Reminder: floating bridge closed this weekend

Nornally, I don't do postings about issues that you are likely to read or hear about in the major media. But since it's clear that not everyone pays attention (or necessarily has a very good memory) I thought I might just mention the fact that if you're planning to cross the water this weekend for a bit of fun on the other side, you better use I-90 or take your boat. At 11 pm on Friday night, August 20, the Evergreen Point (Albert D. Rosellini) Floating Bridge will be closed for its annual inspection and maintenance. It will not reopen until 5 am on Monday morning, August 23.

While the bridge is closed, SR-520 will be open between I-5 and the Montlake Boulevard E. exit. Make your plans accordingly.

Arboretum seeks big-time reduction in traffic

“Traffic calming” coming soon to a road near you!

If the Arboretum gets its way, the number of cars using Lake Washington Boulevard to transit the Park each day will be reduced by as much as 80%. And when it comes to traffic mitigation, what the Arboretum wants, the Arboretum may very well get. Frankly, the Park’s recent track record on this issue, though not widely heralded, has been pretty impressive.

Among the various constituencies of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520 (that amalgam of interested communities and interest groups, which includes Madison Park’s community council), the Arboretum was, in fact, the only immediate winner when the Governor last spring announced her new “Preferred Alternative” for 520. Rejecting the previous Option A+ Plan crafted by a legislative workgroup, the Governor eliminated the Arboretum on/off ramps from the design for the west-side approach to the new floating bridge. This, as we earlier reported, means that there will be no Arboretum off ramp from 520 beginning in 2012 (based on the current construction schedule) and no Arboretum on ramp to 520 beginning in 2015. The permanent elimination of the on/off ramps was what the Arboretum had argued for—and it’s what the Arboretum achieved.

But that’s hardly the end of the story. The Governor also mandated that the State Department of Transportation work with the City and the Arboretum to develop a “traffic management plan” that reduces the impact of cars on the Park. That’s something else the Arboretum wanted and got.

But what exactly does “traffic management” of Lake Washington Boulevard mean? I went right to the top to find out. In a narrow-ranging interview with Arboretum Foundation Director Paige Miller earlier this summer, I asked her what ideas were being debated for re-routing traffic and what kind of process will take place for developing a new traffic plan for the Arboretum.

But first, a word about Miller. She’s an attorney (Yale Law), former Seattle Port Commissioner, and one-time candidate for the Seattle City Council. She became executive director of the Arboretum Foundation three years ago. She has the reputation of being very smart and politically astute. Though she is modest about her role in the Arboretum’s recent success with the Governor ("It was a tremendous effort of a lot of people concerned about protecting the Arboretum") it’s pretty clear that the Arboretum’s cause has been advanced significantly by having Miller leading the parade.

With regard to the Arboretum’s traffic reduction objective, Miller did not mince words: “Our goal is to slow down traffic and discourage people from using the Arboretum as a through route.” And where will the traffic that now uses the Arboretum go? Miller is clear on that as well: “People should be encouraged to use 23rd Avenue E., which is a four-lane City arterial street and not an Olmsted Boulevard.” Her Olmsted reference, which is perhaps a bit obscure to some, comes from the fact that the City’s boulevards—developed in the early 1900s by the Olmsted Brothers—were intended to be parkways linking the City’s parks. When they were designed and built they were not intended to be major conveyors of through-traffic. But in the case of Lake Washington Boulevard, at least in its Arboretum portion, that’s exactly what it has become.

The City estimates that 18,000 cars drive through the Arboretum on average each day. Of these, according to Miller, about 10,000 vehicles access the 520 on or off ramps. She notes that the Boulevard—which was designed to handle only 4,000 cars per day—is only a two-lane road, while the four-lane arterial through Montlake also processes about 20,000 cars on average per day. By implication, improvements to 23rd and 24th Avenues E. could easily increase access to Montlake. To keep people from using the Arboretum in order to enter or exit 520, “we need to make sure that the logical route is to turn at 23rd,” Miller told me. “The Montlake Corridor ought to have the capacity of taking more cars than the Arboretum does.”

In order to encourage that northbound turn off of E. Madison Street and onto 23rd, Miller proposes to make the left-turn light there longer and to have the City lengthen the turn lane to accommodate more cars. Miller also wants the City to investigate ways to improve bus usage in that corridor.

But there are other ways of discouraging Arboretum use which are also under serious discussion. Miller prefers to call these “traffic calming measures” rather than traffic management schemes, but here are the major ones:

--putting a toll on cars using the Arboretum to access 520

--reducing speed limits through the Arboretum

--increasing the number of pedestrian crossings

--introducing speed monitors to tell drivers their cars’ speed

--placing a stop sign at the Boyer Avenue intersection

Miller says that no decisions have been made, but the planning process is underway. She believes that the Arboretum and Botanical Garden Committee (ABGC) has been given jurisdiction by the State to develop the traffic plan for the Arboretum. The ABGC is composed of the Arboretum Foundation, Seattle Parks Department, and the University of Washington, and it jointly operates the Arboretum. The ABGC will be meeting this week (on Wednesday, August 18 from 8:00 am until 12:00 pm in the Graham Visitors Center in the Arboretum), and one of the items on the agenda will be “traffic calming and management in the Arboretum.” That discussion is expected to get started at about 9:30 and last for around 90 minutes, for those interested in attending.

Just to put the issue into perspective for those of us who use the Arboretum for something other than nature viewing, note that Miller is on record testifying to the Seattle City Council in April that the Arboretum would like to see the number of cars coming through the Park each day limited to about 4,000. That’s an almost 80% reduction from the estimated level of traffic flowing through the Arboretum today. To get to that number, a lot of cars are clearly going to have to go somewhere else—or not go at all.

Miller certainly is not apologetic about what she admits might be an unobtainable ideal. “You have to have a goal,” she told me. “Lake Washington Boulevard was meant to be a leisurely parkway and not a long on and off ramp for 520.” On her watch, she said, she intends to fight for the Arboretum as the urban oasis it was intended to be, not a place that’s convenient for people to “just zip through.”

[Lower photo: cars queue up eastbound on E. Madison Street at Lake Washington Boulevard to turn into the Arboretum on a late summer afternoon. Many if not most are heading for the 520 on ramp to the Eastside.]

