Why not bring back those floating cars like we see on Opening Day? Wouldn't need no stinkin' bridge. And the spectacle of watching thousand of cars jockeying for position at the landing ramps would be a real tourist draw.

Heck, we're going to shut down the 14th St Bridge to South Park...why not 520 too?

Running Light Rail on 520 as far as Sound Transit is concerned is difficult because once across the lake, where does it go? And who pays for the track? North Seattle Sub equity area is tapped out for building North to Lynnwood. If McGinn gets a 2011 ballot that funds a Seattle only extension to Ballard it could work.

As for whether we need a bridge at that point? Well as a bicycle commuter it makes it a lot easier to get from say Kirkland to the UW. In our post oil burning years, a 6 lane car bridge is probably too big. Two lanes for rail & buses with the tracks embedded instead of on top of the surface might work, two tolled lanes for cars & freight, two sidewalk wide lanes for bicycles (probably tolls here too). It would be about the same size as we have now and more people friendly.

Wow!

Just take out the bridge and convert the remnant shoreline freeway stubs into pedestrian-only ferry terminals with bus transit hubs. Solves the offramp to nowhere conundrum and adds a charming amenity to the Montlake complex. Use some of the $4B allocated to 520 expansion to install the terminal infrastructure, buy ferries and subsidize creating a direct and efficient bus transit system linking Emerald City and Gatesville. Use a little of the left over cash to fund one of Kemper Freeman's pet Bellevue projects so that he stops howling. Problem solved!

Knute - thank you for pushing this debate even further. Everyone has been operating under the assumption that we "need" to rebuild 520, but few have stepped back to question the actual goals of the project; and what it will actually accomplish. In an time of economic and fiscal constraints, limited and decreasing fossil fuel resources, and a paradigm shifting towards actually considering the climate, our environment and our quality of life in our infrastructure decisions; we really need to have open and honest discussions about our multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments and what they will mean for our future. I'm not saying we shouldn't rebuild the bridge, I'm simply noting that at this moment in time we need to examine our assumptions and ask very hard questions about our decisions.

I love the idea of leaving at least one of the ramps to nowhere in place. And I'd be first in line to take a ferry from Madison Park to Kirkland, though I'm not sure how the economics of an actual commuter service would work out.

Emmett Watson would love it....a much smaller local population.

A lot of employers and residents would throw up their hands in disgust on their way out of town. Others would just not move here. Some companies would carefully "choose a side" and relocate, but it's hard to imagine the big corporations doing anything other than ship jobs elsewhere, gradually or otherwise.

Eventually things would settle down. Small measures like a passenger ferry to the UW, Fremont, Ballard, Eastlake, and SLU would help a little. Mostly, Seattle and the Eastside would function a bit more like separate cities, with the synergies of a unified city gone.

PS, I wouldn't want to grow the number of general lanes, but I support the HOV lanes and will be thrilled to get the bike lane.

On second thought, I should have said "smaller", not "much smaller". Regionally the numbers would probably be stable, sort of like Midwest cities that lost their mojo in the 60s and 70s and have roughly the same metro populations today.

As noted before... In 1910, Seattle City Planners were looking at a subway UNDER Lake Washington from Madison Park to Kirkland... Its on a few maps of the day.

Is it really THAT outlandish to think of a few tubes UNDER the lake, or buried in the Muck of the Lake? Precast tube segments built ashore, then floated out into position, sunk and connected... Like how BART did their underbay tunnel.

and cross lake passenger ferry is not not that outta line.

520 was always built on the cheap. Single hull, too narrow... but most never believed that there would be that much growth. The Tolls to both bridges came off far sooner than projected. Now 520 sits a foot lower in the water for all the repair add ons since being built. But NOT replace it at all? I suspect Lake Forest Park, Kenmore and Bothell might have some issues with this idea.

On the other hand, some of the best engineering in this city seemed to occour once circumstances created the need to rebuild. The Seattle Fire did wonders for our future... Maybe the next quake will settle the Viaduct AND the 520 question for us...

