Until very recently, the Seattle City Council’s position on the 520 bridge seemed clear. The council wanted to replace the decaying four-lane bridge with a new six-lane span that used the new lanes for transit, it wanted buses crossing Lake Washington to stop close to the future light-rail station at Husky Stadium, and it wanted to restrict the potential flood of cars entering the city. To drive the message home, the council unanimously passed two resolutions, one specifically calling for giving “priority to design elements that enhance transit.” It wrote a letter to the governor in January, calling on her to “maximize the opportunity for dedicated transit lanes.” The next day, Council Member Tim Burgess wrote on his blog, “I personally believe that the two additional lanes—lanes five and six—should be limited to transit-only from the start.” And council president Richard Conlin assailed a state recommendation for the west side of the bridge in November because he was “not convinced it makes the connections between buses on 520 and the light-rail station at the university. And I’m not sure what it does as far as accommodating future light rail,” he said.
But then the council did something unexpected.
A five-person quorum of the Seattle City Council stood side by side with Eastside legislators and suburban officials at a press conference on February 4 to demand that the 520 bridge project proceed—before any of Seattle’s requests had been met.
“It is time to put over a decade of planning behind us,” said Bellevue City Council member Grant Degginger.
Indeed, it’s an urgent project. The current floating concrete span, completed in 1963, is leaking and will sink unless replaced or repaired; the state wants to rebuild it by 2014. “It is time to begin construction,” said Degginger. And Conlin stepped up to the microphone to concur.
But critics argue that beginning construction on the east side of the bridge would commit Seattle to an unworkable plan for the west side—and lock the design into everything the Seattle City Council opposed.
The state recommended in November that the two new lanes hold buses and carpools (lacking dedicated right-of-ways for buses or future light rail), and that a second drawbridge be built across the nearby Montlake Cut to handle all the extra traffic. The state estimates that during rush hour, 500 more cars per hour will cross the bridge’s midpoint than currently do—bringing thousands of additional cars a day into the already congested streets of Montlake and onto I-5. Moreover, the bus stops under the state plan are several blocks from the future Husky Stadium light-rail station. This option is called A+.
“The council says they oppose this A+ option, but today they are standing with people who support A+,” said Mayor Mike McGinn, reached by phone after the press conference. He says modifying the design wouldn’t necessarily take longer, but beginning construction “will lock us into a six-lane highway and not getting the transit we should.”
Opposition forces are ready for a fight. The Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520 launched a campaign early this month to oppose the state’s plan. “I hope we can avoid a lawsuit,” says Fran Conley, ringleader of the group, which includes several neighborhoods within a couple miles of the Montlake area and is supported by Mayor McGinn and Seattle’s entire 43rd District legislative delegation. “We would much rather negotiate, but we have hired a lawyer and developed a war chest.”
The group is trying to negotiate a plan that puts light rail on the two new lanes, mitigates added traffic to the Arboretum, lowers the bridge’s 30-foot height across the lake (a three-story wall across Lake Washington), and connects buses with the transit station at Husky Stadium.
The public supports this plan and rejects the state’s plan. In late January, Constituent Dynamics conducted a poll, funded by the 520 coalition, that found 69 percent of residents on both sides of the lake preferred “light rail and buses” in the new lanes. They also preferred a shorter, narrower bridge. For their part, all five of the council members at the press conference (Richard Conlin, Sally Clark, Tom Rasmussen, Jean Godden, and Tim Burgess) oppose the state’s preferred option, too—at least in theory—saying that plans for the west side of the bridge must be completely reconfigured. However, they contend that Seattle can still influence the bridge’s design after construction starts.
The city has agreed to a 120-day negotiation period with the state, and it has retained a consultant to help. Council Member Burgess says that the Washington State Department of Transportation and the city “have agreed to sit at the table and explore alternatives that would lower the height of the bridge across the lake, possibly shrink the size of Montlake interchange so it has a smaller footprint, consider alterations to the on- and off-ramps in the Arboretum, and improve ease of use to a transit connection.” Sounds good, but caveats in Burgess’s language—”explore alternatives,” “possibly,” “consider”—reveal Seattle’s weak footing. If the state doesn’t agree, the city has little recourse.