And so it begins: initial work on the new SR 520 is officially underway

I received a press release last week from WSDOT (the Washington State Department of Transportation) reporting that field work has begun for the new SR 520 floating bridge. If you’ve looked across the Lake or driven over 520 recently, you’ve probably noticed the large barge crane that’s been moored alongside the floating bridge for the last several weeks. That crane has been involved in a project replacing pontoon cables. The arrival last week of the barge pictured above, however, presaged work on the new bridge, which officially started on Friday.

This barge is the first of several that will be involved in “field work” to study the lakebed in places where support columns and anchors will be placed for the new bridge. Drill rigs on the barges will explore 40 separate locations alongside the floating bridge, taking borings to a depth of up to 100 feet beneath the bottom of the Lake. The results of the bore sampling will then be shared with the design teams working on plans for the new bridge. To quote WSDOT, “Smaller efforts were conducted previously on the preliminary anchor design. This more robust geotechnical work allows WSDOT to advance the design of the anchors prior to issuing the contract documents for the floating bridge.”

It’s been some time since we last did a posting regarding plans for the new 520, so perhaps the beginning of actual work on the project is a good time for an update. Let’s start with the opponents. They remain opposed to the Governor’s “Preferred Alternative” and are currently up in arms about a recent graphic from WSDOT which shows the bridge terminating at our end of the Lake with an “Interim West Approach bridge and bicycle/pedestrian connection.”

Larry Kyle, Program Engineering Manager for the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program has provided this explanation: “Per the legislature’s authorization and funding, the project is limited to replacement of the floating bridge and the connections to SR 520 at either end of the floating bridge. At the eastern shore of Lake Washington, it will tie into the SR 520 alignment just east of the new approach structure approximately at the Evergreen Point overcrossing. At the west end, it will connect the transition span at the end of the floating bridge with the existing west approach north of Madison Park.” In other words, there’s no money appropriated or identified at this point to do anything with the western approach to the new floating bridge other than to create in the water just north of us an interim connector to the old approach. One opponent’s reaction to the new schematic: “Laurelhurst and Madison Park will have years of extra trauma” as a result of WSDOT’s plans.

WSDOT, meanwhile, recently posted a spiffy new video on YouTube of the “Preferred Alternative” for the western approach which will be constructed when funding becomes available. Although the computer-generated graphics show cars traveling over the bridge west to east and provide dramatic aerial side shots the Portage Bay section of the new 520, conspicuously absent are any side shots of the floating bridge itself as it crosses Lake Washington. Take a look here.

I suspect I'm not the only one wondering what WSDOT's reason might be for not showing us what the bridge looks like from the side view.

[This, by the way, is the 250th posting in the 17-month history of Madison Park Blogger.]

Contemplating Montlake

The idyllic scene illustrated above, believe it or not, is supposed to be E. Lake Washington Boulevard as it will look at some point in the future--after the new SR 520 floating bridge has been built and the new westside approaches have been installed. As you can see, there is no traffic.

That’s certainly not what that boulevard looks like today, especially during rush hour through the Arboretum. It makes one wonder what the artist may know that we don’t. The graphic is courtesy of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and as we’ve reported, the State’s “preferred” alternative plan for SR 520 contemplates both the removal of the Arboretum ramps to 520 and the imposition of a new “traffic management” plan for the Arboretum. The combination, apparently, will make Lake Washington Boulevard into the bucolic back road of the artist’s imagination.

Here, by the way, is what the artist imagines the scene at 24th Avenue E. and E. Lake Washington Boulevard will look like (this is the intersection where the bridge to the Museum of History and Industry now crosses 520 at Montlake). Under the “preferred” plan, HOVs may leave Lake Washington Boulevard to enter an eastbound ramp to 520 at about this point. Nevertheless, it doesn’t look like this area is expected to be too busy. Although a bus is depicted, it certainly didn’t end up in that location by coming north on Lake Washington Boulevard, since it would not have been able to navigate under the Arboretum’s low-clearance brick footbridge.

But will smaller high-occupancy vehicles be able to drive through the Arboretum to get to the 24th Avenue intersection? That’s a question that will only have an answer once all the public agencies (State, City and the University of Washington, which co-manages the Arboretum) and the Arboretum Foundation agree on a “traffic management” plan for the Arboretum, as noted by the Governor when she announced the new 520 scheme. It’s a matter of some doubt whether any non-HOV traffic will be able to drive through the Arboretum to access 520 either. Just how traffic will be restricted will soon be a topic of discussion between the various players, with a recommendation on an overall traffic mitigation strategy to go to the State Legislature no later than December 31, 2010.

In the meantime, it’s interesting to speculate on just how that new Montlake Lid and 520 interchange will work exactly, since we’re all going to have to make use of it. Eventually, Montlake will have to handle all of the current traffic that flows into the area plus all of the new traffic that will be dumped there because of the elimination of the Arboretum on and off ramps for 520.

As a starting point, WSDOT had provided me with some additional information concerning current usage of the Arboretum ramps. This graphic depicts usage of the 520 westbound exit to Lake Washington Boulevard in the Arboretum:

And this graphic shows usage of the 520 eastbound entrance:

Perhaps a bit surprisingly, Capitol Hill tops the list of peak-hour users of Lake Washington Boulevard to access and exit 520 (35% of total westbound off-ramp usage and 36% of eastbound on-ramp usage). That includes a lot of people coming down E. Madison Street and turning into the Arboretum rather than taking the more direct (but often more time-consuming) 23rd Avenue route to Montlake. First Hill and the Central Area (including Madrona) comprise the next biggest number of westbound off-ramp users. Many of these drivers are certainly bypassing the more direct route to and from their neighborhoods. Montlake residents, somewhat unexpectedly, are also big users of the Lake Washington Boulevard ramps (23% of eastbound traffic and 13% of westbound).

Madison Parkers (and residents of Denny-Blaine), meanwhile, represent only 5% of eastbound traffic and 4% of westbound traffic. But given the fact that Lake Washington Boulevard is the most direct route to 520 from our neighborhood, it is likely that almost all of Madison Park’s 520 traffic to and from the Eastside goes through the Arboretum. So next to Montlake, which is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of new 520 traffic, Madison Park may feel the biggest impact of any neighborhood when the Arboretum ramps are closed.