This is an excellent article.

The concept that the proposed “designs” for 520 are actually “designs” is absurd. They are better described as default roadway placements put down by WashDOT staffers, but with no design thinking. The result is 10+ years of trying to turn the expanded default roadway placement into a “design”, which Knute aptly describes as neo-Brutalist, and completely inappropriate for both the built and non-built environment.

I find it interesting that nowhere in the Environmental Impact Statements is there an articulation of who actually designed the “design options.” There is no mention of who the urban planners are, and there is certainly no “big name” architect or architecture firm associated with the project.
The name of Rem Koolhaus is associated with the new Seattle Public Library, and the result is an interesting, inspirational, and innovative set of architecture. For the 520 project -- with this kind of scope and impact -- we need the same level of design thinking.

Knute’s ideas for reconsidering the project is an excellent addition to the discussion, because our urban roadways should no longer be: “Built it an provided mitigation”, which is what WashDOT is doing. It should instead be, “Create a great design that meets the values and goals of our region.” Knute, I salute you for identifying an idea that would actually do this, and providing many supporting reasons for why, with an artistic flair to boot.

Thank you for the excellent post, and I hope Mayor McGinn takes it to heart.

And you folks at WashDOT—I’m still looking for answer as to who actually designed the proposed bridge.

I'm for removing the 520 bridge and having the highway stubs on both sides just go right into the lake.

Great article. There are only two criteria that have been set in stone throughout the entire viaduct / 520 bridge processes and neither have anything to do with transportation. The first is that the viaduct must be torn down….and the second is that the Montlake neighborhood is not to be inconvenienced nor affected in any way by a new 520 bridge. That’s it. It’s the reason why contradictory solutions can be embraced by the usual suspects, and why a new mayor can seamlessly bring whatever new angles he has to this party, and why articles like this one that explore just “tearing it all down” actually seem to make sense.

Don’t we need transportation solutions that acknowledge that cars are the preferred mode of travel, that capacity is important, and that favors to special interests should not add billions of extra dollars to transportation projects?

You can’t tell the players without a program. So, I direct you again to Brewster’s Crosscut article of March 26, 2009 “When Chopp speaks, parse it closely.” Even with McGinn’s trains thrown in instead of car pools it seems to be following the script nicely.

People commute to the east side from more places than Seattle. King County is too rich for many people's blood^H^H^H^H^H wallets. Getting to the east side from Pierce County is already problematic. I-405 is frequently impassible. I-5 to I-90 is better, but sometimes not by much. Frequently north-south commuters have to turn to SR-99 or even Military Road to get to and from work. Taking the traffic off SR-520 and dumping it onto 90 or 405 will be a sure formula for the type of total gridlock that will drive businesses and people out of the area, not into the proletarian utopia of downtown Seattle. Who will be able to afford to live there?

All of these transit-centric, Seattle-centric plans share one drawback: They are ultimately collectivist in nature. They view people not as individuals with their own desires, preferences, dreams and priorities, but as "human resources" to be moved around like chess pieces on the planners' maps. That doesn't mean that we need to keep laying more and more pavement, but we should at least strive to maintain our highway system's current carrying capacity. Otherwise we will create the real tragedies that will be inevitable in thousands and thousands of people's lives if they are forced to live their lives for the convenience of central planners.

I rarely agree with dbreneman, but this time I sure do.

As "modest proposals" go, I think eating Irish babies is vastly more practical...

It's not Montlake, folks. It's the Arboretum, the people who walk on the nature trails and rent canoes, the boaters, the swimmers, the tourists who come to view the beautiful landscape. Making 520 bigger will harm all of them. And it directly affects the health, ability to move around, and quality of life in North Capitol Hill, Roanoke Park/Portage Bay, Montlake, Madison Park, Laurelhurst... a significant chunk of the city.

All the plans so far harm all of these areas, and also do not improve the commute. That's the key thing; no one has figured out how to move more cars faster, because there simply isn't room in Seattle. So we have to do something different.

