Wow, isolationism has a new champion! Everyone else should bow down to the few if you live in Seattle, or should I say certain portions of Seattle.

Everyone should think about moving to one side of the lake or the other and staying there. We can save 4.8 Billion dollars by not replacing the 520, Billions more by not replacing the Viaduct. We can move all major Governmental facilities to outlying areas in the county and encourage businesses to do the same. Port operations on the Waterfront can be shut down and moved to Tacoma and Everett. McGinnville, Washington, come for the coffee, stay for the comedy.

Good piece, Knute. Interstates 5 and 405 are both, I believe, over capacity so where does
all this free flowing traffic go? generous, up-to-Federal-standards parking lots at the east end of 520 and at the west end, maybe the whole thing. Could be a nice place to park, relatively speaking.

Interstates 5 and 405 are NOT over capacity... Don't confuse congestion at particular times with capacity problems.

Toward the end of the Town Hall, a woman wondered why the city didn't connect Montlake to Madison Park with a shoreline bike and pedestrian trail. That shortcut near Foster Island could connect with the Burke-Gilman, take a couple miles off the trek between neighborhoods, and get cars and bikes out of the Arboretum. One short answer: It would have to cut across property owned by the gated Broadmoor community, and they have better lawyers than the rest of us. Such a project was proposed some years ago, and defeated for various reasons, one being that it would cut through a sensitive wetland.

I believe the major reason this was defeated was because the residents of Madison Park didn't want it. Yes, it would have cut through a wetland, but so do the trails on Foster and Marsh Islands. As for Broadmoor's property, it wouldn't have had to do so had the city not vacated E. Lakeside Boulevard in 2002. This was a never-developed right-of-way that ran along the north end of Broadmoor. The city turned it over in exchange for some land that Broadmoor owned. One parcel had effectively been incorporated into the Arboretum — it was pedestrian access to Foster Island — but legally belonged to Broadmoor. The other was wetlands and marsh.

I never understood why the city couldn't condemn the Foster Island access, and why the wetlands and marsh were traded for the right-of-way, considering that Broadmoor was never going to be able to develop that land anyway. The golf club wanted Lakeside Boulevard because it ran across the north end of the course. I'm not sure why that was allowed to go on for so long, either. And so died the best hope of getting a Foster Island—Madison Park trail.

This sums up the level of my respect for mayor Michael McGinn.
He's an outstanding national leader for the environment and community.
An politician able to 'stand up' in the ring of public discourse.
His 'gut instinct' understanding of transportation planning guidelines demonstrates how both proponent and opponent can be in error....

Mike shouldn't support Mercer West for its increased traffic impact on the entire "I-5 to Elliott--Mercer Corridor". And worsened with a "dangerously steep" long hill of Mercer Place be widened "harmfully"; perhaps doubling traffic at higher speeds through a quiet, high-density neighborhood. Egadz!

Mike, FWIW, Mercer West is a mistake too alongside the incredibly worse DBT dumbhead idea. And, thanks Mike both of you Mikes, really. Believe it or not, the current Alaskan Way road-thing, like wear cars go? you know? the roady-thingy fer Laskan Weigh? Welp. It no good, like it stands.

The Seawall should be strongest for future sea level rise and storm; strongest seawall has cut/cover behind it and a 'compensatory' sub-surface water-channelling system that works better than as planned for the DBT.

Surface Boulevard First could be followed (if necessary) with the better engineered C/c Tunnel using less concrete and recycling more. Puts no risk to downtown. Manages traffic best. You're right Mister Mayor about the Surface Boulevard being the best start, but you only understand it in that "gut instinct" way that isn't helping many environmentalists to understand the bigger picture on the highway issue. Cost overrun is a secondary concern, but I see you needed to make noise... I respect you for that if it shows our road builders how their first concern being money questions their integrity. Just finish it Mike. The time is right. Expose the errors in the engineering now, not later. Thanx

"Anything worth doing is worth doing well," is wut used to say on me card I dun carried around for a few years.

THANKS TO The Mikes !!

YOU GUYS ARE AWESOME !!

THE DBT IS GOING DOWN !!

Taking Mercer West with it !!!

Montlake residents have been choking on vehicle fumes for 40 years as their opposition to the R.L.Thomson and Bay Freeways turned their 1200 home community into Seattle's chokepoint poster child. Bring on the big bridge and new 520 and keep the toll free crossing times between 11pm and 5am!!

The few! Cameron, you're the isolationist. WSDOT is about to embark on two mammoth projects, central northeast and central southwest, that will gridlock Seattle downtown and in most of its urban neighborhoods. The waterfront project and the SR 520 project aren't going on in a vacuum. Both will affect traffic on I-5, and those effects will ripple out to arterials and neighborhood streets all over the city.

If you've read Nelson/Nygaard's tunnel study, you know that the tunnel will handle less traffic than the Viaduct and send drivers from the north and the south into city streets and over to I-5. You probably already know that I-90, not Hwy 99, is our major highway for port traffic. I-5 is our highway for north-south commercial traffic and a major commuter highway, and it's jam-packed already. Both projects will send more traffic to I-5 at the same time that a reversible Flyover from SR 520 to and from I-5 for commuting from the Eastside in the morning and to the Eastside in the evening will take out an I-5 express lane for its ramp beginning on the Ship Canal Bridge.