Quite clearly, based on this WSDOT data, many neighborhoods—including those as far south as Mt. Baker and Columbia City—are going to negatively impacted by the State’s preferred plan. And if access through the Arboretum is further curtailed, as expected, huge changes to traffic through Madison Valley and down 23rd Avenue E. are inevitable, since that route would become the main corridor for 520 traffic to and from Madison Park, Denny-Blaine, Madrona, Leschi and points south that now utilize Lake Washington Boulevard and enter the Arboretum at E. Madison Street. All of that downtown, Central District, and First Hill traffic that now heads down Madison to enter the Arboretum at Lake Washington Boulevard will in the future probably need to turn left at 23rd for the trip downhill to Montlake.

And when everyone gets to Montlake? Well, WSDOT didn’t provide any graphic of what that’s going to look like!

.

Say bye bye to those Arboretum ramps!

Just in case you missed one of the implications of the Governor’s announcement earlier this month concerning her revamp of the SR-520 project, allow me to hammer the point home for you: the existing Lake Washington Boulevard on and off ramps in the Arboretum will be demolished.

And they will not be replaced.

There will be no easy out-the-back-gate-of-Broadmoor access to 520, no trips through the Arboretum to a convenient access ramp. For Madison Parkers, the new way to get onto the floating bridge will simply be this: drive to Montlake and get in line.

The press hasn’t done a very thorough job, in my opinion, of spelling out this consequential aspect of the Governor’s latest 520 decision. But it’s a fact that the Governor came through big time for those who opposed the “wide and intrusive” Arboretum access ramps that were a feature of the Option A+ plan. The earlier Option A plan for the western approaches to SR-520 had already eliminated the existing Arboretum ramps, but the subsequent Option A+ compromise plan put new Arboretum ramps back into the mix. Now they’re out again.

So, beginning with the very first stage of the floating bridge replacement project, the westbound 520 exit to Lake Washington Boulevard will be closed. Under current construction plans, that’s expected to occur in the last quarter of 2012. And eventually, as construction moves forward in what’s anticipated to be a six-to-eight year construction project, the eastbound Lake Washington Boulevard ramp to 520 will also be demolished, along with the famous “ramps to nowhere.” Right now, that’s expected to happen sometime in late 2015.

This is a great image from Google Earth showing the Arboretum ramps which will be no more (the top is north, and the “ramps to nowhere” are marked with the largest red X and with the X immediately above that):

In announcing “the State’s preferred alternative” plan for 520 at a press conference at the UW’s Waterfront Activities Center, the Governor stated that “the State Department of Transportation heard the concerns of the neighborhoods and the City of Seattle” by creating a new design for the floating bridge and its western approaches that addresses those concerns. With regard to the elimination of the Lake Washington Boulevard ramps, the Governor said that “the purpose is to protect the Arboretum.” So score this as a one big win for the friends of the Arboretum.

For the many of us who have been using the Arboretum as a sort of gateway to and from the Eastside, however, the world will be changing in a less-comfortable way. And for those unhappy residents of Montlake: expect even more traffic to be heading in your direction. Of course, there will be that lovely new “Montlake Lid” to make things pleasant for everyone.

This is what the Montlake interchange and freeway lid look like in the proposed scheme, with the yellow routes showing 520 traffic flows from and to Lake Washington Boulevard (click to enlarge):

Some of the details are reportedly still being worked out, but basically traffic that now enters 520 in the Arboretum will under the new scenario be channeled to the intersection of E. Lake Washington Boulevard and Montlake Boulevard E., where it will (after negotiating at least one traffic light) enter a freeway entrance that loops around and under the Montlake Lid, heading eastbound. Traffic from Lake Washington Boulevard attempting to go west on 520 will apparently have to negotiate both a right turn at the same intersection with Montlake Boulevard and then make a left turn through another traffic light a block further north on that street. This is how the streets mentioned line up today:

There may be some relief for high-occupancy vehicles going eastbound on 520. They will apparently be allowed to enter the freeway by making a right turn on 24th Avenue E. from E. Lake Washington Boulevard (that’s where the bridge to the Museum of History and Industry currently crosses 520) and then they can enter the HOV lanes eastbound. Presumably the same would be true for the westbound HOV lane from 520, with an exit leading to the 24th Avenue intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard.

When all is said and done, assuming the “preferred plan” is the final plan, the Arboretum will not be a jumping off point for traffic to or from the Eastside. And a lot of the traffic that currently goes through the Arboretum before or after a 520 trip will no longer find Lake Washington Boulevard the most direct or convenient route. Anyone watching the E. Madison Street/E. Lake Washington Boulevard intersection during rush hour knows the extent to which traffic from downtown, First Hill, and Capitol Hill currently makes use of Madison Street and the Arboretum as a means of getting to and from 520. When the 520 ramps are reconfigured, however, all of this Madison traffic will benefit from turning left onto 23rd Avenue E. at the top of the hill, rather than coming down into Madison Valley for an approach to 520 through the Arboretum.

.
Madison Parkers, however, as well as drivers from Denny-Blaine, Madrona, and Leschi who currently use Lake Washington Boulevard to enter or exit 520 in the Arboretum may still find that route is the shortest way to get to the Montlake entrances. But using the Arboretum for this purpose may not be possible, or it may be severely restricted. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) notes on its site that it will be working with the City of Seattle “to develop a traffic management plan for the Arboretum.” The goal? Limiting auto traffic through the Park.

So the Arboretum really came out ahead in the Governor’s new plan, while Madison Park, Madrona, Leschi , and—most spectacularly—Montlake were badly inconvenienced. Give credit to the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, the Arboretum Foundation, and the City of Seattle for the success of the Arboretum’s efforts. They all wanted the Option A+ Arboretum ramps drastically scaled back, and the Governor effectively said “Fine, no ramps at all.” The Coalition issued a statement today deploring the Governor's new plan, stating that it will channel all of the Arboretum traffic (which it estimates at 15,000 cars per day) onto 23rd Avenue E. and into Montlake. "The neighborhoods got shafted," says Coalition head Fran Conley, adding that the Governor's failure to plan for all of this new traffic in Montlake is "infuriating."