I like Knute Berger's article because he makes it explicit that the transportation decisions will cause people to make different personal decisions. Not replacing the bridge is a new and interesting idea; I like the idea of encouraging East side growth. Imagine Seattle's Arboretum, neighborhoods, wetlands, and views without 520... they would be so attractive that Seattle could keep its own growth up.

Not replacing 520 is also much better than doing more harm.

Almost 20 years ago, this state adopted the Growth Management Act, governing how further growth would occur, so that we'd avoid the ugly sprawl of southern California. Here in the Puget Sound region, we established the Urban Growth Boundary, beyond which urban development should not occur. By setting a boundary, we made a commitment to building our urban area more densely and with adequate utilities and other infrastructure.

INSIDE that Urban Growth Boundary, mobility is a necessity of life. Let's imagine this in another setting. What if NYC just decided to do away with the various bridges to and from Brooklyn, Queens; smart idea? No, it would be a dumb idea. NYC is not likely to do that, and we shouldn't be thinking that it's a good idea here. There is little to no environmental or social value in fragmenting existing urban areas.

I agree w/dbreneman and bubbleator.

Response to Knute Berger’s piece, “Mayor, tear down that bridge!” in Crosscut of March 4, 2010

KNUTE BERGER: THANK YOU! You are a journalist who GETS IT!

Your image of the SR 520 mess, and your picture of an activist hope to move Seattle to 21st Century solutions, away from Olympia’s 20th Century, auto-centric highway planning is timely, clear-headed, imaginative and bold.

Seattle is ready to match our environmental goals with action. If there to be a new bridge, it can be as small as the current footprint. It can carry high capacity transit from day-one, reduce vehicle miles traveled (an official State goal), while moving more people and goods.

Seattle is at a historic turning point. The reason that well over a decade of meetings, involving thousands of hours by community representatives, and $millions in State expenditure for 520 highway “planning,” remains dead-locked, is that it has taken us (the City) this long to take action on our own behalf.

Because the State “controls” highway funding doesn’t mean that the State “controls” Seattle. The State will NOT impose a more environmentally destructive project on us if the City decides what is good for the City, and stands firm. In the long run, even the broader region, in addition to our grand-children, will be grateful.

Mike McGinn is the first official to challenge the outmoded auto-dominant solution the State has tried to impose on the City. This takes courage, environmental vision, and his leadership is attracting support from other, thinking officials, and a grateful response from a broad community base.

This approach will help lead us toward a broad, coherent plan for mobility for the City as a whole, potentially integrated with a long range transit system throughout the region.

Bob Corwin, Capitol Hill

Bob Corwin writes: "Because the State 'controls' highway funding doesn’t mean that the State 'controls' Seattle."

But cities are chartered under state law, and the state could eliminate the City of Seattle if it saw fit. Maybe Seattle could be split back up into its component neighborhoods if it gets too dictatorial. I'm sure voters in Tacoma and Spokane would be alright with that. :-)

Remember, these freeways are not the property of Seattle; they are the property of all the people of Washington. A great many people use them to get through Seattle with no intention of stopping there. It's too bad that I-5 runs through, rather than around, both Seattle and Tacoma. But it does, and we're stuck with it. Getting people from I-5 to the surrounding areas requires secondary highways like SR-520 (and, in Tacoma, SR-16 and SR-7). And just because Seattle doesn't like cars, that sentiment won't eliminate, in our lifetimes, the necessity of cars for people who live in The Rest of The State.

Turning back the clock 50 years by eliminating a major state highway that serves a lot more than Microsoft is absurd. If you really want to get people out of their cars, prohibit on street parking in residential areas of Seattle. Or, how about eliminating the requirement that multi-family and commercial businesses provide parking. Or, tax every household with more than one car. The greatest incentive to getting people out of cars and becoming carbon neutral would be to eliminate parking capacity forcing people to get rid of their cars or pay through the nose for the opportunity to park in a very private space. It might create a carbon neutral town ala Detroit.

We can't turn back the clock. We need to deal with reality.

