Here is the state’s picture of the proposed bridge to nowhere, superimposed on a map of the area:

To see the details of the state proposal, go to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/DESIGNBUILDCONTRACTS/Evergreen%20Point%20Floating%20Bridge/2010_0707_SR520FBLGraphic%20%282%29.pdf And for proof that the state is talking to contractors about building this, look at

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/DESIGNBUILDCONTRACTS/Evergreen%20Point%20Floating%20Bridge/2010_0629_FBL_Project_Description_Ad_FINAL.pdf

Notice that this partial bridge would not solve the earthquake safety problems.  These safety issues are related to the columns which support most of the west side… starting where the bridge to nowhere leaves off.

It’s pretty shocking to realize that WSDOT has been making presentations to communities all over the area without ever showing this image or discussing the financial implications.  It’s even more shocking to realize what our research has discovered: even this proposed partial project can not be funded without a type of bonds that would cause the state to exceed the  debt limits spelled out in the constitution.

Our financing report is here: http://sustainable520.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/State-financing-highway-projects.pdf . Please read it, and pass it on to everyone who might be interested.  This is important for all Washington taxpayers!  Do taxpayers want to spend $2.5 billion on a highway that does not solve the safety problems, and that just moves the traffic jam from Medina to over the water near Seattle?   Do taxpayers want big new taxes for highways, or is it time now to start serious funding for the transit that will be needed for the next century?

The media gave this quite a bit of attention this week, including a front page article in the Seattle Times.   Here are some of the reports

– Seattle Times “520 bridge shortfall: more taxes, tolls ahead”  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012525612_520money04m.html

– Seattle PI: “Can state afford 520 bridge replacement?” http://www.seattlepi.com/local/424562_520report.htm

– Seattle PI blog: “Shortfall drops SR 520 back in the news” http://blog.seattlepi.com/capitolhill/archives/217139.asp

– Seattle Stranger: “Fuck It, Let’s Just Toll 520, I-90, I-5, the Aurora Bridge, and the West Seattle Bridge” http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/08/04/fuck-it-we-should-just-toll-520-i-90-i-5-the-aurora-bridge-and-the-west-seattle-bridge

Read the full report

–  Washington is dangerously close to its constitutional debt limit.

–  SR 520 is dangerously close to the end of its useful life.

–  The state is advocating a construction plan that can’t legally be paid for.

–  This plan doesn’t solve SR 520’s earthquake safety or traffic problems.

It’s time to get real – to create a plan for SR 520 that is within the state’s  financial ability and that solves imminent safety problems.

It is time to use available funds for safety, and defer expansion until additional funding is available.

What just happened?

The governor selected a “preferred alternative” for SR 520. This means that WSDOT can proceed to the final evaluation of project impacts and can make more detailed construction plans. The state plans to publish a final EIS around the end of the year. During the year, three workgroups established by the legislature will work on transit connections, mass transit on 520, and Arboretum issues.

The alternative that was selected was different from those in the SDEIS. On April 15, the governor said 520 would have 6 lanes including 2 HOV lanes, and on April 30 the preferred alternative was selected… probably before they even read our comments on the SDEIS. If you haven’t read these, you can find them at http://sustainable520.org/index.php/sdeis-response/.

The project could still be stopped for lack of funding, and the state is at least $2 billion short of the $4.6 billion budget for construction. The coalition is working on the implications of this financing shortfall.

The project could also be stopped by problems with native remains or cultural artifacts, or implications on historic sites, or implications of other environmental issues, or lawsuits. Most of all, the project can be stopped by popular will. If the people rise up against it, we can stop it. We need to get more and more people understanding the problems created by this design.

Does the new design resolve our basic issues? NO!

1) The latest plan would still have two more lanes carrying cars into the city, and it would actually reduce the road space available to handle traffic, by removing the connections to Lake Washington Boulevard. We believe that this end of the city simply can’t handle more cars, and that if 520 is expanded, the only solution is mass transit …. bus and/or light rail… on lanes 5 and 6.

2) The latest plan would still do much too much damage. It would permanently destroy wetlands, parks, and open space that have characterized this area forever. It would harm historic sites including the Montlake Bridge and the Roanoke neighborhood. It would cause measurable health problems including fatal heart attacks and chronic asthma. The damage would be much less if light rail were used on lanes 5 and 6, and there were 4 lanes only from Montlake to I-5.

3) The funding is still not available. The SDEIS told us that there would be no lids or other mitigation if funding were not available. More than that, we are at risk as taxpayers and toll payers. The coalition is investigating this situation now.

Specifically how is this preferred alternative different from the prior “A+” plan?

First: The Arboretum got what it wanted… no ramps in the Arboretum… and the neighborhoods got shafted. The results are likely to be: more traffic all the way from Madison on the 23rd Ave. – Montlake corridor, across the Montlake Bridges (they are still planning 2 bridges here), and on Montlake Blvd. north; and overflow traffic on Boyer and Fuhrman. These effects were predicted by Nelson\Nygaard, consulting to the City, in its April draft report.