Note, however, that the timing for all of these 520 changes—including those affecting the Arboretum—is still very much in doubt. One big problem is that the money's not there. Unless another $2 billion or so of revenues is found, there will be no re-engineering of the western approaches to the new floating bridge (which does have funding). Also, delays in funding could mean that the construction schedule is pushed back. Another factor to consider is the willingness of the opponents to continue their fight in both the political and legal arenas, with changes to the Governor’s “preferred plan” a distinct possibility. In other words, this ain’t a done deal.

Nevertheless, I think we can still kiss those Arboretum ramps goodbye.

.

[Graphics courtesy of SDOT, Google, and Google Earth. Photos by Tagas. For more information on the Montlake Interchange, click here.]

Governor announces “preferred” plan for 520: opponents not amused

The Governor’s revised configuration for SR-520, which was formally unveiled today, gives scant comfort to the opponents of the State’s initial plans for the new floating bridge and its western approaches. But it’s apparent, nonetheless, that Governor Gregoire and the State Department of Transportation (SDOT) have made limited concessions which would not have happened but for the opposition of groups such as the Coalition for a Sustainable 520 and elected officials such as Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn. Some people may even feel that the new plan is an actual improvement over the old Option A+.

Here’s what’s new about the Governor’s latest “preferred alternative” for 520:

· It will be able to accommodate light rail at some future date
· It eliminates the ramps to 520 from the Arboretum
· It adds ramps to the UW for transit and HOV
· It expands the lid over 520 at Montlake and adds one near the UW
· It lowers the new floating bridge to 20 feet high at mid-span

At a news conference today, somewhere near 520, the Governor reportedly said that when it comes to major transportation issues, you can’t expect to please all of the people. Mayor McGinn is apparently one of the displeased, not buying into the Governor’s assurance that the new 520 will be light-rail ready. Fran Conley, head of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, meanwhile, was already on record as believing that the Governor’s latest iteration “doesn’t resolve any of our basic issues.” The Coalition’s principal concerns, she says, have not been addressed. “We will still have cars coming towards Seattle with no place to go once they get here, causing constant congestion in Montlake, the Arboretum area, North Capitol Hill, and I-5. We think that we need mass transit, on dedicated lanes, to accommodate the growth of the next 50-100 years and to minimize the impact on the area.“

Of course the Governor’s announcement today is not the end of the story. Opponents vow to fight the State in the courts if necessary. And then there’s that other stumbling block: funding. Revenue sources amounting to about $2.6 billion have so far been identified to fund the project. Unfortunately, that's still about $2 billion short of total cost, based on current estimates.

Not to worry. SDOT has produced some lovely new graphics, including that idealized aerial view of the proposed floating bridge shown above (Madison Park is on the right). The middle graphic details the Montlake interchange area (note that there are still two draw bridges in the plan). And this is the view from on high:

[Graphics courtesy of SDOT. Click to enlarge. For previous postings on SR-520, click here; for the City's 520 Project Enhancement Draft Report, click here; and for SDOT's complete overview, click here.]

Butt ugly? You be the judge

We have a suspicion that for many civil engineers, the above illustration of what the new SR 520 floating bridge might look like as it transverses Lake Washington represents a thing of beauty. For it’s well known that civil engineers are more likely to be in the “function over form” camp than the other way around; and the new bridge does, after all, accomplish its principal mission of moving more vehicles from east to west and then back again than is true of the current bridge. So on that score alone, we suppose, it’s a job well done.

But here’s what the bridge looks like today, as viewed from the same Madison Street pier location:

Though it’s not a bridge deserving of any design awards, at least its profile is a relatively low one. But what about that new bridge? Is it likely to be a blight upon the water, as some opponents believe? And then there’s the bigger issue of whether the new bridge will even accomplish the purpose of improving cross-Lake transportation in the long term.

.
We’ve covered the 520 issue in some detail on this blog, but there’s much more to come. Since our last report, the bridge’s proponents have ramped up their efforts to convince the public that the project in its present form is a grand thing (see posterous), while the opponents have been equally vociferous in their outrage (although they apparently took their website down). The Legislature has also gone on record with a recent action approving a bill to allow tolling on 520 to begin in 2011. The majority of State lawmakers, apparently, would like to see work begin on the eastside approaches to 520 even if the design of the west side has not been finalized.

MEETING NOTICE: We will have another opportunity to hear about all of this at an upcoming community meeting to be held at Park Shore on Monday, March 22, from 7 to 9 pm in the chapel. The speakers will be Fran Conley, Coordinator of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, and Ethan Raup of the Seattle Mayor’s Office, where he is Director for Policy and External Affairs. Meanwhile, you can learn more about the anti-Option A+ position here.

.

[As an aside, it is interesting to note that the beautiful and still utilitarian Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco was not designed by a civil engineer, but rather by a liberal arts major! The story is told in an excellent book, The Gate, by John Van Der Zee, which I highly recommend.]

520: It's all about process

The bottom line on this evening’s “Environmental Hearing and Public Open House” on SR 520, which was held at the Naval Reserve Building on Lake Union, is that about 150 citizens were given the opportunity to spend some quality time walking around in a very large room while looking at a series of professionally presented displays showing various aspects of the upcoming bridge project. If those attendees had expected to have any kind of meaningful give and take with State officials about the design of 520, they must have been gravely disappointed. For the event was certainly more open house than hearing.
.
Yes, it’s true that about 15 hardy souls—those were willing to wait around for at least an hour for the honor—did get the chance to stand up and deliver their views. But the time limit of three minutes per speaker necessarily truncated this input, and the format did not provide for any response from State officials to what they were hearing from their tax-paying employers. This made the whole thing seem very pro forma to at least some of us.

By my count there must have been about twenty or so employees of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) present; and while I found them on the whole to be both pleasant and forthcoming, I also had the strong sense that many of them had gritted their teeth—at least figuratively—in order to suffer the affair. It’s all just part of the game, after all, mandated by some federal act of 1966 and some later State add-on requirements. For WSDOT, everything is moving forward as planned. It’s a process, and the public “hearing” just brings the State one step closer to the conclusion.

Or perhaps I am just too cynical.

