Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, November 18, 2009
Transportation Conlin Assails Plan to Replace 520 Bridge
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:42 PM
As Will mentioned a few minutes ago, a group of state legislators have settled on a proposal to replace the 520 bridge between Seattle and Medina (a leaky, crumbly deathtrap to be sure). But the plan, rather than accommodating light rail and neighborhood needs, mostly bulks up the old design: big cloverleaf exits, wider roads, and a second drawbridge over the Montlake Cut.
The proposal has already racked up enemies in Seattle. Speaker of the House Frank Chopp (D-43) and district-mate Jamie Pedersen cast the two dissenting votes against the plan on the 12 member group. Meanwhile, City Council President Richard Conlin is ready to fight the proposal in the legislature. “If we are talking about something to last 50 to 100 years,” Conlin says, “we should consider making it a worthy investment instead of having people stuck in traffic for that length of time.”
Conlin has long held that the 520-bridge replacement must accommodate transit, such as light rail. But so-called Option A, preferred by Olympia lawmakers, would only provide onramps and exits on the south side of the ship canal, several blocks away from the light rail station planned at Husky Stadium, which is north of the ship canal. Connecting 520 buses to light rail makes sense for obvious reasons, and if McGinn gets his way—he wants light rail across the 520 bridge—connecting 520 light rail to the Husky Stadium would be more important than ever.
- OPTION M: What Conlin wants
Conlin prefers other alternatives—so called Options K, L, and M—that include off ramps and onramps from 520 to the north side of the ship canal. On the right, you can see option M. One challenge with Conlin’s preferred options: a second onramp would add an estimated $1 billion. But that figure comes from the state, which Conlin calls “just guesses.”
At 9:30 a.m. on November 24, representatives of the WSDOT will present the plans to the full council, followed by public comment. “My impression is that they are not going to find very many people happy,” Conlin says. “I don’t think it meets any of the communities’ requests.” He adds that “I am hoping [city council members] will be very engaged as the legislature convenes.”
1
When the 520 bridge was originally built, I doubt anyone really considered a need for cyclists or pedestrians to get across it. But since a safe path wasn't included in the original design it's served as a complete bottleneck for alternative forms of transit.
Why would they want to make the same mistake again with light rail? This is such a no-brainer.
Why would they want to make the same mistake again with light rail? This is such a no-brainer.
2
Where can we get more info, more detailed illustrations, for Option M?
WSDOT Web site only has A, K, and L.
WSDOT Web site only has A, K, and L.
3
Conlin has a choice.
Either kill the Billionaires Tunnel so he can get the 520 plan he wants ...
or watch both die.
Either kill the Billionaires Tunnel so he can get the 520 plan he wants ...
or watch both die.
4
One clarification - none of the options includes light rail, but all of them are supposed to be constructed in a way that permits light rail to be added in the (undefined) future.
And that $1 billion tunnel cost is based on far more than "just guesses." The Army Corps of Engineers has also indicated that it is unlikely to sign off on it due to the negative effects on salmon and other wildlife habitat.
All of the options are going to make someone unhappy, but A is the only one the State can begin to afford.
And that $1 billion tunnel cost is based on far more than "just guesses." The Army Corps of Engineers has also indicated that it is unlikely to sign off on it due to the negative effects on salmon and other wildlife habitat.
All of the options are going to make someone unhappy, but A is the only one the State can begin to afford.
5
As with the Viaduct, there are no good solutions to the 520 problem, only bad ones and worse ones.
6
Which is why they should just start replacing the weakened pontoons and leave it pretty much as is. Maybe they could get it replaced in less than 25 years that way.
7
Perhaps 520 supporters who want to see better design should be a little more supportive of the anti-tunnel Viaduct folks.
8
"a second onramp would add an estimated $1 billion." Um, the entire Hoover Dam bypass bridge project has a budget of around $250 million. I admit that I nothing about the complexities of the 520 project, but $1 billion for an onramp? See:
http://www.hooverdambypass.org/Const_Pho… and see: http://www.hooverdambypass.org/project_f…
http://www.hooverdambypass.org/Const_Pho… and see: http://www.hooverdambypass.org/project_f…
9
The $1 billion is to add a tunnel under Portage Bay and move the existing Montlake ramps to Husky Stadium. The overall cost of Option L is about $2 billion more than Option A.
10
The $1 billion isn't just for a offramp. It's been nicknamed the Frozen Offramp Tunnel Option. I guess you could call it the 'FOTO' option.