Communities all along the I-5 corridor and radiating out, from Northgate to South Seattle--GreenLake, Wallingford, Fremont, the University District, Ravenna, View Ridge, Laurelhurst, Wedgewood, Montlake, Madison Park, Roanoke Park, North Capitol Hill, Eastlake, South Lake Union, Queen Anne, Pioneer Square, Belltown, Eastlake, South Lake Union, Queen Anne, First Hill, and on. Mt. Baker, Beacon Hill, and some other lucky communities south already have a speedy, dedicated light rail comumute in and out of the City. Broadway to the University will soon have a dedicated light rail line. If you live or want to go anywhere else in Seattle and give it some thought, the effects from these two projects that WSDOT hasn't foreseen or foresees and doesn't reveal will become apparent to you.

The seeming indifferenece of most of our City Council to the ravages of these two projects is puzzling. It looks like being anti-McGinn at any cost to the citizens of our city. It looks like being anti-urban life.

The County's go-along is puzzling, too. Do Eastside tax revenues make up for the lost revenues as our high-tax-paying neighborhoods lose value to increased traffic congestion, visual blight, noise, and air pollution? Seattle is/was the jewel in the crown, perhaps no longer after WSDOT has finished with us. No matter what the EIS tells you, more freeway doesn't add to the urban feel of our city. Freeways aren't urban.

Opposition to these two projects should not be and is not an isolated phenomenon.

I'm sorry, Knute, but there are so many errors and misstatements in this piece that it is truly astonishing. Planning on this bridge has been underway for 14 years. There have been many avenues for public involvement throughout that time. We successfully beat back the attempt to widen 520 as part of the replacement project. Some Eastside proponents wanted an 8 lane highway. The current plan will replace the current 4 lanes and add a bicycle-pedestrian path and dedicated Transit/HOV lanes, which are fully convertible to light rail. Wetland mitigation and protection of the Arboretum are fully incorporated. We did not get everything we want, but we will have a much improved Montlake interchange, and secured many other benefits for the Seattle community. For more information, see my articles at:

http://www.seattle.gov/council/conlin/miw/2010/1004miw.htm

Expect an update in the next few weeks. The SR 520 plan is a great victory for sustainability and transit advocates, and we should be celebrating it.

To Richard Conlin:
In this has been planned for 14 years, why aren't basic question answered?
The fact that something ahs been going on for a long time doesn't mean it is welldone.

I attended most of the public involvement meetings, and I can tell you that the public was speaking and WSDOT wasn't listening. For the last couple of years, you haven't been listening either. Why did you sell out?

The SR520 plan takes more wetlands, bays, and green space than the original 520 took, because the proposed addition is wider. How is that a victory for sustainability?

The proposed plan is a disaster for transit. There isn't funding for meaningful increase in bus service, the busses will be caught in the local congestion from Madison Park to Laurelhurst, and there's no plan to bring rail into Seattle.

Shame on you, for saying things you know to be untrue!

Ah, Seattle Process. I'm so glad I don't live there anymore.

"One person who got it: a fifth-grader who is on the Montlake Elementary School "Green Team" of kids trying to create a more sustainable school, and who gave an anti-520 speech without notes to kick off the forum. The crowd loved it. Give that kid a seat on the City Council!"

Actually, don't. Test his math skills and fire his teacher if he doesn't pass (a little hyperbolic, I admit). Maybe the public schools - union-controlled indoctrination academies that they are - should spend more time teaching our kids how to think and less time teaching them what to believe (and parrot, with or without notes).

I'm sorry, Councilmember Conlin, but I re-read Mr. Berger's piece and I was unable to locate a single error or misstatement. It very accurately describes both the tone and content of a Town Hall meeting I attended, featuring the Mayor, which Mr. Berger attended, and which you did not -- right down to the moving comments from a Montlake Elementary fifth grader who is among those who will be paying for the mistakes we are in the process of making.

Planning has indeed been underway for the 14 years we have both been involved, and the primary reason it has taken so long is that the state has failed to produce an affordable plan that works for transit and Seattle neighborhoods. It’s not just Montlake that opposes this plan. It’s also North Capitol Hill, Portage Bay / Roanoke Park, Laurelhurst, Madison Park and the boating community – plus a lot of sympathetic voices elsewhere in the city. What does that say, that the people who live and breathe – and use – the corridor, are so united in rejecting the state’s plans? Are we all NIMBY’s, even though we’ve suggested many ideas over the years that would sacrifice our own needs for the betterment of the region? The current plan is just another variation of the same fundamentally flawed plans we’ve all been criticizing for years. The Governor is intransigent on this issue and you have taken her side.

Some did want an 8 lane highway, which you cast what I recall was the deciding vote to advance through the analysis process on January 30, 2002 as a member of the Trans-Lake Washington Executive Committee, while others wanted 4 lanes. Studying a doomed 8 lane plan contributed to the $400 million total that has been spent thus far on this project prior to achieving any transportation benefit. The fact remains, 8 lanes would never work as a transportation system even if it could be paid for, permitted and built, because it would overwhelm I-5 and I-405, which both of us knew then and still know now. It’s a red herring.