Anyway, the event was interesting as a piece of political theatre. The public officials played their parts, as did the attendees. In the parking lot, prior to the hearing, Madison Park Community Council (MPCC) members Jim Hagan and Ken Myrabo set up a 40-foot pole with balloons attached at the top in order to provide a visual demonstration of how high the new bridge would rise above the level of Lake Washington (i.e. very high):

One of the most interesting “visualizations” presented by WSDOT was this set of before and after pictures showing the existing and new bridges as seen from the park at E. Lynn Street (thanks to MPCC member Jim Quigg for pointing these out to me). This is before:

And this is after (click to enlarge):

Some opponents refer to the new floating bridge as “that Alaskan Way Viaduct on the Lake.” You be the judge. For those interested, there are many more “visualizations” on the WSDOT website, here.

In case you missed them, there were a couple of interesting developments on the 520 front today: 1) Microsoft weighed in this morning with a full-page ad in the Seattle Times stating “It’s Time for Action on the 520 Bridge: Let’s Move!” and 2) Mayor McGinn announced that the City of Seattle has hired a consulting firm to “review how better to structure the 520 bridge on the Seattle side” as well as look at opportunities for putting light rail on 520.

.

Eastside-employer corporate money on the pro side. Seattle city taxpayer money on the anti. It's getting interesting.

Two chances to weigh in on 520

Opponents of the State’s plans for the new SR 520 floating bridge think they may have come up with a ‘smoking gun’ buried in an appendix to the supplemental draft environmental statement (EIS) that the Department of Transportation (WSDOT) recently filed. They claim that while the bridge is being publicly touted as a six-lane affair (two car lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction), WSDOT’s real plan is to build a bridge wide enough to eventually accommodate eight or even ten total lanes. They base their claim on this diagram for the “West Transition Spans” which WSDOT included in the EIS:

According to the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, the illustration shows that the bridge pontoons will be significantly wider than necessary just to accommodate the six lanes legally authorized. Opponents note that WSDOT worksheets show that the pontoons will be 240 feet wide at some points, roughly four times as wide as the current bridge.

Whether WSDOT has a stealth plan or not may become a subject of debate at the upcoming SR 520 Environmental Hearing and Public Open House, which will be hosted by WSDOT this Tuesday, February 23, at the Lake Union Naval Reserve Building (860 Terry Avenue N.) from 5 to 7pm. It’s an opportunity for the public to give input on the State’s 520 plans, including Option A+ for the Westside approaches.

Another way to provide input is to attend a town hall meeting this Saturday with the 43rd District’s three legislators: Senator Ed Murray, Representative (and House Speaker) Frank Chopp , and Representative Jamie Pedersen. The meeting will be held from 1:30 until 3 pm at the Seattle First Baptist Church, 1111 Harvard Avenue (at Seneca Street, up the hill from the Polyclinic).

Our entire delegation, by the way, is already on record as against both Option A+ and the plan for a high-and-wide floating bridge. This is more than can be said for the delegation from the 46th District (which includes Laurelhurst).

[For more background on 520 and for information on how to formalize your input on the State’s plans, click here for all the Madison Park Blogger postings on the subject. Note that the top graphic, courtesy of WSDOT, shows the west approach to 520 under Option A. Option A+ includes on and off ramps from Lake Washington Boulevard, as well as an HOV connection from Montlake Boulevard.]

520: where to from here?

It’s been a pretty eventful week since the opponents of the State’s current SR 520 plan held their press conference in the Arboretum last Monday. For those who haven’t been paying close attention to the issue, here’s a summary of what’s been happening, as well as a brief look ahead:

As you may recall, the opponents--including all of our 43rd District legislators, the Mayor, two City Council members, and a coalition of the immediately affected Seattle neighborhoods—are opposed both to the Option A+ design for the Westside approaches and to the design of the high-and-wide floating bridge that the State is planning to build, beginning in 2012. Fran Conley, coordinator of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, summed the opponents’ views by arguing that the State should not be designing a transportation system for the 21st Century while using the outmoded transportation concepts of the 1950s. Opponents want a delay to the process and a redesign of the project that allows for only high-density transit (buses and potentially light rail) in the two addition lanes which will be added to the 520 corridor. And they want the height of the new floating bridge (currently designed to rise 30 feet above the water line) lowered significantly.

The opponents got a fair amount of publicity for their position during the week--as well as an immediate reaction from Governor Gregoire, who issued a statement declaring that delay and redesign of 520 were unacceptable. "Changing the configuration now would require a new environmental process,” she wrote. “The office of the Attorney General tells us that revising these decisions from several years ago would set the project back at least 18 to 24 months. Our commitment to ensuring public safety does not allow that kind of delay."

Eastside legislative and city officials then piled on, telling the media that the issue of 520 has been studied for many years and that the six-lane concept advocated by the state’s Department of Transportation (WSDOT) must move forward without delay. At this point, leaders of the transportation committees in the state legislature added their voices to the no-delay chorus. Finally, as if to add insult to injury, five members of the Seattle City Council (who just days earlier had signed a letter to the Governor asking for delay), stood shoulder to shoulder with the Eastside public officials to voice their opposition to delay. Mayor McGinn, for one, found their about face confounding.

All of this might lead you to believe that the opponents would be packing it in and licking their wounds. But not so. I talked to Fran Conley today (that’s Fran in the photo below, taken at last Monday’s press conference), and she actually believes that the anti Coalition is gaining momentum.

“For one thing,” she said, “we are raising awareness.” She noted that the lack of leadership by Seattle's ex-mayor, Greg Nichols, was devastating to the process, which has been very influenced by those suburban politicians who have taken a leadership role. The citizens of Seattle have not been represented and have not been informed, she believes. This is changing.

Though she hopes for a quick resolution though the political process which will result in a new 520 design, she noted that there is another option which might prove necessary. “We are hoping to avoid legal action,” she told me, “but we have funding and we have hired a lawyer.” I asked her if she envisions a legal battle like the one that Mercer Island residents waged against I-90 in the last century. She’s hoping it doesn’t come to anything like that, she said, but she nevertheless sounded determined to do what's necessary to stop the State from building the six-lane 520 as currently proposed.

.

Next up on the agenda is the Coalition's response to the supplemental draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project issued last month by WSDOT. Public comments are being accepted through March 8, and the Governor has stated her intent to approve the configuration for 520 by the end of April. It's anticipated that the EIS will be finalized by the end of the year. If it is accepted, if the Governor approves the design, and if the legislature funds the program, court action may be the only recourse for the opponents.