In all likelihood, calls for light rail across the bridge are unrealistic; including train tracks would require another environmental study for light rail, which the state never did despite years of planning (but light rail could be laid down in future years). But the council giving the go-ahead on construction raises serious questions about the city getting what it wants: How can the council achieve design changes to “transit connectivity and functionality across the entire SR 520 corridor” or reducing the height of the bridge after breaking ground? Moreover, how does the city change the dysfunctional west-side proposal while staying within the project’s budget? The state legislature capped the whole project’s budget at $4.65 billion; the west side at $2 billion. Other options studied by the state—such as the one preferred by Conlin—are $2.5 billion or more.
Asked how Seattle could accomplish its goals with less money than estimates say we need, Conlin says, “We are not sure.” Asked the same question, state house transportation committee chair Judy Clibborn, a democrat who represents Mercer Island, says, “I don’t have an answer.”
The majority of the city council, by joining forces with the suburbs, has largely relinquished the city’s bargaining power. In trying to negotiate with the state, all it can do is ask for what it wants—and the state can run out the clock and turn down the city’s requests. Instead, the council could have teamed up with the Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520 and remained steadfast in demanding a transit-oriented Montlake interchange. Doing so would have required compromise among the Seattle factions, but those factions at least have a common goal in mind: build a transit-oriented city. The state has shown zero interest in that sort of planning.
“I think that battle is over,” laments state senator Ed Murray (D-43). Now that the council has given its approval to begin construction, it is “boxed in” on the design option. “That’s a done deal,” says Murray. 
The retardation lives on… Just fund, then build- Frank Chopp will bend when he realizes that all his Eastside Dems will lose their next election without progress.
Also, that poll was faulty in its premise. Nice try, though.
This post is so lopsided! How in the world can it be considered “anti-transit” to put new transit lanes on the bridge, plus ped and bike facilities? The SOV lanes are largely paying for it. Why do you guys hate transit so much?
Washington State DOT, Sound Transit, and King County Metro have previously served up an SR 520 & I-5 combo high capacity transit plan that runs express buses quickly with unprecedented priority — using HOV lanes with high-tech Active Traffic Management — across the Lake into downtown Seattle and U of W.
A key to this plan’s success is that buses from Eastside to downtown don’t stop at U of W. Buses from Eastside to U of W are direct and distinct, not continuing on into downtown.
The plan’s been a published document for over a year, but nobody seems to be taking it into account. Read “SR 520 Final High Capacity Transit Plan” (pdf 3 Mb) dated December 2008 posted at http://www.wsdot.gov/Projects/SR520Bridg… .
Although it has a little funding for studies, Sound Transit hates having to think very much about light rail on SR 520 because this agency’s hands are more than full building the light rail network already committed in the ST2 plan approved by voters in November 2008.
That voter-approved light rail network has the train tracks deep down under the Ship Canal. Any future train tracks on SR 520 are going to have to be way above the Ship Canal. Never the twain shall meet, and never will the latter be built, because buses on roads are going to get better, and better, and better.
The “A+” plan is lopsided… in favor of concrete.
A pro-transit plan would not widen the crossing of Portage Bay from 4 lanes to 7 and then remove some of the most popular bus stops in the system, preventing local access to 355 buses a day between downtown Seattle and the Eastside.
A pro-transit plan would not force everyone transferring from light rail to a bus at the UW to take a 1200 foot walk in the weather across two busy streets.
A pro-transit plan would provide the north half of Seattle with fast and reliable transit connections to the Eastside and to the light rail station at the UW. (How is that supposed to occur with this plan?)
A pro-transit plan would not build a new $81 million drawbridge that CANNOT be used by light rail. Where’s light rail supposed to go once it gets to Seattle? Are we going to have to build ANOTHER crossing for it later? How do we know this plan doesn’t preclude it if we haven’t even looked at how it could be done? We’ve had a decade to do this… is the state serious about preparing for light rail, as they claim, or is the proposed 8 lane bridge configuration really a Trojan horse for more traffic?
Those pedestrian and bike facilities on the new bridge terminate in an area the plan proposes to turn into a sea of concrete overwhelmed by cars, with new multilane ramps and fast moving traffic making free-right turns. The proposed “lid” near the Arboretum has a highway ramp running through the middle of it connecting to Lake Washington Blvd.
The proposed plan gives basically no consideration to pedestrians, bicyclists or buses the moment they leave the highway.