Even the current plan overwhelms Seattle streets and I-5 with 17,000 additional vehicles per day. Where will they go? The plan fails to address the Montlake Bridge bottleneck, while proposing we knock down homes in a historic district on an Olmsted boulevard and forever ruin the views in the Ship Canal to spend $80 million we don’t have building a second drawbridge that doesn’t fix the problem. It retains huge traffic backups on the highway itself which are part of the supposed justification for the HOV lanes, plus daily half-hour delays on Montlake Blvd. NE from University Village to the Montlake Bridge, for which no HOV bypass is proposed. The plan actually removes a lane from I-5 across the Ship Canal, yielding (by the state’s own admission) an additional hour of congestion in the morning for commuters form the north heading downtown, in order to let Eastside commuters cut in line.

This is not a transit-friendly plan. It removes the most popular highway adjacent transit facility in the region, at Montlake, in such a way that precludes its replacement, introducing inefficiencies for transit patrons and requiring subsidies ad infinitum. There’s also no way to connect University Village, NE Seattle and Children’s Hospital -- all of which are poised for dramatic growth -- to either the UW light rail station or to connecting service on SR 520 reliably with this plan.

The state is taking a grossly irresponsible path with regard to public safety. We are retaining several seismically unsound sections in Seattle – the Portage Bay crossing and the entire segment through the wetlands supported by hollow columns on unstable soils -- for at least another decade due to the fact that the state is over $2 billion in the hole even after taking on huge debt to be paid off through tolls over 30 years. These sections are supposedly about an equal risk to that of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. In the meantime, the state is prioritizing work on the Eastside on dry land, including some very nice lids for the residents of Medina, Yarrow Point and Hunts Point. What will you say if we lose the Portage Bay Viaduct in an earthquake, while having blown the funds we could have used to repair it on segments outside Seattle that would remain untouched in an earthquake or windstorm?

If you think tolling I-90 is a magic solution for this problem, ask the FHWA what they think of a state charging tolls on a Federal highway, and then spending all of those revenues to close a funding gap on a different, state highway. You may also want to ask the residents of Mercer Island and Tim Eyman what they think about that idea. Furthermore, these HOV lanes are one Tim Eyman initiative and a can of paint away from being turned into general purpose lanes. How well would that work as a transportation system?

This is only a taste of the flaws you’ve heard described many times by many of your constituents, which you’ve somehow convinced yourself it’s okay to ignore. Others on the Council who look to you for leadership on this issue have walked into a hornet’s nest. Ask fellow Councilmember Tom Rasmussen about the tone and content of his recent meetings in Madison Park and Montlake for a sample of the feedback you’ve elected to stop listening to.

Good article, Knute. It's accurate and makes good links among many important facets of this issue.

Terrible comments, Councilmember Conlin. It's your statements that are inaccurate.

Wetlands are not being protected. If the enlarged bridge is built, many more wetlands will be destroyed. And the bays near Lake Washington are now weakened to the point where additional destruction may trigger collapse of the whole rich ecosystem. Historic sites and areas would also be destroyed.

Big traffic bottlenecks will be worse. As the director of the Seattle Dept. of Transportation pointed out in his recent letter to WSDOT, there hasn't even been adequate analysis of congestion in the whole region which will be affected.

Cohesive communities would be blighted, and have been telling you specifically how they would be harmed and asking for your help. The minor tweaking that has gone on does not start to address the real issues. .

Your constituents will be left for at least 10 years with the unsafe columns supporting 520 from Madison Park to I-5. Meanwhile, the "partial bridge" will have a huge traffic jam over the water near the Arboretum, as 6 lanes merge into 4.

Meanwhile, it's absurd to claim this as a great victory for transit. It isn't even thought through; the connections are still weak, the provisions for light rail stop out over the water and don't even come into Seattle, and the transit is grossly underfunded. Furthermore, buses will be caught in the congestion on the Seattle side.

This plan expands a highway and then dumps all the traffic into Seattle streets, which can not be expanded, and I-5, which will have a lane actually removed from around 520 across the ship canal bridge to the university district. It makes no sense at all!

Councilmember Conlin, Your statements are simply not factual.

I have to agree with terra_firma about the public hearings. I was there, too, and they have been just a show. I've never seen a sign that they've changed either WSDOT's or Richard Conlin's mind. A plan 14 years in the making might need to be rethought in light of recent developments worldwide and locally. And where are the traffic studies that reveal the inter-related consequences of WSDOT's two projects in our City?

In "we successfully beat back the attempt to widen 520 as part of the replacement project," Richard omits to include, and won six lanes plus a 14 foot bicycle/pedestrian path on the Floating Bridge and six lanes plus a 14-foot managed shoulder on the Portage Bay Bridge, with generous shoulders, capable of being restriped. Some beating back. A lower deck on the Floating Bridge will run its full length, and the second deck will make of the Floating Bridge a boxy structure 30 feet high along its full length, more with the addition of noise walls, perhaps as high as 44 feet all told. This on our SEPA-protected "scenic highway," with its views of the waters, the Cascades, and Mt. Rainier.

