Chris Grygiel at the PI reports:

Gov. Chris Gregoire on Tuesday vetoed a section of the bill authorizing the replacement of the 520 bridge that was a key goal of powerful Seattle neighborhood groups—one that limited the height of the new span.

The governor signed Senate Bill 6392 into law, but used her veto authority to remove the section of the legislation that specified a 20-foot height limit above Lake Washington for the floating part of the bridge. … The problem with the 20-foot height limit was that it could prevent state transportation officials from complying with Coast Guard and safety regulations, [Gregoire’s spokesman Viet] Shelton said.

The current bridge is 12 feet high, and it includes taller parts that allow large ships to get through, which is working now for the Coast Guard. The proposed design would allows a bridge around 30 feet—a proposal the Seattle City Council opposes. In a letter in January, Council President Richard Conlin and his colleagues requested “reducing the height of the crosslake bridge structure from thirty feet in the current plans.” And today, Conlin was reportedly at the bill signing—held in Bellevue, for a bill that contains provisions supported by Eastside lawmakers and opposed by a host of Seattle lawmakers—so what did Conlin think of this?

“I’m sympathetic to the governor’s feeling that you can’t legislate height like that. That’s an engineering decision.”

Back to Grygiel:

The governor also vetoed a section of the bill that directed planners to come up with a final design that could handle both carpool lanes and light rail. …

Conlin said the goals laid out in the section Gregoire nixed can be accomplished by the work groups. “We think we’re in pretty good shape about getting the things done that we need.”

Seattle has secured virtually nothing it wanted, but Conlin seems pretty much fine with that. In case you’re keeping score, the state has refused to include transit-only lanes or light-rail lanes; the state won’t even figure out how it would be possible to include light-rail and carpools on the same bridge; the state has made no assurances that the bridge will make a good transit connection to the future light-rail station at Husky Stadium; the state has been pushing a westside design that Conlin assailed back in November but has now been all but cemented into law; and now the state has also eliminated a provision to shrink a three-story wall across Lake Washington. And Conlin—our seasoned veteran at City Hall defending Seattle interests—seems to believe that “we’re in pretty good shape” for getting all the things Seattle needs. Now that is optimism.

27 replies on “Gregoire Vetoes 20-Foot Height Limit on 520 Bridge and Planning for Carpool Lanes With Light Rail”

  1. It might be worth your while to check what current Coast Guard regs say, rather than assuming that they must be alright because the current bridge is only 12 feet high. Things might have changed since it was constructed.

  2. Dominic, please stay on this line of the story.

    Our City Council continues, time and again, to fight for the interests of Seattle in deference to making nice with the State; I suppose the goal of making nice with the State is to get what we need every now and then.

    But, when every now and then doesn’t include the major projects like the Viaduct and now 520, when is it going to happen?

    Conlin’s responses here are extremely disappointing. And, the Governor continues to show that she thinks Seattle will never choose to vote for anyone other than the Dem Governor.

  6. Oops…there was a typo in my post @2:

    Should say:

    Our City Council fails, time and again, to fight for the interests of Seattle in deference to making nice with the State; I suppose the goal of making nice with the State is to get what we need every now and then.

  8. @3 that’s right, like Rob McKenna.

    This bill was a win for our regional transportation system. On this, I agree with the Gov.

  9. This bridge is going to be completed in 2080, and it’s going to have one section that’s 24 lanes wide, three sections with two lanes, a 2,000 car parking garage in the middle, a Chihuly museum, and it’s not quite going to meet in the middle.

  10. Nah, we all agree on the pontoons, it’s just the offramps to/from the landing and at the exits that are in discussion.

    It will be done, but Seattle needs to man up and fight dirty. Sadly, Council seems to be beholden to the “stakeholders” that don’t vote here, instead of the citizens who do.

  11. So what is Conlin getting from the governor? There’s got to be another part of this; he couldn’t be enraging his constituents and giving away the city’s negotiating leverage for nothing…could he?

  12. Conlin is a fraud. Always has been. Always will be. He talks the green talk but walks the asphalt walk.

  13. @3: Haha. As if.

    @12: I’m with you. We need to get real on these priorities, if they are priorities.

    But let’s be clear: it’s more our fault than theirs. They have little to fear by screwing over progressive reform. We have to make it hurt politically for ignoring the reasonable route of approaching these problems and deciding instead to keep on keepin’ on with politics-as-usual.

    In other words, organize.

  16. Thank god the Governor has sense. There is no reason to cater to hipster-mass transit riding- cars suck-types. I can hear the air being sucked out of McMayor and his no cars on bridges compatriots right now. Sounds good….

  18. As to the height, I kind of like beautiful, soaring, well designed bridges! And how about the future trains on the pontoons below? Seems the big issues are NOISE (which reflects off lake, (and increases with SPEED)), and UGLYNESS. Why not rethink that flat span or highway out there, and get some gorgeous arches and curves, where car noise stays ‘up there’ more of its length?

  20. @16

    If Seattle sucks so much, why the fuck do you want to build a massive new bridge so you can come here?

    I swear to god, if Seattle wanted to get rid of everyone else in the state, all we’d have to do would be to push really hard for a state statute saying that nobody outside of Seattle is allowed to pour gasoline on themselves and set themselves on fire. Every one of you morons would go up like a roman candle just to spite the faux-this urban-that.

  21. This is going to affect the view from my property, so I really should favor a lower bridge, but damn I love seeeing the wind taken out of the sails of Seattle’s eco-social engineers.

    P.S. Fnarf @ 9 for the win.

  24. Nice spin, Dom. But if you read the rest of Grygiel’s story you get the truth, which is that they are already planning to lower the height to 20 feet in almost all sections, but may need to exceed it a bit in a few areas. It is unnecessary to legislate this. As for light rail on 520, there is no serious proposal for funding this and buses can do a better job for the next 20 years while we build a rail network. We just need to make sure the design can accommodate rail in the future. Which they are working on.

  25. @20: Get your head out of your ass. If 520 exists only for the purpose of getting all those damn suburbanites into Seattle, why does this show stop-and-go traffic on the eastbound lanes every morning?

  26. The current 520 is also a DRAWBRIDGE to comply with coast guard regulations. I’m curious how that is included in the new plans; haven’t read about that anywhere.

  27. Just so we’re clear:

    Intervening at the last minute is ok in the case of doing the sr99 deep bore tunnel. Intervening to protect or improve mass transit on 520 is horrible obstructionism.

Comments are closed.