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 email@example.com
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:
Bruce Harrell, city council member,
up for election this year:
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
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
For more information see our new reporthere
|Photo Scott Schuldt|
- 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.
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.
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.
Here is the coalition’s 46-page report on the SDEIS:
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.
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.