According to Tim Payne of Nelson/Nygaard in response to a question from City Councilmember Bruce Harrell whether the SR 520 HOV lanes as designed would be fully convertible to light rail, Tim Payne said no. The same advertising about the ease of converting lanes on the I-90 bridge to light rail was bruited about and proved to be false. In response to Councilmember Harrell's question whether WSDOT had considered wave-attenuating design instead of added height, Tim Payne said no.

Protect the Arboretum by getting rid of the ramps WSDOT should never have put there in the first place? By all means, but figure out what the traffic impacts will be and where. Wreck a wetlands? No problem. We'll make more, but the record for successfully creating wetlands is not that good. We have spent a lot of money on recovering salmon population in Lake Washington, but the SDEIS said, no matter, we have plenty of salmon elsewhere, and plenty of habitat for other wildlife elsewhere, and plenty of clean air elsewhere, and plenty of peace and quiet and beauty elsewhere, and plenty of historic properties and districts elsewhere, so these local effects are as nothing. Make the study area large enough, and there will be no impacts. Forget about the impacts on one city.

What should we have done long ago? Safety fixes. The governor has gambled with lives for an over-ambitious project we can't afford. We should have fixed the bridge and given it wider shoulders for disabled vehicles. We should have strengthened the West Approach and the Portage Bay Bridge. We still can. But if we must have someting new, we can make modest improvements we can almost afford, a new and beautiful four-lane Floating Bridge, again with wider shoulders, and a four-lane Portage Bay Bridge with adequate shoulders. If we were talking about a beautiful addition to our city that would help us out of a jam, that would be great, but we're still talking about a hideous structure that would damage our neighborhoods and treasured waters and views and add to our jam.

Dubman, Conley, and O'Connor are right on! Let's have some honesty by WSDOT and Councilmemer Conlin whom we elected thinking he would represent us, the citizen residents of Seattle. It is unbelievable - truly unbelievable - that the Eastside of 520, which is on dry land and not in danger, is getting "improved" before the at risk sections. Also, unbelievable is that the proposed new zillion dollar, monster Montlake interchange keeps the original awful U turn design at Hamlin Street! Nor will their be ANY Improved access to a bigger 520 from the north, and egress to the north will be WORSE with two additional four way traffic lights even before reaching the Hamlin St light!

Councilmember Conlin:

Tim Eyman's recent attempt to open HOV lanes to all traffic should make it clear that the HOV/transit lanes on the new bridge have a significant potential to become simply more traffic lanes. I think it's fair to expect that, eventually; more lanes have always led to more traffic, and if the suburbs don't invest in other transit systems it follows that population growth on the East Side will naturally lead to increased demand to open those lanes. If the city couldn't stop the state from building the bridge, there's obviously no way we'll be able to stop them from forcing those lanes into general use.

The underlying issue, I think, is two-fold: 1) the new highway is bigger than the one that's there now, so it will necessarily have a greater environmental impact; and 2) this region just doesn't need anymore highways. I know politics is the art of the possible, and that a lot of people in King County aren't ready to negotiate (or pay for) new transit systems other than cars. But this issue is going to need to be addressed sooner or later, and making concessions that allow commuters to continue their self-destructive reliance on cars just puts off the inevitable.

Obviously it's not reasonable to expect the Seattle city government, all by itself, to stop the state government from pursuing a course of action, no matter how ill-advised. But I think it is reasonable to expect Seattle's elected representatives to stand by Seattle's interests and show leadership by saying what needs to be said: we should not be building new freeway lanes into Seattle, and we should not be increasing surface capacity for cars inside the city. Every reliable study shows that more lanes just create more traffic. If you don't build more lanes, people find other ways to get around, or they move closer to where they work. This region's future must be in mass transit.

It’s about money and influence. It’s possible that the original bridge probably terminated in Montlake, because it was just too, too distasteful for Laurelhurst or Madison Park. Affluent neighborhoods do not want proximity to the great unwashed. People in Montlake and Shelby Hamlin wanted to kick MOHAI out of the neighborhood for years for the same reason.

Well, life is not fair. This is about an existing major regional transportation asset that is intended to serve “everyone” who lives here, and “everyone” who may be passing through. It’s an existing “transportation” project…meaning it’s about “moving things from one place to the other” for “everyone.” So solutions with the greatest capacities serving the greatest number of commuters is a GOOD thing.

Neighborhoods puff themselves up to see if they have the same clout as the “we don’t want to see it, hear it, or smell it” crowd on Mercer Island, who set a record in the old days for imposing the most expensive stretch of interstate highway in the U.S. on tax payers. What an honor?

I don’t think that’s what tax payers wanted then…and in these economic times, they certainly don’t want it now.

Mossback has been a mouthpiece for the Montlake activists for years on this topic.

Mayor McGinn's recent vote to delay 520 again is just more proof of how completely ineffective he is. McGinn lifted no finger to make 520 better for Seattle: he just spent a few minutes grandstanding, while losing any bit of leverage he might have had to represent the interests of the Montlake activists and yacht clubs effectively. Effective political leaders get results.

Most people who live in Montake bought their homes there after the 520 bridge was built. Replacing the bridge has been on the table for over 25 years - so long that State Senator Jim McDermott once wrote a proviso into law preventing the state from studying it.