What they want to do is insert cooling rods into the ground for 9 months, freeze the ground all around, then excavate that frozen dirt out via barge. It's a hugely expensive process for a tunnel/ramp option that is really pretty bad, with a tight curve and very steep grade.
This option lacks over $2 BILLION in money so it's really just a pipe dream to talk about it. The days of getting the money from 'somewhere' are over. The State is broke. The Federal Government is broke. So Frank Chopp and Jamie Pedersen can scream all they want for the overbudget, risky FOTO option 520 bridge. But there's no money for it.
What they want to do is insert cooling rods into the ground for 9 months, freeze the ground all around, then excavate that frozen dirt out via barge. It's a hugely expensive process for a tunnel/ramp option that is really pretty bad, with a tight curve and very steep grade.
This option lacks over $2 BILLION in money so it's really just a pipe dream to talk about it. The days of getting the money from 'somewhere' are over. The State is broke. The Federal Government is broke. So Frank Chopp and Jamie Pedersen can scream all they want for the overbudget, risky FOTO option 520 bridge. But there's no money for it.
11
That bizarre method of tunnel construction has been abandoned as a viable option, even though it will be included in the environmental study due out at the end of the year. The gap between the construction cost of Plan A and Plan M is much narrower than it was with the previous Plan K (Plan M is about 20% over the current, fairly arbitrary budget.) Plan M itself is also much narrower than A, and also narrower than K, but maintains the mobility benefits of K. (Anyone confused yet?)
Plan M makes a major effort to improve the speed and reliability of transit from the Eastside to the UW and the light rail station there. It fixes a lot of the congestion issues in the area without inducing new traffic in the system.
Plan A puts bus "rapid" transit on a drawbridge that opens 10-90 times a day and creates even more traffic signals in Montlake for buses to get stuck at. It supersizes an interchange, builds a new drawbridge, adds giant intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, has 7 lanes across Portage Bay, 14 lanes of ramps in Montlake, takes out homes, widens city arterials... all in a desperate and ultimately doomed attempt to cram a few more vehicles into a street configuration that is already overwhelmed, as anyone who has come through Montlake has witnessed.
$2 billion is roughly the amount we are short to fund Plan A, which is unanimously opposed by every community the highway runs through. The only way to get those funds would be to toll all the lanes of I-90 (a federal highway, unlike SR 520) across the lake and send the lion's share of that money to SR 520, on top of tolling SR 520 which is already planned (by 2011.) Some vast number (about 3000, I think?) of Mercer Island residents signed a petition basically saying they reject tolling that corridor for any purpose.
SR 520 is going to sink if we don't fix it, and we will end up tolling I-90 eventually, but Plan A is DOA.
More...
Plan M makes a major effort to improve the speed and reliability of transit from the Eastside to the UW and the light rail station there. It fixes a lot of the congestion issues in the area without inducing new traffic in the system.
Plan A puts bus "rapid" transit on a drawbridge that opens 10-90 times a day and creates even more traffic signals in Montlake for buses to get stuck at. It supersizes an interchange, builds a new drawbridge, adds giant intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, has 7 lanes across Portage Bay, 14 lanes of ramps in Montlake, takes out homes, widens city arterials... all in a desperate and ultimately doomed attempt to cram a few more vehicles into a street configuration that is already overwhelmed, as anyone who has come through Montlake has witnessed.
$2 billion is roughly the amount we are short to fund Plan A, which is unanimously opposed by every community the highway runs through. The only way to get those funds would be to toll all the lanes of I-90 (a federal highway, unlike SR 520) across the lake and send the lion's share of that money to SR 520, on top of tolling SR 520 which is already planned (by 2011.) Some vast number (about 3000, I think?) of Mercer Island residents signed a petition basically saying they reject tolling that corridor for any purpose.
SR 520 is going to sink if we don't fix it, and we will end up tolling I-90 eventually, but Plan A is DOA.
12
BUILDING A HUGE NEW BRIDGE WITH ACCESS TO AND EGRESS FROM THE NORTH DEPENDENT ON A DRAW BRIDGE IS ABSURD!!
13
When the planning to build a new SR 520 bridge began, nearly all concerned neighbors on the Seattle end wanted to stand firm: four lanes and no more!
Politics intervened and it became clear that the Governor and the Legislature would hear no less than six lanes.
Thanks to the primary leaders of the Alternative A team, Virginia Gunby and Larry Sinnott, the effects of the new freeway on neighborhood traffic were kept
at bay, and the advantages of riding on transit cross-Lake were championed. The proponents of Alternative K, now Alternative M, proved to be false champions.