.

But at least one thing is clear about the process: it ain't over.

.

[Graphic above, taken from the supplemental draft EIS by WSDOT, shows the height of the new floating bridge relative to the old bridge.]

Stuck with ugly?

Though their cause may ultimately prove futile (a fact admitted by our own State Senator, Ed Murray), opponents of the State’s plans for re-engineering the 520 floating bridge were out in force this morning for a news conference in the Arboretum, during which they spelled out their objections to both the proposed 30-foot high floating bridge and Plan A+ for the bridge’s west approach. A significant number of elected public officials made their voices heard at the event, including all of the 43rd District’s legislators (Representatives Jamie Pedersen and Frank Chopp, in addition to Senator Murray), City Council members Nick Licata and Mike O’Brien, and Seattle’s new mayor, Mike McGinn (shown in the photo below).

They, and the rest of the Seattle City Council, are—at minimum—on board to delaying the 520 decision-making process for about 120 days in order to look carefully at alternatives that are more mass-transit intensive than Plan A+, the option that the Legislative Work Group has proposed to the Governor and Legislature.

The public officials who were present--along with the Coalition for a Sustainable 520 (made up of the Seattle community councils most impacted by 520 and the local boating community), the Arboretum Foundation, the Cascade Bicycle Club, and the Sierra Club--want more than just a delay in the process. In essence, they would like to see a scaled back plan for 520 that does not have as wide a footprint through Portage Bay and across Foster Island, allows for no cars in the HOV lanes (only buses and, potentially, light rail), and does not include new much-wider on and off ramps in the Arboretum. They’re also not too happy with that high and ugly floating bridge that is being planned.

But in spite of their best efforts, ugly (in both its figurative and literal senses) is still a likely outcome in the opinion of many observers, including some members of the Coalition. Publicola, a Seattle political blog, sums the situation with this headline: “Seattle’s Preferred 520 Alignment Unlikely to Find Support in Olympia.” The blog argues with some persuasion that the process is too far along and the Seattle City Council too divided for the opponents of Plan A+ to get anything more than changes around the edges of the proposed 520 design. The basic idea of six lanes with two of them dedicated to HOV (car pools included) was established as the basis for all design options years ago. And no plans currently exist to bring light rail across the Lake using the 520 corridor.

Several of the politicians present referred to themselves as being in favor of construction and not obstruction. The issue, as they see it, is whether or not the new 520 will be part of an integrated and well-thought-out transit plan for the region or whether it will simply represent a short-term fix for getting more cars across the Lake more quickly. “This is a decision that is going to have a profound effect on our environment,“ said Representative Pedersen. “This is not a decision that should be entered into lightly.”

.

(For previous posts on the issue of 520, click here.)

.

[Upper graphic, courtesy of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, shows a view of 520 from the lawn at Canterbury Shores with an outline of the Plan A+ configuration for that location. Graphic by Legal Media Experts Group.]

The new 520: What are they thinking?

When he was a newly-minted, wet-behind-the-ears civil engineer employed by Seattle’s public works department, former Washington Governor Daniel Evans worked on the Alaskan Way Viaduct project. That gray monolithic artery is now, of course, regarded as such a monstrosity and egregious planning error that it naturally raises the question: “What were they thinking?”

That very question was recently put to the former Governor by an enterprising KPLU reporter when she interviewed Evans about his support for the Viaduct replacement tunnel. His matter-of-fact response was that what they were thinking about was solving a problem: getting traffic moved through Seattle quickly in the absence of any alternative road (I-5 was not built through downtown until more than a decade later). According to Evans, the engineers and public officials working on the project were focused on getting the job done (which they accomplished) and he can’t remember anyone complaining about the waterfront location, which he describes as having been a blighted area.

Flash forward more than a half century and we now have another civil engineering dilemma: how to safely meet the cross-Lake transportation needs of our growing community. Are we getting ready to repeat the mistakes that were made with the Alaskan Way Viaduct? Will residents of Seattle and the Eastside be asking “What were they thinking?” sixty years from now?

According to the opponents, that question will not have to await the verdict of future generations—at least not if the proposed Option A+ is implemented without revision. It will be obvious as soon as the thing is put in place, they say, that this was a tragic blunder—a project wasting of billions of dollars while incurring environmental havoc, creating visual blight, and not even solving the basic transportation problems the new 520 is supposedly designed to ameliorate.

Sounds harsh, but there you have it in a nutshell: the main objections to Option A+. If you’re interested, however, in the rationale in favor of the plan, you can check out the State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) website, which has the complete supplemental draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for Option A+ available here. I’ve read it--or, rather, its 66-page executive summary—so that you don’t have to wade through it unless you are so inclined.

But first, some background.

If you’re like me, you probably haven’t been paying that much attention to the fact that the 520 bridge, which opened in 1963, is nearing the end of its useful life. WSDOT gives the bridge 10 to 15 more years. The need for a replacement is based both on the bridge’s structural insufficiency and the growing transportation needs of the region. It was designed to accommodate 65,000 daily vehicles when it opened and is now estimated to be handling over 115,000 vehicles per day. As we all know, it is often clogged with traffic. Additionally, the bridge is potentially unsafe in high winds and is subject to possible collapse during an earthquake (as graphically portrayed in this WSDOT simulation). I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the bridge should not be replaced. The issue is: with what?

The State, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, plans to replace it with a new bridge that will be located 190 feet north of the existing structure. Construction on the floating bridge portion of the project is scheduled to begin in 2012 and be completed in 2014. The remaining changes to 520 would be completed—if they are funded and the project remains on schedule—by 2018. That’s six years of construction or more, principally impacting the Montlake neighborhood.

The cost of the project, which includes a new interchange at Montlake and a new bridge approach through Portage Bay and over Foster Island, is estimated at between $4.5 and $4.8 billion dollars, with $4.65 billion budgeted to date. The State has yet to identify how it will meet the anticipated $2.66 billion difference between funding sources (including tolls) and the total cost of the highway project.

Although the recently released supplemental draft EIS reviews three possible configurations for the project, a Legislative Work Group has already recommended to the Governor and Legislature that Plan A+ be adopted. As noted in a previous posting, this plan involves a second drawbridge at Montlake and a six-lane floating bridge.