The history of opposition to freeways in Seattle also includes this: affluent white neighborhoods forced the freeway capacity through less well off parts of town. (I-90 expansion being the best example.)

The shrinking band of 520 activists in Montlake are getting increasingly whiney. Most of today's whiners chose to live near a freeway. They will soon be getting better access to light rail than almost any other neighborhood in the city. And they are about to get a new parkway, instead of a freeway, through their neighborhood. It will be a little big bigger, but far quieter, than what they bought into. The neighborhood will be reconnected with a park over the new parkway.

Oh, and they get a multi-billion dollar new bridge to replace one that won't last, securing their handy connection to jobs and the rest of the world for decades, with 25% more buses at the start.

Change hurts sometimes. Soon, hopefully, a few people who have spent their lives driving up the costs of the new bridge for all the rest of us, will need to find something else to do.

Responding to WIlbur Watson:
for a complete description of the project and what is wrong with it, please see the website of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520 www.sustainable520.org .

Responding to Jan:
The design still fails to meet higher Standards. It is better than the existing bridge in important ways, but it doesn't achieve Least-impact.

This is a running topic folks. Keep it lit.
How is 520 Sub-Standard ??
DBT? Way-below Standard.

Mike's gut intinct may be right on this.
Why are opponents still derided as whiners?
Who's whining then?

Richard Conlin, President of the Seattle City Council, recently provided his perspective regarding the sustainability and transportation benefits of WSDOT's proposed replacement of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (SR520). He also favors replacing Seattle's Alaska Way Viaduct with a tunnel.

Thinking broadly, what seems to be sustainable and transit (not mass transit) beneficial to Conlin may be just the reverse. Seattle's "sopping up" nearly 50% of the state's transportation funds for the next decade may significantly adversely affect the economies of both Washington State and Seattle.

Speaking of sustainable, here is a good one: How long do you think Seattle and King County will continue to consume nearly 50% of all state transportation dollars when King County contains only 29% and Seattle contains only 9% of the states’ population?

Furthermore, speaking of transit: There are two key commerce corridors in the Puget Sound and Seattle region, I-5 and I-90. I-90 is an extremely important commercial corridor, moving some $500 billion (WSDOT, 2010) in goods east and west. This corridor is slowly crumbling. Because of its condition goods are being diverted to two competing ports, the Port of Portland and Vancouver. WSDOT'S plan is to complete the six laning of I-90 to Ellensburg. They are currently rebuilding a 5 mile segment between Hyak and the Keechelus dam. Design work is complete on another 10 mile segment - Keechelus dam to Easton, but there are no funds budgeted out to 2021. Nothing has been designed from Easton to Ellensburg. Year around blockages continue and will continue to occur due to weather, heavy traffic, accidents and the crumbling roadway (yes, literally crumbling). Goods will continue to spoil or be diverted.

For the next 10 years (2011 - 2021) what is WSDOT planning to invest in transit?
State Wide: $7,638.4 billion
Alaska Way Viaduct: $1,552.8 billion
SR520, Redmond-Seattle: $1,917.1 billion.
I-90, Hyak - Keechelus: $379.3 million
I-90, Keechelus-Ellensburg: $0.0!!
Forty-five percent of Washington transportation dollars will be spent to benefit primarily nine percent of the state's population (45% v. 9%). This is to benefit commuters rather than commerce. What effect will this have on the lives of Seattle area residents, in a time when jobs are so important?

WSDOT's and Conlin's transit plans are simply not sustainable. The state will soon have to deal with a major revolt from Eastern Washington.

Bmundy

Mr. Conlin,
What I find curious is that the city has done NO traffic studies with regard to how this rebuild will impact the neighborhoods of Montlake, Madison Park, Roanoke Park, North Capitol Hill, Eastlake, and South Lake Union. The congestion and lack of mobility that will come with the construction is unacceptable. We are being offered no solutions, or even conversation surrounding this issue. You are supposed to represent us, the residents of Seattle, not people on the east side, or in other corners of this wonderful state. I don't feel represented. I feel betrayed and ignored by the majority of the City Council. You are not listening sir. The vitality of our communities will be in jeopardy as well as the environment. This is not an issue of NIMBY. We are asking you to think more broadly about what is best for our city, our neighborhoods, and your constituency.
Thank you Knute for the accurate representation of the issues.

Mr. Conlin:

Mr. Conlin

It is a great disappointment to read that you defend the 'preferred option' as the result of 14 years of citywide participatory planning (whereas for 14 years no major suggestions, designs and critiques coming from the citizenry have been adopted).

You say this plan preserves our environment, whereas it will destroy, for instance, the approach to and view of the Montlake Bridge as proudly pictured on the front page of today's Seattle TImes and the vistas along Lake Washington that decorate every regional tourist company's flyer. (Will the tourist boats instead show the concrete wastelands created by the bridge?)

As you basically admit, private interests were strong and the City Council was unable to defend the public interest against them. However, it is not too late. The RH Thompson battle was won when opposition to it was taken up by political leaders who had at first supported it. Now it is your turn.

Our whole region will be impoverished by this 1950s style bridge and its tentacles. Please help us transform this coming debacle into a transportation corridor worthy of its setting.

