Our Recent Work

May 2011: Coalition tells city council “It’s time to represent Seattle”. In anopen letterthe coalition asked the city council how it could benefit the city to take away a lane from I-5? Or to leave the safety problems on the west side for 10 years or more? Or to start a project with no reasonable prospect of funding to finish it? Or to start the project before understanding how it will impact Seattle’s traffic?

You can see the Stranger’s reporting and reader commentshereand the PI’s reportinghere

None of the city council members have responded to date.

May 2011: The vote, after city officials received our letter. After receiving our request to vote “no” at the Puget Sound Regional Council, (see next entry below),Mayor McGinn voted NO, don’t go ahead: He explained that the state had not answered important questions about I-5, about Seattle traffic, about protecting our open space, about how the state would find the money to build.Please give him your thanks at?mike.mcginn@seattle.gov

The three city council members voted YES, go ahead with constructing 520. They approved going ahead even after they were told that the analysis of effects on the people of the city was not complete and that great harm to the city was likely. Who were they representing? Certainly not the people of Seattle. Please tell them what you think of this vote:

Tom Rasmussen, who chairs the city council

transportation committee,up for election this year:

Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov

Tim Burgess,city council member
up for election this year:
tim.burgess@seattle.gov

Bruce Harrell, city council member,

up for election this year:

Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov.

April 2011: Coalition asks Mayor, City Council members to vote “No”as Puget Sound Regional Council votes on whether to approve construction of the “preferred alternative” expansion of 520.

The coalition pointed out that the state can not fund the plan, and is really planning a “partial bridge”. We also pointed out that the safety problems are not being addressed, and that the plan will cause trips to be longer rather than shorter. See our letterhere

April 2011: Seattle Director of Transportation asks state to analyze traffic effects and provide mitigation.

After listening to the coalition, his staff, and others, Peter Hahn wrote an important letter insisting that the impacts on Seattle mobility and congestion be studied before the final environmental review is published. You can read his letterhere

February 2011:

What are the implications if the state’s”Preferred Alternative” is built?

The state plans to spend money it doesn’t have to expand 520 in a way that doesn’t solve traffic problems and that blights historic neighborhoods.The Coalition publishes an overview of the design and its impactshere

January 2011:

Expanding 520 will cause more congestion and slowdowns on I-5.
The state plans to take away an express lane from I-5. In its place, a reversible one-lane ramp will lead to 520. Traffic will slow as cars deal with three lanes instead of the four we now have.
The new ramp will also cause slowdowns by adding weaves, where cars coming to or from I-5 will have to cross several lanes quickly to get to their off-ramps.
For more information see our new reporthere
Photo Scott Schuldt
December 2010
Coalition responds to state’s plan to take open space and substitute a decrepit building site.
The Bryant building site, in the commercial area at the University of Washington, is not a reasonable substitute for the natural areas being taken south of the Montlake Cut.
You can read our full responsehere.
You can read Mayor McGinn’s responsehere
December 2010
State Treasurer responds to our report on the state’s inability to finance the proposed expansion of 520.He presents a draft analysis of state debt levels, confirming “The results are sobering. By every measure, Washington is a high debt state.”
Treasurer McIntire also said that floating the bondscurrently authorizedby the legislature for 520 would not cause the state to exceed its debt limit. However, he did not address the issue of the unauthorized $2 billion to $3 billion…. which would put the state way over its limit.
Treasurer McIntire’s draft debt affordability study ishere. His response letter to the coalition ishere.
The Coalition’s letter to Treasurer McIntire ishere. The Coalition’s major report on Washington State bonds limits and its inability to fund the proposed expansion of 520 ishere.
December 2010
Coalition proposes improvements to city legislative priorities for 2011.
In December, the mayor and the city council each proposed the city’s agenda for the state legislature for 2011. We proposed improvementshere. The final resolutionhereis an improvement over the draft.
September 2010
Coalition issues summary of current issues
For a one-page summary of current issues, lookhere
July 2010
Coalition issues report on state financing
- Washington is dangerously close to its constitutional debt limit.

- The state has already committed all the gas taxes that will be collected for many years. It issues bonds… debt.. in anticipation of these taxes.- The state doesn’t have the ability to issue enough bonds to finance the 520 expansion without violating its constitutional debt limit.- To complete this project would require large new taxes as well as tolls on I-90 used to expand 520.

- It???s time to get real ??? to create a plan for SR 520 that is within the state???s financial ability. Use funds for safety, and defer expansion until additional funding is available.
For detailed analysis of the state’s recent increase in debt, the costs of expanding 520, the available funding, and the debt limit, go to our reporthere.