As laid out in the EIS, here are the advantages of this bridge design (in addition, of course, to making the bridge structurally safe):

· The addition to two HOV lanes will reduce or eliminate congestion

· Landscape lids over portions of the highway will “reconnect neighborhoods”

· Pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross the Lake on new pathways

· Stormwater treatment facilities will be installed for the first time

· Greeenhouse gas omissions will be reduced due to less standing on roadway.

The EIS summarizes the history of the planning process for the bridge, noting that both a four-lane and an eight-lane alternative had been considered. The four-lane replacement was rejected because it would not meet the goal of improving traffic flow. The eight-lane option, meanwhile, was considered impractical in terms of connections to both I-5 and I-405.

Here are some of the principal downsides of the new bridge, as identified in the EIS:

· The Montlake freeway transit station is eliminated, forcing riders to change current travel routes

· Tolling, which will be electronic, will force a hardship on those with low incomes (tolling on 520 will begin in 2011, before the new bridge is even under construction)

· Parkland will be eliminated (5.5 acres or more) due to the larger footprint of 520

· “Visual quality” will be impacted (though the report does not actually say negatively)

· Traffic noise is expected to increase in some areas, even if noise-abatement walls or “quiet asphalt” are installed

· Some wetlands will be filled in and other wetlands will be shaded

· A sockeye salmon spawning area will potentially be eliminated

· Fishing areas utilized by the Muckelshoot Indian Tribe may be adversely impacted

· Vessels over 70 feet high will no longer be able to pass through the bridge due to elimination of the draw span

· Changes to the west approach to the bridge will affect the experience of boaters and park users in the Arboretum.

With surprising understatement, the EIS notes that “broad public and political consensus has not been reached in support of this (Option A+) recommendation.”

That’s for sure. Fran Conley, coordinator of the Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520, has this to say about the WSDOT’s efforts: "It is now clear that the intention is to build a highway looking back into the 20th century instead of a transportation system for the 21st century. After years of working cooperatively with the state, all of our communities are now unalterably opposed to the current proposals." The representative of the Roanoke Park/Portage Bay community, Ted Lane, goes further, stating “this process has been a charade.” And Madison Park's representative to the Coalition, Maurice Cooper, calls the new floating bridge design "that prison wall across the Lake."

The Coalition objects to many of WSDOT’s assumptions about the bridge replacement, including the idea that a safety fix could not be undertaken on the existing bridge at an economical cost. But the biggest issues for opponents are the doubling of the width of the bridge corridor, the addition of a second drawbridge at Montlake (rather than a tunnel), and the “unnecessary” height and profile of both the Westside approach and the new floating bridge itself.

The Coalition notes that the proposed new bridge is actually almost 150% wider than the old bridge, sits 30 feet above the water across Lake Washington (“as tall as a three-story building”), and does not properly incorporate mass-transit options into the mix. As noted in an article in the Seattle Times today, opponents of Option A+ are now pushing for the new HOV lanes to be used by buses only or for a shared bus-rail corridor. In other words, the State should not be encouraging more car use on the revamped bridge but focus rather on mass-transit options.

With regard to the visual impact of the floating bridge itself, the Coalition states that the height can be reduced without negatively impacting the integrity of the structure. Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond is quoted in the Times’ article as saying that WSDOT engineers are now looking at ways to cut the bridge height to 20 feet.

Why a higher bridge was ever thought necessary was not addressed by Hammond, however. And it may well be that the engineers, just as in Dan Evans' day, simply designed the new bridge with utility rather than aesthetics in mind. In the case of 520, the goals were to have the new bridge be high enough to keep waves from blowing onto the roadway while still allowing room for worker access to the brdige deck from underneath. Now, apparently as a result of public criticism, the engineers are back at their drawing boards. It raises the question: what other changes are possible to WSDOT’s current plans as a result of public pressure?

.

I guess we’ll find out.

Here are some ways you can give input to the process during the comment period, which ends March 8: 1) you can comment by mail to Jenifer Young, Environmental Manager, SR 520 Project Office, 600 Stewart Street, Suite 520, Seattle, WA 98101, 2) you can email your comments to SR520Bridge_SDEIS@wsdot.wa.gov, or 3) you can comment online here.

You can also attend the Environmental Hearing and Public Open House which will be held February 23 at the Lake Union Naval Reserve Building (860 Terry Avenue N.) from 5 to 7pm.

Meanwhile, the City Council has just gone on record asking for a 120-day delay in the decision-making process, and opponents of Option A+ and “the massive high bridge across the Lake” have scheduled a press conference for Monday morning at which they will be presenting their position. City and State politicians are expected to be in attendance. The event will be held at the intersection of East Miller Street and Lake Washington Boulevard East, in the green space immediately north of the parking lot (near the "ramps to nowhere"), just south of 520 where the Arboretum and Montlake join. The Coalition requests that opponents turn out for the press conference to show their solidarity.

.

[Upper photo: SR 520 at Foster Island from Google Earth 2009. Middle graphic: configuration of new floating bridge from WSDOT. Lower graphic: configuration of Option A+ showing interchanges and western approach from WSDOT.]

The new 520 bridge: higher, wider, noisier and butt ugly to boot?

The State’s so-called Plan A+ for replacement of the SR-520 floating bridge is not getting much respect from those neighborhoods, such as ours, that will be impacted most directly by the $4.6 billion project. Opponents of the plan, organized as the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, say that the proposed bridge is aesthetically challenged, environmentally degrading, and doesn’t even meet the region’s transportation needs.

.

Tomorrow, however, the State moves one step closer to implementation of the locally unpopular plan when it releases the supplemental draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. Opponents are bracing for a rough time trying to convince the powers that be (the Governor and the legislature) that Plan A+ (which they jokingly refer to as “Plan F”) is too flawed to be implemented. They propose a temporary retrofit of the seismically unsafe floating bridge while a better plan is developed for a replacement.

As we reported in November, a legislative work group recommended Plan A+ as the best of several options. According to the Coalition, however, the input of the affected communities was given short shrift in the decision-making process. A mediation group created by the Governor, which included Seattle neighborhood representatives, failed to come up with a consensus recommendation. So what we’re left with is something the opponents consider to be—both figuratively and literally--a very ugly potential outcome.