Hi Richard, I am stunned that you are unaware of critical issues facing the 520 bridge and the surrounding neighborhoods. WSDOT is totally unresponsive to neighborhood concerns. The completely omitted Madison Park from the 106 Technical Committee regarding historic properties. They determined there would be no adverse impact on Madison Park from brige consruction which will last for six years.

While the other communities have been working with WSDOT for about two years, we were appointed to the committee on March 10, 2011 and the deadline for reply was April 4.

What makes me nervous is if you are so ill informed on this issue, how can we trust you on others?

**************

Good job Crosscut on the article.

Kathleen O'Connor

Good piece and good debate (if a bit one sided). Fran, I read your "Coalition for a Sustainable Development." Your web site states: "we believe that the best solution is to use available funds now to fix safety problems on the existing 4-lane 520. We are in favor of tolls on 520, and believe that once tolls are established it may not be necessary to increase capacity for some years. When funds are available in the future, we believe that adding two lanes for transit only will be the most successful solution for the next fifty years or more."

In many of these sorts of situations I would agree with you and support the removal or non-expansion of a freeway because traffic can use local streets, make local trips, go at less congested times, use transit etc. In other words, because freeways are unsustainable and cause induced demand. However, in this instance, where there are only two roads that connect the populated regions of Seattle and Bellevue and public transportation infrastructure is severely lacking, a different solution clearly needs to be found. It is for this reason that I think that your plans, Fran, are insufficient.

I think in any proposed plans four questions ought to be asked:
1. Does the plan create a viable transit corridor that includes a seamless overlap with the UW link station.
2. Does the plan improve access between 520 and the northside of the ship canal, addressing the "montlake mess."
3. Does the plan maintain (more or less) current capacity?
4. Does the plan protect the local and ecological environment well?

Currently, it seems that the current WSDOT plan addresses question 3. and possibly question 2. Clearly this insufficient, and a better (and more financially feasible) plan must be determined, although I'm not well versed enough in the issues to determine precisely what that is.

And by the way Mr. Conlin, 14 years of planning does not necessitate that a good solution has been formulated. This is especially true, as I'm sure you are aware, in politics.

WSDOT builds roads at any cost while their consultants work to contain public angst. Environmental issues are not restricted to spotted owls, salmon and old growth timber. Seattle has a unique urban environment that deserves respect. WSDOT's lack of respect is clearly evident by visiting www.build520reight.net. You will see how unrestricted runoff from 520 has polluted Portage Bay for the past 49 years. This has resulted in silt build up of 90 feet in some places. The 520 plan is flawed in many ways. Neighborhoods raise awareness while professional politicans seem to follow the money to get re-elected. Giving pause to WSDOT's big labor/big business projects is the right thing to do; but if WSDOT replaces the Portage Bay viaduct portion -- build it right this time around respecting the Portage Bay shoreline, wetlands and mitigating precious urban open space throughout the corridor.

To Staybailey:
Thoughtful remarks, thank you. I'd add at least one more criterion: Can the state execute its plan? That is, can it get the funding? We believe the answer is no, and that's why our recommendation is to start by fixing four lanes.

The state's own analysis of transportation projects for the next 10 years does not provide funding for the 520 project beyond the "partial bridge". We aren't at all sure that the people of the state will want big new taxes or tolls for highways. So the question is how to do the most good with the money that can be reasonable forecast to be available.

Autophobia is Seattle's proof positive that religious fanaticism and creationism and 'intelligent design' are all alive and well in the Montlake Mess.

Animalal, it's only religious fanaticism if you pray to fat white guy on a bike.

We've had a pretty good airing of the issues going. The last two posts don't further a thing. Some of the people who wrote comments on this thread have been thinking about the SR 520 project, the tunnel project, I-5, the state of I-90 past Bellevue, mass transit and commercial transit and how the state spends its monies for years. Some of them are new to Crosscut commenting and thought it would be a place to bring up for thoughtful discussion some issues WSDOT, most of the City Council, and the press haven't been talking about.

Others don't seem to have given their kneejerk views a critical examination or taken a look at new information and changing circumstances in years and are satisfied with what they consider a devastating bon mot from time to time. They should probably stick to the venues where that style of commenting is the norm and they can all guffaw OL together.

He is the mayor of Montlake and the Cascade Bicycle Club.

When does become the mayor of the rest of Seattle?

Bravo to Richard and Jan for excellent rebuttals. Replacing and improving any piece of critical infrastructure will create local opposition, always. As composed to a local street, of course, a rebuild of SR520 looks imposing. And the opponents have extraordinary staying power.

But the elected officials who have stood together on this project believe in the goals of the Growth Management Act and understand the need to make transportation and land use work together in the NEAR TERM, as well as the long term.

It will take decades to realize the transformation of land use through redevelopment, as required by the vision of McGinn and others. By making the SR520 corridor transit-friendly in the near-term, however, we make progress on the GMA goals NOW, not 50 years from now.

This project can't be assessed fairly by just looking through the neighborhood or city lens; we live in a metropolitan region that is trying hard to reduce its overall environmental footprint. Thankfully, Seattle's city council and the County Executive have the same good intentions as the Mayor, whose vision of the future I think we all share. The difference is, the councilmembers and executive may know the subject matter better.