That proposed lid by old MOHAI in Montlake across 520 is an abomination. It will have a traffic ramp right through the middle of it..peds and bikers cannot cross it. Not fair to our city or Arboretum.
WSDOT proposing to build a 30 feet tall viaduct across beautiful Lake Washington is a tragedy. It is just plain sad. Montlake area was raped in 1962 when 520 built, now it will be done again but even bigger area will be impacted.
Let’s at least get another lane southbound on Montlake Blvd – PLEASE!
That lid proposed in Option A.A+ at Montlake is sad. A traffic lane right through the middle. It does not reconnect the neighborhood as was promised.
And A does not jibe with Sound Transit either.
Montlake raped again, only bigger and worse than with original bridge in 1962.
Yesterday, an initiative was just filed to reduce Washington State’s legal drinking age to 19. This is our best solution to save Seattle’s transportation infrastructure.
Because of Ronald Reagan’s National Minimum Drinking Age Act, any state that reduces its drinking age below 21 will lose 10% of its federal highway funds.
Passing this initiative would save Seattle’s infrastructure for the next 50 years by killing the SOV-only 520 bridge replacement and the SOV-only viaduct replacement waterfront tunnel. It would also save the City of Seattle hundreds of millions of dollars (possibly billions after cost overruns) that we could use for transit, vital social services, fighting homelessness, and education.
Save Seattle. Reduce the state’s minimum drinking age to 19.
While the idea of bus transit only lanes deserves further study as to timing and overall operations, the idea of rail on SR 520 is a non-starter at this point in time. Sound Transit is already implementing a plan for east side rail service on I-90, while there is nothing within any regional plan for the next 20 years that supports east-west rail in the SR 520 corridor. Answering the question as to whether or not a bridge design that could be retrofit for rail later makes sense or is feasible is fine, but holding up the replacement project given the safety issues, while we debate how to fund an SR 520 rail corridor for the next few years (easily in the hundreds of millions) is irresponsible.
Dominic Holden seems to be confused.
He must think his job is to write brochures for the people running the yacht clubs and who bought houses in Montlake who are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else.
They have obviously succeeded with Dominic.
The biggest example of “transit washing” going on right now is what these lakeside activists are now spinning about their new scheme for 520.
Dominic: your text and graphic are in error in describing the bus stops on Montlake Boulevard NE near the SR-520 on ramp as the closest to the Link station. there are and will be several bus stops on NE Pacific Street and Place. The stops you highlight are those served by routes connecting the U District and the eastside via SR-520; those routes will also serve stops in the triangle. all three WSDOT options would close the Montlake freeways stops served by routes connecting the eastside with downtown Seattle. that is a larger issue
There will never be light rail across SR 520. It makes more sense for light rail to go through populated areas on the north end of the lake. The bridge height is a problem, but the current pontoons are 16′ high while the new pontoons will be 28′ high. The twelve extra feet impacts the east side far greater than the west side. SR 520 requires three person carpools and the Legislature is pushing to maintain that requirement.
This argument boils down to one thing, the Montlake Interchange. Which means a hideous bridge across Union Bay to the UW or a very expensive tunnel to the UW. I’m betting The Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520 wants the taxpayers to pony up for a tunnel.
This debate has nothing to do with cars verses transit. It boils down to a tunnel verses a bridge.
We don’t need more goddamn busses… trains, for christ’s sake! They’re quieter, cleaner, more comfortable, and they’re much more palatable to the uppity Microsoft-esque white collar workers who will ultimately use them to get back and forth from the eastside to their identical wood-frame condos with exposed galvanized ductwork, halogen track lighting, and faux-wood floors on Capitol Hill.
… and did you see the design for the light rail station?! It’s underground but there is no underground connection to the hospital or anything on the west side of Montlake Blvd. Instead riders have to climb out of the ground onto an open bridge and walk in the rain all the way to the UW campus. Who is coming up with this?! How can it be that the hospital is not connected to the light rail? That the transit stops are not connected to the light rail? That’s very Seattle, isn’t it? Lets walk in the rain in front of vehicles and complain that they do not stop for us, and other bs like that, instead of pressuring people who are getting paid to build an effective infrastructure for and failing to do so! Look at the Mt Baker TC… what were they thinking?! the TC and the light rail station are on opposite sides of Rainier Ave! and there is no overpass or underpass! WTF?
This city remains the city of drivers… the infrastructure here is not provided for anything else!