Perhaps we can restore the Montlake Cut to its pristine condition. That would eliminate those gas hungry cabin cruisers traversing from Lake Washington to the Sound. It would also restore the navigibility to the Sammamish River. The locks would no longer be sea lion salmon buffets.

Also without the 520 bridge, the dangerous Husky Stadium could be demolished and the Arboretum could be expanded and games could be played at Qwest Field. Players could use the light rail to commute to the games.

I-5 was horribly designed. There are no decent on or off ramps and the highway was all built on columns. I the near future I-5 will require billions to rebuild. Let's take the billions for the bored tunnel, 520 and I-5 and move Seattle to the Eastside. Vacancy rates are already high in the office buildings. WAMU is kaput and Boeing has a smaller and smaller footprint. Heck Seattle won't even have fireworks on the Fourth of July.

We could restore the hill washed away by the Regrade and return the tideflats to their natural condition. Seattle could become a natural preserve.

Stating the obvious here but since it hasn't been said yet: If the Alaskan Way Viaduct is torn down, vehicles can still readily use any number of surface streets to get to, and through downtown. If, on the other hand, the 520 bridge is torn down, there is no viable alternative. This article is silly, even as thought experiments go. Also, Bellevue is not exactly the burbs any longer. It's a major urban center and modern design requires direct connections to that other urban center directly west -- with or without Microsoft.

GaryP -

You've got it exactly right.

1) Light Rail on 520 is difficult because once across the lake, where does it go? Bueller? Bueller? McGinn?

2) And who pays for the track? North Seattle Sub equity area is tapped out for building North to Lynnwood. Bueller? Bueller? McGinn?

These are the 2 most important questions. The Sierra Club never spoke up about this for the last decade. Neither did McGinn. Not once. I never saw him at ANY Sound Transit meetings advocating for this. Not once. And as much transit work as I've done, I never spoke to him about light rail on 520. Not once.

Sound Transit made their intentions very clear about not putting light rail on 520 nearly a decade ago. Time to move on.

I have this new nightmare, of being trapped in Seattle. All the ways out are gone--bridges demolished, the ferry system bankrupt. The wonderful, glorious mountains barely visible between the high rise, dense urban towers.

This is not the Seattle I came to in 1973 or the one I want to live in in the future. Hey transit-crazy, car-hating smart-growth, new urbanists, there's a wonderful world out there that doesn't exist in the city and which nourishes the soul. It's called wild nature. (And's its much more fun than hanging-out in a coffee shot playing with your smart phone.)

The way to get there to the east are the 520 and I-90 bridges or the ferry system to the West. Without good automobile access to the great nature places surrounding us, Seattle is just another big, crowded, money grubbing city. It might as well be located in Ohio.

Anotherview

Man, what an unbelievably foolish idea. I mean, really. Microsoft is the only company for whom this is an issue? What about regional delivery, trucking (the ones that carry your organic produce from the small farms around Carnation and Duvall to the PCC), construction and home repair companies on the eastside, students in Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, etc?

Truly insane. Pretending that moving Microsoft to Downtown Seattle would solve the problem is ignoring the majority of people who use the bridge (NOT Microsoft workers, I can promise you). Leave the bridge, design it with future transit possbilities left open, and be done with it.

Bellevue and Redmond and economic hubs. So is Seattle. We need connections between them. Want to stop sprawl? Do what Multnomah County (Portland) did in the 70s: Make a rule that everything outside a certain line will be zoned rural in perpetuity. For those already living there, grant an exception, but freeze further development. Should have done this decades ago, but better late than never.

Great article, Knute, and well spoken on Weekday this morning. We collectively seem to be caught between two extremes - determinism and obstructionism. It's very frustrating for those of us who want a solution, but also want a good solution.

You didn't completely change my mind - I'm in the 'just do it, already, and live with it' camp - but you did present an intelligent argument in a non-confrontational and respectful tone that allowed your message to come through loud and clear.