Rep Deb Eddy

Erin O\'conner what is your solution? Apparently you have been given the right to judge others and I hereby grant you the power to solve the problem. What is the answer? Understanding of course you will be sued no matter what you decide is the "right" answer. The longer this project is delayed, the more it will cost.

Those of us that have been watching this circus over the last nearly two decades that the various committees and commissons have been meeting on the replacement of the 520 bridge, continue to be amazed. Just when you think the situation cannot get anymore screwed up, or expensive...it gets more screwed up and expensive.

If we had any real leadership in this State or on the Seattle side of the bridge, this would have been done long ago. The fact is we don't and probably will not for the foreseeable future.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and involving Billions of Taxpayer dollars.

Thank you for asking, Cameron. Here's what I suggested above:

Safety and Economy. "What should we have done long ago? Safety fixes. The governor has gambled with lives for an over-ambitious project we can't afford. We should have fixed the bridge and given it wider shoulders for disabled vehicles. We should have strengthened the West Approach and the Portage Bay Bridge. We still can."

Scale and Economy. "But if we must have something new, we can make modest improvements we can almost afford, a new and beautiful four-lane Floating Bridge, again with wider shoulders, and a four-lane Portage Bay Bridge with adequate shoulders. If we were talking about a beautiful addition to our city that would help us out of a jam, that would be great, but we're still talking about a hideous structure that would damage our neighborhoods and treasured waters and views and add to our jam."

Our transportation infrastructure all over the state is in bad shape, and we don't have enough money to take care of it all. We need to make safety fixes where we can, to make inexpensive alterations (shoulders!) that would eliminate glitches, to toll intelligently, not just for revenue but to learn something about spreading demand out through the day, and to put more money into mass transit (buses and light rail) and into our chief goods-moving roads (I-90 and I-5) than we have. We shouldn't be spending $4.65 billion on one project that might do more harm than good, shortchanging so many other needed projects.

Even the one SR 520 project can't be finished with the money available for it. We'll build a giant, double-decker six-lane floating bridge (Stage 1) and then have to wait some say as long as ten years to complete (Stage 2) the West Approach, Montlake Exchange, Portage Bay Bridge, and Flyover from SR 520 to I-5 parts of the project. Both the West Approach and the Portage Bay Bridge, WSDOT has said, are vulnerable to earthquakes. We're putting money into the Medina to 202 Project on land first, then into the Floating Bridge. Traffic from the Eastside will have to funnel down from six lanes to four on shaky pilings for what might stretch out to be ten more years.

We have already spent close to $1 billion on consultants defending the advisability of the most expensive waterfront and SR 520 projects--almost a half billion on each--rather than on good design and good traffic analysis. The City has had to commission its own three studies on the SR 520 project, the waterfront project, and light rail. City Councilmembers but for Mike O'Brien have so far ignored the study on SR 520 that they commissioned and said "met the gold standard."

Demand. When we talk about SR 520, we're talking about commuting. Instead of encouraging more SOV traffic, make it easier to choose other commuting modes when they'll work as well for us. Sometimes we'll need to drive solo, othertimes, not. Build more options into the system.

Scale and Traffic Study. When we need to build new, that doesn't mean having to build grandiose. We don't need an entire lower deck that creates a 30-feet-plus-noise-walls-high floating Viaduct. We don't need a seven-lane Portage Bay Bridge to send more traffic to an I-5 that will have to handle more traffic from the west as well. We shouldn't rashly take an express lane from I-5 without doing the traffic studies that will justify it and demonstrate to travelers north and south--both commuters and movers of goods--that they won't be even more held up than they are now.

We shouldn't send more traffic over to Montlake. Where will it go? What will be the effects on SOV demand of the new light rail line at the university? What will be the induced SOV demand effects on the UW Medical Center and Children's Hospital from six lanes of Floating Bridge traffic moving over to two bridges over the Montlake Cut? Will all of our emergency transport have to resort to helicopters so that emergency victims don't die sitting in even more traffic congestion?

Aesthetics. Let's not lay waste to our neighborhoods in their beautiful settings and the livability of our city until we know what the benefits and drawbacks will be. More of same seems unlikely to work even though it isn't surprising that a state highway department would take that approach. The plan is to put the I-5 to Medina Project out for design-and-build bids. Let's not lump design and build. When the time comes, let's put money into more modest, more beautiful design. Let's not be so quick to put a wider, higher expanse of concrete through our neighborhoods and waters. Let's not agree to obscure the silhouette of our iconic Montlake Bridge before we're sure we have to. Let's fix things for now and await developments.

Health. Tough-minded Jan points out that "Change hurts sometimes" and that people knowingly bought houses near a freeway. Yes, and in these fine old neighborhoods they have planted thousands of trees, created green spaces, done whatever they could to improve their neighborhoods and help them recover and be buffered from freeway blight. The market value of houses in the neighborhoods have held steady even in the downturn. In spite of the present bridges, these neighborhoods and waterways have mostly remained beautiful, and salmon habitat and other wildlife habitat have been improved in the wake of the first SR 520 project at great expense. The proposed width and height of this project might be more than even this level of civic and environmental activity can surmount at the same time that we're learning more definitively that no, just as you've always thought, it's not healthy to live adjacent to a freeway.