The likely negative impact on the lakefront communities of the proposed new bridge is laid out in detail by two of our community council members, president Ken Myrabo and Kathleen O’Connor, in a guest column in the current issue of the Madison Park Times (“Viaduct on the Lake?”). They point to the visual impact of the proposed bridge on our community, noting that “the roadway base at Foster Island will be about 10 feet higher than the island. It will then slope upward to about 30 feet above the water in front of Canterbury Shores and Edgewater and rise to 45 feet and possibly higher at the west high-rise.”

.

(This is what the current high-rise looks like from the Edgewater Apartments)

And the proposed bridge won’t be any more pleasing to the eye, say the opponents, as it heads east across the Lake. Here’s how the Coalition describes the visual impact: “The roadway…is 30 feet (three stories) above the water. Above the pontoons is a service area, then columns holding up the main roadway. This hulking overbuilt and overly expensive structure will permanently block views up and down the lake, from its swimming beaches, from tourist and recreational boats, and from homes on both sides of the lake.” The diagram above shows a side view of the bridge as it will look from the Lake.

The aesthetics and cost of the bridge are not the Coalition’s only concerns. There’s also the potential negative impact of the bridge’s wider roadway and entrance ramps on the Arboretum and the surrounding waterways; the creation of a massive, neighborhood-destroying highway interchange in Montlake; the lack of noise abatement as a design element; and the absence of adequate provisions for future light-rail and bus usage.

In addition to Madison Park’s, the Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520 is made up of the community councils of Laurelhurst, Roanoke Park, Portage Bay, and North Capitol Hill. Also involved is the local boating community, consisting of the Seattle Yacht Club and the Queen City Yacht Club, as well as other concerned individuals and businesses. The Coalition, which is coordinated by Capitol Hill resident (and longtime Seattle private equity investor) Fran Conley, has hired a lawyer and is actively fundraising to support its efforts to stop Plan A+. (Additional information on the Coalition, its anti-Plan A+ arguments, and how to get involved is available on its website.)

Here’s what’s coming next in the replace-the-520-bridge drama: 1) the supplemental draft EIS will be issued by the State Department of Transportation (SDOT) on Friday (and should be available for viewing here); 2) interested parties will have a fairly short period during which to give input in response to the EIS; 3) the EIS will be approved, amended, or withdrawn; 4) the Governor will approve the resulting plan (or not); the legislature will fund the plan (or not). Throughout the process, the Coalition, in conjunction with the Sierra Club and the Transportation Choices Coalition (and possibly Seattle’s new mayor), will try to kill the plan by lobbying the Governor and legislature to have SDOT go back to the drawing boards and produce a more “context-sensitive” design. And I’ll be covering the whole saga here on the blog.

As an aside, here’s an interesting photo I unearthed showing the Lake as it looked in 1963, before the existing Albert D. Rosellini Bridge had been built (although it and Park Shore, in the foreground, were both under construction):

[Upper graphic courtesty of SDOT, with labels added by the Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520; lower photo courtesy of the Museum of History & Indlustry.]

SR-520: Second Montlake Bridge Endorsed

A State legislative workgroup yesterday moved the SR-520 bridge replacement project a step closer by endorsing a six-lane solution (including two HOV lanes) and a wider Montlake approach, which will result in the construction of a second Montalke drawbridge (as shown above) if the plan is ultimately approved by the full legislature.

Although the vote was 10-2 in favor of the plan, known as "Option A," it was two Seattle representatives on the committee, including our own Rep. Jamie Pederson, who were opposed, according to the Seattle Times.

The replacement of the Evergreen Point floating bridge was discussed at the most recent meeting of the Madison Park Community Council, held earlier this week. As a result of that discussion I have to retract my earlier comments about the probable lack of impact on Madison Park of the new bridge. Those who have been paying closer attention to the project than I tell me that the design of the new, much taller bridge will almost certainly create what one critic called "an Alaksan Way Viaduct" profile all the way across the Lake. Additionally, a proposed noise-deadening wall on part of the north side of the bridge (to protect the sensibilities of Laurelhurst residents, apparently) will intensify the noise levels in Madison Park, in the opinion of some.

So the plan is much more controversial in Madison Park than I had believed. Unfortunately (and probably purposefully) there are no artist's conceptions on the State Department of Transportation's website showing what the new bridge will look like in profile.

The SR-520 legislative workgroup is sponsoring a townhall meeting next week: 6 pm on November 24 at the Center for Urban Horticulture (3501 NE 41st Street). The DOT website claims that the meeting agenda and related materials are available here, but as of this morning no such information had been posted to the site. I guess we're supposed to check back later.

[Graphics courtesy of the State Department of Transportation.]

UPDATE: KPLU today posted a report on its website stating that there is a coalition of Montlake and Madison Park neighbors who intend to fight the State's "Option A" plan for SR-520 expansion, but quotes no one other than a resident of Montlake. I am unaware of a concerted effort of Madison Park residents to oppose the plan.

Preview of a possible SR-520 solution

Although it is not anticipated that the upcoming construction of State Route 520 will have significant direct impact on Madison Park, we will certainly have a front-row seat from which to view the expansion project when it gets underway in 2012. And it is almost certainly the case that the Arboretum will be directly affected by both the construction and the placement of one of the freeway on-ramps, depending on which design option is ultimately chosen.

Given the probable interest in all this by MPB readers, I thought I'd take a look at what the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) is saying about the SR-520 expansion and floating-bridge replacement program. Without much investigative effort I discovered that DOT has some pretty interesting information easily available on its site. The video above provides a visually arresting simulation of driving on one of three options for the "west side" approach to the new bridge (click on HQ in the lower right corner for higher-resolution video quality). Simulations of driving on the other two options are also available on the DOT website.

To date, the only construction that is underway on this project has to do with the testing of various methods for building the pontoons. This is happening in Satsop, with ultimate construction of the pontoons to take place in the Grays Harbor area. Some of the pontoons for the new bridge will be the largest ever built, according to the DOT: "360 feet long, 75 feet wide and weighing over 11,000 tons. That’s as long as a football field and as heavy as 23 Boeing 747 jets." That's big.

In case you wonder why the State thinks that the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (pardon me, the Governor Albert D. Rosellini Bridge) is vulnerable and needs to be replaced, you need look no further than this simulation of the bridge's likely response to an earthquake: