Morning commuters traveling south on I-5 will face a traffic jam that lasts an hour longer if a new, wider 520 bridge is built according to prevailing plans, says the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The backup would extend roughly from the ship-canal bridge (where the two freeways intersect) to the Convention Center (where the express lanes end), officials say.
To be clear, the travel times during peak congestion would not necessarily be longer, says WSDOT engineer Michael Horntvedt, but rather the morning traffic jam’s duration would extend for an additional hour.
- WSDOT
- This ramp replaces one of the freeway lanes
The problems result from a ramp off of 520 that would empty onto southbound I-5 (onto the express lane that connects to the mainline further south). “This would increase traffic pressure to an already congested lane,” says a white paper from a workgroup created by the legislature. By 2030, “Congestion could last up to an hour longer compared to the No Build alternative and extend just north of the SR 520 interchange at the peak.”
The proposal would also eliminate one of the express lanes on I-5 across the ship canal from four to three (more on that below). Meanwhile, 520 would widen from four lanes to six.
Fran Conley, director of the Sustainable 520 Coalition, blasts the proposal. “It means that there is no net gain to this proposed design because—even if it helps people from the eastside—it will harm people going north and south, so from a public policy point of view, you will have spent billions of dollars for no results,” she says.
But state officials say that whatever delay is caused in southbound traffic, the new bridge makes up for by expediting traffic in other directions. Most significant, according to WSDOT engineer Horntvedt, the wider 520 bridge will allow more cars to get off of I-5 when they are attempting to go east (using 520). “We see substantial benefit for people traveling the northbound to eastbound direction,” he says. “So you have to take in the whole picture.”
- WSDOT
- Click for larger image: One less express lane over the ship-canal bridge
The underlying problem with the new bridge, critics argue, is that the new 520 bridge would increase from four lanes to six lanes (rebuilding a four-lane bridge would not have the same impacts on I-5). As a result, more traffic would also exit onto city streets.
“The I-5, 520 choke point is one of the worst in the region,” says Mayor Mike McGinn. “The problem isn’t 520’s increased capacity—it’s the [unchanging] capacity of I-5 and the surface streets, which is why focusing on transit is much more efficient use of our resources.”
WSDOT says that the wider bridge also allows the state to connect HOV and transit lanes from I-5 all the way east to Medina.
Conley, however, still doubts that the trade-off is a good deal, saying that “the project is poorly designed and will not accomplish what anybody wants for it. The state doesn’t have the money for it, but is going to be raising taxes and tolls trying to get more money for it. It will do much more harm than good.” She also points to the disappearance of an express lane on I-5.
“The design would reduce the number of lanes from four to three in the express lanes across the Ship Canal Bridge to provide space for a single new HOV/transit ramp to/from SR 520,” the report says. The problems stem from the interchange of I-5 and SR 520. In the new arrangement, a lane would connect 520 to the reversible express lanes on I-5, thereby consuming one of the four lanes across the ship-canal bridge.
Estimated to cost $4.65 billion, the project still lacks financing for approximately half that amount, despite plans to begin tolling the bridge (which officials say could sink in adverse weather or an earthquake) this spring.
“I don’t think the public is fully aware of the significant issues with the project right now,” says McGinn. “This is something we need to fully air and discuss because proceeding with a project that we’re a couple billion short of completing, and if completed, if we ever get the money, would have unacceptable impacts to Seattle.”
WSDOT officials plan to release the full findings of their research in a Final Environmental Impact Statement in June.
This is why it would be a good idea to have BRT instead of just an HOV lane across 520, or BRT during peak hours, HOV the rest of the time. (and yes, light rail would be awesome, but where’s the money and demand?)
Also – why does 520 need an on-ramp from the express lanes?
Stupid billionaire’s floating bridge.
So basically: We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t?
I don’t see how light rail will work for intercity commuting without a huge expansion of local bus and transit service… It makes me sad.
Seriously?
so What?
The bridge needs to be replaced moron. Geesshhh
(Cue next Stranger obsession in 4, 3, 2, )
@2!!!!
Quick, better get the news to the Mayor so he can block attempts to build the new bridge!!
“Officials say”? Er, scientists say, I think you mean. That’s the whole point of having to replace the damn thing – not a single scientist says anything other than “ooh, that’s about to fall down, that is.” Sure, it’s good to temper the urgency by trying to replace it with the best thing we can. But just as with the bloody viaduct replacement, the point of the whole thing isn’t to speed up drivers, it’s to face up to scientists’ warnings about infrastructure loss during natural disasters.
“Officials say”. Yeesh.
A tunnel under ship canal is only answer for NE Seattle to see any improvement in access/egress to a bigger 520. At least add an HOV/bus/van lane southbound on Montlake Blvd so people can get to U stadium light rail station.
