Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Seattle May Reject the State's Plan for 520 Bridge

Posted by on Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:42 PM

A coalition comprising Mayor Mike McGinn, the Seattle City Council, state lawmakers representing Seattle, and neighborhood leaders will buck the state's plans for the 520 bridge, releasing their own plan in the next week, according to sources who spoke confidentially to The Stranger. The state approved a design that would replace the aging four-lane span across Lake Washington with a six-lane bridge and build a second drawbridge across the nearby Montlake cut to handle all the extra traffic. The state calls this option "A+." (Past reporting on the problems with this arrangement is here.)

But city officials took umbrage with the state's proposal in a letter sent to Governor Christine Gregoire today. The council, according to a statement that appears after the jump, calls on the state to "work with the Mayor and council to identify acceptable design elements and modifications that address city council concerns."

Sources tell us that city leaders will soon release plans for a set of specific requests. Among them, the sources say, the city wants: only four lanes dedicated to traffic and the other two lanes dedicated to transit only, light rail tracks laid on the bridge for future use, no ramp leading to the Arboretum, and a smaller footprint through the Montlake neighborhood. This layout could include a transit-lane connection from 520 to the north side of the ship canal.

As we've written before, the problem with juggling the layout and accommodating transit is the price tag. The state legislature—which controls improvements to state highways—established a price limit of $4.56 billion for a new 520 bridge. The A+ option, the one approved by a work group of legislators, is the only one that clocks in under that figure. Estimates for other layouts range from $5 billion to $6.5 billion.

I have a call in to the mayor's office and will update this post when I hear back.

Seattle City Councilmembers respond to SR 520 report
Council works to resolve western approach alternatives to 520

Seattle —The Seattle City Council today released their response to the SR 520 Legislative Workgroup recommendations in a letter to Gov. Gregoire, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen and Rep. Judy Clibborn, co-chairs of the transportation committee.

The response delineates key objectives for state officials to take under review, particularly on the Westside approach to SR 520. Eight councilmembers signed the letter to state officials, including Conlin, Bagshaw, Burgess, Clark, Godden, Harrell, O’Brien, and Rasmussen.

“We must ensure that key concerns on the Westside, including neighborhoods and the Arboretum impacts are addressed to assure the project will succeed,” stated Council President Richard Conlin. “The council supports moving this critical safety and transportation project forward on schedule, including east side construction and bridge development.”

The council lists the following key elements in the project:

· Ensuring design will maximize the opportunity for dedicated transit lanes.
· Narrow where possible lane width and general footprint of the corridor without compromising public safety and emergency access.
· Identifying ways to mitigate project impacts during and after construction.
· Using noise mitigation technologies as an integral part of design.
· Optimizing transit connectivity across the entire SR 520 corridor.
· Reducing height of the crosslake bridge structure from the thirty feet in the current plans.

While not endorsing a final option for the western approach, the council is committed to resolving the design concerns over the next several months. The council is calling on Washington State Department of Transportation and Seattle Department of Transportation to work with the Mayor and council to identify acceptable design elements and modifications that address city council concerns.

The council also asked that any action by the legislature this session not interfere with the opportunity to address the Westside configuration and believes that the public process has been thorough and that valuable and significant information on public preferences exists.

“We look forward to building upon our relationship with the governor, state legislative leadership and local officials to ensure the best version possible for the SR 520 corridor,” stated Tom Rasmussen, Councilmember and Transportation Committee Chair. “This is where leadership and implementation meet. We all want what is best for Seattle and mobility for the region.”

 

Comments (20) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
After I read the first paragraph I KNEW there was no way Nick Licata was part of this coalition. I still can't believe Seattle voters keep electing this consistent diehard conservative, and I can't believe The Stranger and others kept endorsing him.

This sounds like a GREAT proposal by our Seattle coalition and I'm glad they're taking action before it's too late. I'm proud of our mayor and city council (except Nick Licata of course).
Posted by misha99 on January 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM
SchmuckyTheCat 2
I don't know how great the state's design is, but McGinn coming out and hammering for a 4 lane bridge is playing Mr. Obstruction again. He's only a few weeks into his term and it is already annoying.
Posted by SchmuckyTheCat on January 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM
3
The current plan is a blatant FU to Seattle. It adds more highway noise and view pollution to our neighborhoods, it increases traffic in the Arboretum and thereby kills one of our most treasured parks, and by adding two lanes of traffic it throws a bunch more cars onto our streets that the city will then have to pay for in traffic mitigation, increased street repairs, and safety issues.

I knew McGinn hated this plan from the beginning, but I'm proud of the rest of our city politicians for also standing up to the State.
Posted by JoshMahar on January 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Tingleyfeeln 4
I have no problem with the 6 lanes, it is the absense of any accomodations for transit that is the problem. It is long past time for the Eastside to accept their fair share of responsibility in the region, most importantly with regards to transit and land use. Hopefully McGinn's demands to reduce the number of lanes is a bargaining chip for an improved design that includes dedicated space for transit.
I think the perfect technology for this rout is either monoral or bus rapid transit. With monorail it would have the same footprint as the current plan, even with 6 lanes of traffic. BRT might be more compatible with the Eastside.
Posted by Tingleyfeeln on January 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM
The Striking Viking 5
Despite cost issues, i wholeheartedly agree with the city's plan... in our transportation technology class back in Civil E., the rebuilding of the 520 bridge was by far the most discussed project, and i would not be surprised if the city consulted Star Labs at the UW about the design.