I do believe that it's a little too late to turn back the clock on suburban sprawl and car culture. I also think you ignore an important dynamic of many dual-career households. Namely, what do you do if one household member has a job close to home and the other has a long commute? It's not as simple as everyone living close to their job.

Knute -

I'm predicting you'll get your wish before this is all over. The delays could easily run another 5-10 years.

If a major earthquake does indeed take the bridge out, the Puget Sound region will very quickly find out how to get around without a 520 bridge. They will quickly scramble to figure out how to move the most people between Seattle and Downtown and the Microsoft campus. Guess what, no one will be talking about accommodating more cars. They'll be counting how many people can be carried with 4-car trains on light rail on I-90. Buses will be jammed and there will be an instant push to add lots more bus service.

Knute brings up another point about transportation, namely that transportation has alot to do with land use. What if Microsoft bought one of the now defunct Washington Mutual Towers? The employees who live in Seattle would probably migrate over time to work downtown and the demand on 520 would change quite dramatically. A truly 'green' Microsoft would be looking at this. The only question is why aren't they? This would save their employees money, it would be more green for the company, it would be good public relations and it would save tons of commuting time for the car-weary commuters at Microsoft.

I'm having a hard time believing that a genuinely substantial percentage of the traffic crossing Lake Washington is originating in downtown Seattle and terminating at Microsoft, and vice versa. I cross Lake Washington almost every day. I live on the Peninsula and work in Snohomish County. Eliminating SR-520 would create terminal gridlock on I-405 and I-90 and probably force people in similar situations to take SR-18 over Tiger Summit to connect with I-405 via I-90 (if I even wanted to stay in the job market at all). And the chance that there will ever be a decent transit solution for people who do not commute with Seattle as the origin or terminus is zero.

When I read about yet more concern for the Montlake neighborhood I started wondering if Knute wasn't being a bit tongue-in-cheek here. But then he brought up saving the ramps to nowhere and I knew he was serious.

This just gets weirder and weirder. The assumption is that, somehow, moving Microsoft into the WAMU tower would magically do away with the need for the SR520 bridge. What are you people smoking?

Tear down that bridge. Nice thought, isn't it??? It seems that President Obama is going to spend most of his first term appointing people, and having them confirmed. His pick for the head of the TSA, or Transportation Security Administration, Robert Harding is a good pick though. He's a retired Army General, he served in the Defense Intelligence Agency (the military counterpart to the CIA) and he's made more than a few payday loans worth with his own private security agency. Let us hope this guy is able to head off incidents like the Underwear Bomber – it seems the ball got dropped pretty hard with that little incident.

There are a number of inconsistencies in this piece.

First, why is it that engineers "throwing everything they have" at State Route 520 bad, and the civic activism that led to engineers throwing everything they had at Interstate 90 good?

Second, the premise of this piece misses a big point. Seattle mayor has much more suasion (at least morally and politically if not legally, it is a STATE ROUTE after all) over a major state project that begins and ends within the city limits of Seattle than one that touches multiple municipal jurisdictions.

Mayor McGinn is a visionary who wants to mold the region in the image of what he thinks is best for our future, but as any smart public officeholder, he also has his eye on what is politically possible. No use wasting one's vision banging one's head against a brick wall. It's one thing for people like the author of this piece to spout off on what they think is stupid or bad for our region or the silliness of Seattle process (and then they will also complain if a public official does not follow the Seattle process, at least they have something to write about, eh, never mind if it's productive?). It is another thing to actually have to lead or govern and move the ball forward.

Third, not sure what the author has against the monorail. Seems to me the proposed route, through actual population centers would've made a lot more sense than Light Rail. The opponents did do a masterful hatchet public relations campaign against it, misconstruing the cost of the monorail (every major project issues bonds, and those bonds need to be paid for over time, was that really anything new?).

dbreneman,
You really live on the Olympic peninsula and work in Snohomish County? What kind of madness is that?

Why is it deemed selfish for people to protect their homes from freeway expansion, but a constitutional right for people to commute long distances over very expensive infrastructure that makes close-in neighborhoods unlivable?