Do folks realize that to exit westbound from new 520 at Montlake, there will be two additional/new 4way traffic lights? Right now you just cruise off and don’t hit a light until Hamlin St where that 3 lane weave is from original WSDOT cheap design of the bridge exit is.
A tunnel under ship canal is only answer for NE Seattle to see any improvement in access/egress to a bigger 520. At least add an HOV/bus/van lane southbound on Montlake Blvd so people can get to U stadium light rail station.
Do folks realize that to exit westbound from new 520 at Montlake, there will be two additional/new 4way traffic lights? Right now you just cruise off and don’t hit a light until Hamlin St where that 3 lane weave is from original WSDOT cheap design of the bridge exit is.
Obviously we need to make sure the new 520 bridge starts with 2 High Capacity Transit lanes (8 passenger vanpool, bus) and upgrades to light rail soon.
Although they could be used for HOV usage during non-peak hours as well.
(note how michaelp and I basically agree on this …)
520’s routing was a huge mistake in retrospect. Most of its routing from 405 to 5 is through residential areas (excepting the retail areas on Mercer Island, which are only there because we built the bridge). If it wasn’t for the importance of the bridge to getting workers to Microsoft I’d argue against replacing the bridge at all, and vacating the highway west of 405. And long-term, consider a Kirkland-Sand Point transit tunnel for a future light rail line.
But given the investment to this point, let’s just rebuild it with the current configuration (except possibly getting rid of the Arburetum exit), and consider changing one lane each way to HOV/transit.
er, sorry, forget the point about Mercer Island, which obviously is on 90. The point is, the highway goes mostly through residential areas, excepting the University.
@13 um .. not really.
Maybe east of the lake, but on this side, most of the area is park and state land.
Now I-90 does go thru residential areas …
@7 The bridge was evaluated and determined to be inadequate by numerous licensed, registered professional engineers. Whether you think of them as officials or not, they do hold official positions with the government.
@12 Abandoning the bridge altogether would be economically disastrous for the region. But I will agree that if the 6-lane bridge is to be built, it needs to take transit into account. I’d even go so far as to say 2 lanes should be dedicated to light rail, 2 lanes for HOV/transit, and the remaining 2 for SOV.
@11 – well, obviously you’re wrong! In case you forgot, not only am I pompous, but I am wrong about everything.
That said, I believe this means the nice folks at the Stranger support an 8 lane structure with no transit that just dumps into the arboretum?
@7
Whenever anyone starts talking about how something might fall down, I think we all remember the King Dome, or the time some stupid asshole left the hatches open on the I90 bridge. Also, of course, the idea of a floating bridge being vulnerable to earthquakes is just inherently hard to credit.
In any event, it’s clear that WSDOT is taking a maintenance and safety issue and trying to leverage it into a giant paycheck for their friends in the construction industry. Fixing the current bridge is an option, and it’s a cheaper option than the replacement bridge that’s underway. But the state is broke and, in any event, the last thing we need to be doing right now is increasing freeway capacity. All future capacity expansion should be in mass transit. Period.
@17, sorry to have been vague: the Montlake highrise is the one that will fall down in a quake. The bridge would not only fall down in a quake – hello, highrise sections either end – but can also simply sink in a windstorm.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Br…
I’m sorry as anyone they found no cheaper way to go during their years of figuring out what to do, but they didn’t and I don’t see anyone suggesting a cheap fix that could work. Do you?
@18
It doesn’t have to be a cheap fix. A cheapER fix will do and, yes, several people have suggested cheaper fixes. In fact WSDTO had cheaper fixes on the table at various points earlier in this process.
The non-floating parts of the bridge can be retrofitted, just like we’ve retrofitted every other bridge in Seattle. We don’t need to tear the whole thing down and rebuild from scratch. And the fact that they “can also simply sink in a windstorm” doesn’t mean they will, or that there isn’t also retrofitting that would address that concern. You “could simply burst into flames.” Establishing that it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s likely, scary computer generated cartoon notwithstanding.
The wider SR 520 bridge and highway will run through four residential districts on the west side: the Roanoke Park Historic District, the North Capitol Hill neighborhood, the Portage Bay neighborhood, and the Montlake Historic District. The six-lane bridge will run within a few feet of houses in Montlake, and the six lanes plus managed shoulder plus exits and junctions Portage Bay Bridge segment will run within a few feet of houses in the Portage Bay neighborhood and the Roanoke Historic District. Other west side neighborhoods will suffer from the additional noise, toxic air, and visual blight of the brutalist design of the higher and wider bridge carrying two more lanes of gas vehicles, be they single occupancy, HOV, HOV vans, or buses. The two more lanes of traffic waiting to get onto I-5 are likely to back up idling on the bridge and highway next to the neighborhoods or contribute to the arterial congestion and short cutting on residential streets through the neighborhoods.