April 2010

Coalition asks Governor to read their responses to environmental statement.
Our open letter to the Governor ishere. We hoped that the governor would not support a design so harmful to the environment, to mobility, and to the communities, if she had the facts.

The governor has never responded to our request.

April 2010

Coalition submits detailed responses to environmental statement.
The SDEIS, or Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, was published by WSDOT. The process allows comments, and many in our communities worked for weeks to create our detailed, specific responses.

Summary: There are nine basic problems with the state???s analysis (SDEIS) for the 520 corridor from I-5 to Medina:
I)The state has improperly separated the evaluation of the I-5 to Medina segment from the pontoons segment and from the east side segment. In fact, these are interdependent parts of one project.
II)The state appears to have made a decision already, and to be going through a paper environmental review process while subverting the intent of the laws.
III)The SDEIS does not demonstrate that people and goods would move better after the construction. The methodology for estimating demand and assessing congestion is fundamentally flawed.
IV)The state is planning to take protected parkland for most of the length of 520 on the west side, destroying a unique chain of linked parks and bays. Federal law requires seeking alternatives rather than taking parkland or harming historic areas.
V)The state has not analyzed obvious alternatives which might have better results and do less damage, including a tolled, transit-priority 4 lanes which might be adequate for some years until additional funding is available, and a 6 lane alternative with 2 lanes used for light rail.
VI)The SDEIS does not correctly describe the Current Proposals . The SDEIS also does not adequately describe the current congestion in Seattle, the planned projects will increase that congestion, and the lack of space for additional cars.
VII)The SDEIS does not adequately describe the effects of this highway expansion on air pollution and human health. The state has an obligation to seek alternatives which will do less damage.
VIII)The state plans to start expanding the east side of 520 this year. The whole program is at least $2 billion short on funding, and the state is choosing to use the available funds for an area which has no safety problems, rather than to do a safety project for which funding is available.
IX)The costs to businesses, families, and travelers are not fairly portrayed. Almost no mitigation of damages is promised. Noise reduction levels, limits on air pollution, offsets for construction damages, and lids are either ignored or presented as optional.

Here is the coalition’s 46-page report on the SDEIS:

Main Coalition Comments

Here are detailed appendices to our comments:Appendix A: Letter from our lawyer David Bricklin

Appendix B: Impact on Parks and Recreation Areas

Appendix B1: Map of Affected Parks and Recreation Areas

Appendix C: Tiglman Group Comments on Traffic Analysis

Appendix D: JGL Acoustics Inc on Noise impacts analysis

Appendix E: Table of Potential Funding Sources

Appendix F: WSDOT letter on timing of Pontoon Project

Appendix G; 1954 map of proposed design

Appendix H: Governor letter says too late for alternatives

Appendix J: Comments on Second Montlake Bridge

Appendix K: Report of Legislative Workgroup on SR 520

Appendix L: Seattle Times on Gregoire’s opposition to Studying Alternatives

Appendix M: Methodological Flaws in Transportation Analysis

Appendix N: Flaws in Traffic Simulation

Appendix O: References used in our traffic analyses

Appendix P: Generated Traffic

Appendix Q: How to get more capacity on 4 lanes

Appendix R: view from Capitol Hill of proposed new ramp

Appendix S: References on Air, traffic, health

Appendix T: Analysis of SDEIS assertions on air quality

Appendix U: Comments on Health Impact Study

Appendix V: Federal Ruling on uses of Tolls

Appendix W: Comments on Analysis of Impacts on Fish

Appendix X: Comments of Parks Commissioners

Appendix Y: RFP for Pontoon Bids

Appendix Z: Errors and Omissions in analysis of Cultural Resources

February 2010, three days after our press conference Five Seattle city council members went to Bellevue to oppose our position and to support the preferred alternative design.

These council members are Richard Conlin, Tom Rasmussen, Sally Clark, Tim Burgess, and Jean Godden.You can see the storyherein the Bellevue Reporter andherein the Seattle Times.

February 2010
Press Conference:elected officials and other leaders join us to say that 520 design harms too much; fix the current 4 lanes and later create 5 and 6 for transit-only. Seattle Channel video of press conference ishere.

Leaders speaking at the conference included Speaker of the House Frank Chopp. Mayor Mike McGinn, Senator Ed Murray, Rep. Jamie Pedersen,City Council members Mike O’Brien and Nick Licata, David Hillyer of the Cascade Bicycle CLub, Morgan Ahouse of the Sierra Club.

Posted by

520 coalition
at

10:10 PMs earth

Comments are closed.