Here are the WSDOT projections for vehicular traffic:
Pacific Place, west of Montlake Boulevard -- Alternative K: + 46%; Alternative A: + 21%
Montlake Boulevard north of Husky Stadium -- Alternative K: + 51%; Alternative A: + 16%
Montlake Boulevard south of SR 520 -- Alternative K: + 81%; Alternative A: + 28%.
Then, traffic in the Arboretum:
Alternative M (formerly K): + 49%
Alternative A+ adding back in the Arboretum ramps: + 29%
Alternative A (without the Arboretum ramps): - 18%, yes minus 18%.
Alternative A among all alternatives means adding less new vehicular traffic in the Seattle neighborhoods than any of the other 6-lane alternatives.
But, the danger is moving backwards by accepting the rebuilding of ramps in the Arboretum. There is much pressure to put the ramps
back in, mostly by business interests which see travel by car as benefiting their interests.
Two more notes: not rebuilding these ramps also means saving 2+ acres of wetlands and salmon migration waters from serious intrusion; and
The Stranger newspaper reported some misinformation about the transit connection of SR 520 to the University Station for the new light rail --
contrary to the Stranger, buses using Alternative A would arrive faster than buses under Alternatives K or M. Metro for that reason does not like Alternatives K or M.
More...
Politics intervened and it became clear that the Governor and the Legislature would hear no less than six lanes.
Thanks to the primary leaders of the Alternative A team, Virginia Gunby and Larry Sinnott, the effects of the new freeway on neighborhood traffic were kept
at bay, and the advantages of riding on transit cross-Lake were championed. The proponents of Alternative K, now Alternative M, proved to be false champions.
Here are the WSDOT projections for vehicular traffic:
Pacific Place, west of Montlake Boulevard -- Alternative K: + 46%; Alternative A: + 21%
Montlake Boulevard north of Husky Stadium -- Alternative K: + 51%; Alternative A: + 16%
Montlake Boulevard south of SR 520 -- Alternative K: + 81%; Alternative A: + 28%.
Then, traffic in the Arboretum:
Alternative M (formerly K): + 49%
Alternative A+ adding back in the Arboretum ramps: + 29%
Alternative A (without the Arboretum ramps): - 18%, yes minus 18%.
Alternative A among all alternatives means adding less new vehicular traffic in the Seattle neighborhoods than any of the other 6-lane alternatives.
But, the danger is moving backwards by accepting the rebuilding of ramps in the Arboretum. There is much pressure to put the ramps
back in, mostly by business interests which see travel by car as benefiting their interests.
Two more notes: not rebuilding these ramps also means saving 2+ acres of wetlands and salmon migration waters from serious intrusion; and
The Stranger newspaper reported some misinformation about the transit connection of SR 520 to the University Station for the new light rail --
contrary to the Stranger, buses using Alternative A would arrive faster than buses under Alternatives K or M. Metro for that reason does not like Alternatives K or M.
14
@1: you can find maps of all the options, including M, here:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/sr520le…
Strange that they've excised M from the main WSDOT 520 pages.
@Everybody else: Why is everybody ignoring option L? No expensive tunnel, but also no evil 2nd Montlake bridge that will make surface street traffic worse than it is today (and it's already bad). It's a flyover, which I guess is ugly, but as long as we're doing this, we might as well make it REDUCE traffic instead of increase it. Otherwise, just reinforce the current bridge and forget about spending $4 billion.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/sr520le…
Strange that they've excised M from the main WSDOT 520 pages.
@Everybody else: Why is everybody ignoring option L? No expensive tunnel, but also no evil 2nd Montlake bridge that will make surface street traffic worse than it is today (and it's already bad). It's a flyover, which I guess is ugly, but as long as we're doing this, we might as well make it REDUCE traffic instead of increase it. Otherwise, just reinforce the current bridge and forget about spending $4 billion.
15
No high level bridges across Union Bay. Not now not ever. This is as stupid as the Thompson Expressway idea. More SOV capacity into the Montlake/Pacific interchange is not the way to solve congestion. Next to downtown Seattle this is the most dense area in the entire region. It's time to realize that the only way to get the type of mobility needed into this area does not include SOV traffic. The UW has a proven track record to prove this is the case. Lots of ways to work toward this goal that are effective. More pavement isn't one of them. Traffic is the problem; not the solution.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Liveblogging the Washington State House Debate and Vote
onIN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE by Eli Sanders -
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Jeff Bezos' Racist, Pro-Life, Anti-Evolution, Rape-Apologist Search Engine by Goldy
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (15) RSS