The governor and the legislature mandated a study of the health impacts of the SR 520 Program. The Health Impact Assessment written by Puget Sound Clean Air and Seattle and King County Public Health said that the lids designed into the project were an integral part of it, essential to the health of the communities adjacent to it. Lids were planned at Montlake, between 10th and Delmar, and along Seward School. At the same time, the HIA said, "Traffic on the SR 520 facilities will contribute to emissions and increase concentrations in areas approximately 300 meters (not feet!) on either side, which will affect the health of the drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and nearby residents." The HIA's enumeration of health effects from emissions alone included lung cancer, reduced lung function, exacerbated asthma, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, increased hypertension, heart attack onset, stroke onset, nervous system effects, adverse cardiac effects.

This study, too, has been ignored. Despite the Assessment's warning that none of the lids should be eliminated from the design, Rep. Judy Clibborn of Mercer Island (one of those "affluent white neighbohoods" Jan talks about) advised eliminating the lid at Seward School for cost's sake and was heeded. The SR 520 roadway through a much less residential area of the Eastside (another of Jan's "affluent white neighborhoods") will have three lids before SR 520 even reaches Bellevue and before even one lid will be constructed on the West Side, including Montlake's. There's no money for the Montlake lid, but the traffic from Stage 1 will arrive in Montlake anyway.

We know more, and I'd like to think that we'd take a more civilized approach to transporation than we did fifty years ago. We have an opportunity to do it right if we can convince our City goverment to insist on that on our behalf. Our mayor heeded the study on light rail he commissioned. Most of the City Council is ignoring both the SR 520 study they commisioned and praised and the tunnel study the City commissioned.

Jan seems to have fallen for the old "parkway" ruse WSDOT used for the RH Thomson Freeway, er Parkway. WSDOT's designs for the Portage Bay Parkway show 6 feet of low, scrubby shrubs between eastbound and westbound lanes. The design for what Jan calls the "Park" at Montlake shows patches of low shrubbery banded by arterials and dotted with traffic signals that will ensure idling vehicles' visiting emissions on any poor pedestian trying to cross or enjoy the "park."

Sorry to have gone on at such length. There is so much more to talk about. Thank you again for asking, Cameron.

. . . with landscapinig that included trees should not be discretionary, that the lids should not be removed from the project for cost's sake.

The HIA also said, "Traffic on the SR 520 facilities will contribute to emissions and increase concentrations in areas approximately 300 meters (not 300 feet!) on either side, which will affect the health of the drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and nearby residents." Lids were planned at the Montlake Exchange, between Roanoke and Delmar, and along Seward School.

Rep. Judy Clibborn of Mercer Island (one of Jan's lidded, "affluent white neighborhoods,") proposed eliminating the lid at Seward School and was heeded. Among the effects of toxic vehicle emissions identified in the Health Impact Assessment, especially on children and older people, are lung cancer, reduced lung function, asthma exacerbation, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, heart attack onset, increased hypertension, stroke onset, nervous system effects, and adverse cardiac effects. Eleven lanes of I-5 run the full length of Seward School. The playground and Rogers Playfield are well within the 300-meter path of toxic emissions.

Traffic from the six-lane Floating Bridge will funnel down to four lanes. Six lanes will reach Montlake, but the Montlake Exchange and its lid will be delayed by as much as ten years. Traffic from six lanes will idle on the Portage Bay Bridge waiting to get onto I-5 and take shortcuts through the neighborhoods, but the 10th and Delmar lid will be held up as long or longer.

Jan talks about a "parkway," not a freeway, an old WSDOT ploy to try to make the ruinous RH Thomson freeway sound attractive. WSDOT talks about the Portage Bay Bridge "Parkway" now. Their plan shows a six-foot divider between eastbound and westbound traffic filled with low, scrubby shrubs. Jan also talks about the "park" that will be the Montlake lid. Drawings show patches of low shrubs banded by arterials and dotted with traffic signals that will ensure pollution from idling vehicles will affect the health of pedestians and "users" of the park.

Surely, fifty years later we can do better than this. We can base our design on traffic analysis that doesn't end with a feckless shrug and on the requirement that it be beautiful. We can ask our elected City officials (and our County Executive and Council) to insist on more civilized conduct from a bullying, obfuscating, double-talking state agency.

If we don't ask questions now, and if we don't insist that the people we elected to look after our beautiful city take a hard look and demand better, our city will suffer losses we can't reverse. We should insist that our five incumbent City Council candidates and all aspirants take a stand on good analysis, beautiful design, and a full range of mitigation.

Unfortunately, throwing a bunch of whining on the wall and hoping something sticks is not a plan. Since rebuilding with was not a possibility according to engineers, something new is coming. Shouldn't it be something that increases capacity and throughput?
Shouldn't it be affordable? Shouldn't it deliver the most benefit to the most people? At some point the people of Seattle need to decide if they are a part of the overall community or an island unto themselves. Hug a tree, file a lawsuit, cost all taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It's the Seattle way.