.  However, potential environmental impacts and public concerns have led the county to develop a new proposed action. called Alternative 6 ‑ Valley Couplet, which would include two separate roadways  with separate eastbound and westbound traffic. A couplet including Sprague Ave. was investigated as an alternative.
 

"The proposed Valley Couplet supersedes the South Valley Arterial, which the county has considered and analyzed in previous environmental statements (EISs). The South Valley Arterial would have been a new roadway located south of Sprague Ave. with limited or controlled access (i.e., with no access on or off the roadway between intersections located at least 1 mile apart). the primary difference between( the couplet) and the other alternatives considered is the (couplet) would be a (one way system) using existing Sprague Avenue and would not have limited access."
 

 [At that time the Spokane Valley Business Association, Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, Fire District #1, Sheriff's Dept. and the Dishman Hills NRCA did support the plan for the Valley Couplet.  Spokane County had promised to address the many concerns of the community.  The alignment of the road had been changed so that it did not cut through the Dishman Hills NRCA and the Dishman Hills NRCA were promised that commercial development would not be allowed adjacent to the NRCA land.  That it was protected by existing (GA) General Agricultural zoning and Comprehensive Plan Policies to protect natural resources and recreation areas. Access to the Dishman Hills would be improved. Sargent Road would be improved with sidewalks and a stop sign and cross walk would be added to improve pedestrian access.  Fire District #1s concerns were partly addressed by the extension of Dartmouth Rd. and a traffic signal would be installed on 2nd Ave. and Dartmouth.
 

The Business Community was told that connecting streets would be improved with curbs and sidewalks and signage would be allowed on Appleway directing customers to locations on Sprague Avenue, however the Board of County Commissioners changed the Sign Ordinance to restrict signs on Appleway and offered instead to put up freeway style signs identifying businesses on Sprague.  These signs turned out to be very small and not like the DOT signs on the Freeway.  The result of the one way system has been a drastic loss of business and property values on Sprague Avenue.  Although it does move traffic.  The new city of Spokane Valley was incorporated in a large part because of the dissatisfaction of the business community with the failure of Spokane County to listen to the concerns of the
Valley. One‑way Sprague Avenue does not work as a business and pedestrian  friendly street and should be returned to a 2 way street so it can become the Main Street for the new City of Spokane Valley.  The City of Spokane Valley needs to decide if it wants a new and vibrant City Center with our own identity, or remain a bedroom community for the City of Spokane.

Richard C. Behm Jr.