Second: The picture of the Montlake lid was enlarged, but all lids will be built only if funds are available, and we know that funds are $2 billion short. The lid at I-5 and Roanoke was taken away, which has severe effects; on April 15 we saw for the first time what the new lane from 520 to the express lanes would look like, and it rises high over the existing I-5, creating noise, blocking views and adding pollution.

Third: Bike and pedestrian trails were improved, and the Montlake interchange was made more friendly to bikes and pedestrians. These are good changes.

Fourth: At the new UW rail station, right near the UW rail station, pedestrians and bicyclists will have their own lid on a level above Montlake Boulevard, which will be sunken below the current grade. The idea is good. It’s too soon to know how it would be engineered. It still leaves the problem that people have to walk much too far from the light rail station to their buses, so it’s not an easy connection for transit users.

Fifth: The Portage Bay viaduct was narrowed very slightly, maybe by 6 feet. Instead of 7 lanes plus shoulders, it will have 6 lanes plus shoulders, and one of the shoulders will be used for traffic. The plan now is to put planter boxes in the middle of the steep hill climg on the bridge, ostensibly to reduce noise. We can learn more, but it is hard to believe that it will really reduce noise by much.

Sixth: The new plan removes one of the three incompatibilities with light rail. The east and west-bound lanes are now separated enough that light rail can be built. However, there is still no plan on what to do with light rail as it approaches Seattle, and if the current plans are built they will probably preclude light rail on the 520 corridor. And the floating bridge still can’t support light rail unless it has extra stabilizing pontoons stuck out the sides… which will add to the pressure for lanes 7 and 8. So there is still no resolution of whether or not lanes 7 and 8 will be built later.

We are developing the coalition’s plans for the next months. All suggestions are welcome. More news soon!

Fran

Politicians and the press will be watching this week to see who shows up, and who speaks, at two public meetings on the draft reports to the mayor and the city council from the Nelson Nygaard consultants.

TUESDAY, April 6th – 6:00pm-7:30pm
The Bertha Knight Landes Room, City Hall
600 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104

Mayor Mike McGinn will be on hand to discuss the consultant’s draft report, and design options. There will be an opportunity for public comment on the study itself, which will be released earlier on Tuesday.

THURSDAY, April 8, 2010
5:30 p.m. – public comment meeting
Seattle City Hall
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
600 4th Avenue, Seattle

The city council will listen to public comment on their draft report.

If you can come to these meetings please do so. Your presence lets the politicians know how important this is to you. Also, our comments help to shape the story that is reported by the media. If you’d like to speak, you might emphasize the big picture issues, and make it clear that a few tweaks won’t solve the problems:

- Minor improvements to Option A are not enough. We still won’t have a solution.

- A huge interchange in Montlake and a broad swath across Portage Bay cause too much damage, completely out of proportion. This area has a series of linked recreational green spaces and bays which are unique and irreplaceable, the Arboretum, and dense historic neighborhoods which are critical to the city, and allowing more cars/ larger interchange does too much damage. We need to move more people in less space, doing less damage, hence transit.

- Seattle doesn’t have room for more cars along this corridor. The Arboretum, Montlake, North Capitol hill, and I-5 are already close to capacity. Expansion needs to be in mass transit, bus rapid transit and/or light rail.

- The state will spend $9 billion (including borrowing costs) for the proposed expansion, with no improvement in congestion. Instead, we need to invest in solutions that actually move people where they want to go.

- It’s time to put our priorities where the city and state have said they should be, on preserving our environment, and not build a 1950’s highway which causes further damage.

If you can’t come to the meetings, you can still influence the public discussion by writing comments to articles published online at the Seattle Times, the Stranger, the PI, and other media. Speak your piece; you will influence someone!

Pivotal design and operational elements or “Pivotal Issues” are identified as:
1. Second Bridge over Montlake Cut
2. Lake Washington Boulevard Ramps
3. Montlake Interchange Design
4. Portage Bay Viaduct Width and Operation
5. Montlake Freeway Flyer Stop
6. Montlake Triangle
7. Noise Reduction
8. Height of the Floating Bridge Deck
9. Width of the SR 520 Corridor
Within the body of the report each of these issues is dissected in detail, alternatives are described and compared against Option A+, and the tradeoffs of the alternative are discussed. These are not intended to be recommendations, but decision-making tools for the Council.
Two “balanced” packages of system level improvements made of design and operational elements discussed in the pivotal issues were designed to achieve Council desired outcomes while attempting to maintain Council’s assumptions. The two balanced packages are evaluated against three other packages, each designed to “emphasize” only one element of the desired outcomes for the purpose of highlighting the trade-offs between desired outcomes.
The emphasis packages and balanced packages are also compared to the “no-build” alternative, the current 6-Lane Alternative Design Option A+, and a design option from the original DEIS, the Pacific Interchange. As with the pivotal issues the intent of these system level packages is to point out trade-offs and improvements to Option A+ while assessing the ability of a package to stay within the Council’s assumptions.

Thus we may expect to see two “packages” tomorrow reflecting the Council’s priorities. Tomorrow, we will presumably be hearing specifics about both the Council and the Mayor’s priorities, which overlap those of the Council, but are not exactly the same. Next week, City Council will be reviewing the report and there will be an opportunity for public comment. Mark your calendars!

Monday, April 5 at 9:30 a.m. – 12 p.m.
(During Council Briefing Session)
The Seattle City Council will be reviewing the SR 520 Draft Consultant Report.
This meeting will be held in the Seattle City Council Chambers on the 2nd floor of the Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue.

The briefing agenda will be as follows:
9:30 am – 11:30 am Review of Seattle City Council’s SR 520 Draft Consultant Report
11:30 am – 12 p.m. Review of Mayor of Seattle’s SR 520 Draft Consultant Report

Thursday, April 8 at 5:30 p.m. Public Comment
Seattle City Council’s SR 520 Draft Consultant Report.
This meeting will held in the Seattle City Council Chambers on the 2nd floor of the Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue.

Sign in for public comment will begin at 5:00pm.

The public comment meeting agenda will be as follows:
5:30 p.m. – Presentation by the Consultants summarizing the Seattle City Council’s SR 520 Draft Consultant Report
6:15 p.m. – Public comment

Gov. Christine Gregoire

Well, this is interesting political theater. The governor knew that the city’s consultant would release a draft of new ideas on March 31, so she decided to hold a press conference on March 30 and sign the 520 bill.  People who were there tell me that the tone of the event was that the decisions are made and we’re going ahead now! A number of construction workers were celebrating the jobs to come.  A number of elected officials were at the signing to express support, including Councilmembers Conlin, Rasmussen, and Bagshaw.  And Microsoft took out another Let’s-Go-Ahead ad yesterday.

The governor’s press release says “Replacing the 520 bridge is about protecting public safety and maintaining a vibrant economy. The laws signed today will get us going to make sure we open the new bridge on time in 2014.”

However, what the law really says is that tolling revenues can be used for any part of the 520 expansion, not just for the floating bridge as was approved last year.  There are no new revenues. The one new decision, to start building the east side, is not mentioned in the law.  The state has increased its estimate of the amount it can get from “Tolling and future federal funding” from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion.

So by assuming an extra $400 million, the state can say that it can build both the east side and the floating bridge. I wish I could pay my income tax with assumptions like that!

Action items:

Our officials need to know we’re watching.  We see when they take money from the floating bridge and use it on the east side, which has no safety problems.  We never again want to hear anyone say this project is about safety!

We see when they change assumptions, rather than finding real new funding, to do what they want to do.

We see when they say they are open to new ideas, but stage events designed to intimidate people into believing that the current proposals are inevitable. We see when they are at press conferences supporting proposals that they tell us they want to change.

So let’s let them know all this:
Governor: christine.gregoire@gov.wa.gov
PO Box 40002,  Olympia, WA 98504-0002

Seattle City Council PO Box 34025 Seattle, WA  98124-4025
Richard.Conlin@Seattle.Gov 206 684-8805
sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov 206 684-8801
tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov 206 684-8808

Mr. Brad Smith
General Counsel and SVPLegal and Corporate Affairs ,
Microsoft Corporation   1 Microsoft Way   Redmond, WA 98052
bradsmi@microsoft.com

Early press
Governor’s press release
Seattle P-I: Gregoire nixes height limit for 520 replacement

Slog post: Gregoire Vetoes 20-Foot Height Limit on 520 Bridge and Planning for Carpool Lanes With Light Rail
Excerpt:

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.

There’s also a rather good piece on NPR affiliate KUOW today, by Derek Wang, The Fight Over the 520 Project.

Coming up…
Final responses to the SDEIS are due April 15.  We are working very hard on them; thanks to all you who have contributed.
March 31 we expect to get a first look at the draft report of Nelson\Nygaard, the consultant to the mayor and city council.

Fran Conley

WSDOT has issued a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact statement (SDEIS), which is open for public comment through April 15.

This SDEIS is an important step towards getting approval to construct.  We and many other groups are now preparing to submit comments on the SDEIS.  We hope this will result in improvements in the plan.

State speaker Frank Chopp, Senator Ed Murray, Representative Jamie Pedersen,  Mayor Mike McGinn, and Seattle City Council members Nick Licata and Mike O’Brien have joined with us in saying that the city can not absorb more cars, that too much damage would be done to the neighborhoods and environment, and that expansion of SR 520 must prioritize transit.