The problem with the state's plan is that it either assumes that adding an extra lane each way will be an improvement, or it forgoes making any improvements to the design at all...aside from placing a new bridge that would not fail any moment. Additional lanes actually do not improve traffic flow much at all. Any extra capacity would be met in a matter of a year or two after completion, and we would be stuck back where we began, with a slowly aging over-used bridge.

On the other hand, adding transportation alternatives such as transit lanes and light rail will open up commuting options and take a consistent percentage of the load from the traffic lanes. In other words, where adding another lane encourages more people to commute by car, adding transportation alternatives effectively independent of traffic will take something approximating a fixed percentage of the traffic load rather than a flat amount provided by the extra lane.
Posted by The Striking Viking on January 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM
6

The 520 is completely unnecessary and in fact, causes most of the traffic problems in and around Seattle.

Eastbound traffic should all be routed to I-90 or even better, around the Lake to the new widened I-405, or even better, make people ride LINK, or best of all, just move to the Eastside if you work there or vissa friggin' versa.
Posted by Bridge to Nowheresville on January 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM
Tingleyfeeln 7
@6 It would be worse to deprive everyone of the 520 after having it all these years. Too much has been developed, particularly on the Eastside, around the presense of that bridge and highway. Microsoft is at the end of it, depriving their workforce, many of whom live on this side, of an efficient route to work.
520 is necessary.
Posted by Tingleyfeeln on January 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM
8
#8. 520 yes. But not the 520 bridge (which is what I meant to say).

You can still feed the 520 highway from 405.

But you don't need a direct connection like the 520 Bridge.

Route all traffic over I-90 and I-405 connector through renton.

Get ride of 520 and all the northbound I-5 problems will disappear!
Posted by Robert Moses on January 28, 2010 at 6:26 PM
9
Making 2 dedicated transit lines is an idea I'll support...as far as the money for it being in the red, why not simply use the funds from the Billionaire's tunnel to pay for some of it along with expanded tolling? That tunnel's gonna look awfully stupid in 10 years when no one is driving through it due to gas prices at $7/gallon. or maybe they'll us submarines to shoot us through the tunnel.
Posted by that is all on January 28, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Fnarf 10
Can they just build it halfway across and then say "your ball"?

I agree though, it's insane not to build transit into it. Oh, and screw Microsoft. They did an incalculable amount of damage to the region by siting their headquarters in Redmond.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 28, 2010 at 6:56 PM
Will in Seattle 11
@10 - yeah, but land costs were cheaper there.

The city is right - Mayor and Council - in forcing the issue. Seattle does NOT have to build more lanes to connect more highway lanes if they're not transit-only lanes. And there is NOTHING the state can do about that, except possibly dumping all those extra lanes on state property at the UW and the Arboretum or push the extra traffic onto I-5.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 28, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Max Solomon 12
the city should be a jerk about transit lanes and light rail. and bike lanes. stop fucking us, WSDOT. find another way.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 28, 2010 at 7:19 PM
13
There's a larger point to this, and it warms my heart. We need the Mayor, the Council, and Seattle legislators to begin working together, to learn how to work together, and to figure out how to counter the power of Olympia. The 520 debate is a perfect launch pad for this, and could forge relationships that are important for the next several years.

I LOVE seeing them come together on this issue, and for Seattle to grow some in relation to Olympia, not just cave under the traditional divide and conquer scenario that's been so easy in the past.

Go SEATTLE!!! Our perspective matters.
Posted by Timothy on January 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Anc 14
@10 Completely off topic, but you wouldn't know from M$ that they are located in Redmond. My wife got me one of those new fangled Zunes for Xmas and a couple weeks ago I discovered 'Hello from Seattle' etched in tiny letters on the side (I have to admit it brought a smile to my lips as we are currently exiled to North Carolina).
Posted by Anc on January 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM
Anc 15
Oh, yeah, topic. Completely agree with the city on this. Adding lanes only guarantees horrible traffic in the short term and empty lanes long term when gas prices continue their climb.
Posted by Anc on January 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM
16
McGinn is only undoing damage from the McCheese non-engagement on 520. Cptn. Fatty Pants pretty much blew his wad on the Viaduct replacement and really did not seriously engage the City on the 520 design.

The A+ design really has issues with mass transit. Good to see some focus on this - even if it took a new administration to get the ball rolling at this late of a date.
Posted by Action Slacks on January 28, 2010 at 7:52 PM
Baconcat 17
Why are they doing this? It's not like anybody from the north end uses "transit" to get to Microsoft.
Posted by Baconcat on January 28, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Tingleyfeeln 18
@8, the bridge is part of the deal. Like it or not that bridge is a necessity. Take away that bridge and 405 and I-90 are even bigger clusterfucks.
Posted by Tingleyfeeln on January 28, 2010 at 11:01 PM
19
Funny, Montlake seemed to be just fine with a 6-lane replacement as long as they were able to move the interchanges that have been in their neighborhood for close to 50 years to the other side of the Cut.
Posted by Mr. X on January 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM
Will in Seattle 20
@13 ftw
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 29, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy