In terms of geography, one of the more ‘Capitol Hill issues in Wednesday’s mayoral candidates debate (since our questions didn’t make it on air) was the future of 520. You can watch the debate video here and read about coverage of the other issues from the debate here and here. CHS will take a quick look at what the candidates had to say about the 520 reconstruction project that is slated to expand the bridge from four to six lanes.
The question from the debate moderator: Which option for the Seattle end of the new 520 bridge do you support? McGinn made up a new plan. Mallahan said he didn’t have an answer.
WSDOT
The plans to reconstruct the roadway include expanding the current corridor between I-5 and Medina from a 4-lane to a 6-lane, including 3-person HOV lanes going both ways, widened shoulders, and a north side pedestrian/bike trail. However, WSDOT currently has three leading design options for the reconstruction that differ in how the Montlake interchange is treated, as well as new options for the Montlake bridge and other street bridges. All three options include improvements for the I-5 interchange area to the north that will create “lids” over 520 with street bridges surrounded by green space.
You can review the state’s plans for replacing 520 here
Video simulations:
These options were discussed at last week’s Capitol Hill Community Council meeting. Citizens at the meeting were concerned about cost, time, and maintaining a limited number of cars in the Arboretum.
McGinn’s answer during Wednesday’s debate? Option McGinn. The candidate said he’s choose none of the above because none of the existing options include specifics about light rail.
“What we should look at is in addition to light rail over I-90, let’s run light rail over 520,” McGinn said.
“I think the issue here is we need to put in light rail so we don’t have congestion at either end, move a lot more people, move a lot more people more efficiently, and start building the light rail system for the future that we really need.”
That would have pleased the attendees at the council meeting who are concerned about the increase in traffic from 520 pouring into Montlake and the Arboretum.
What McGinn didn’t mention is this: There already is a McGinn option. At last week’s community council meeting, WSDOT spokesperson Dawn Lindsey said the bridge will be engineered so it can carry rail traffic.
On the other side of the debate set, Mallahan’s answer was about time.
“We in Seattle have to make a decision there because we’re holding up that project,” Mallahan said.
Mallahan said he didn’t have an answer about which option should be selected. Mallahan also couldn’t resist picking at McGinn’s position on the Viaduct.
“He is pretty much anti-any road improvement or road maintenance,” Mallahan said about his opponent’s answer.
“He’s not only opposed to the Viaduct, he’s opposed to 520.”
McGinn’s response got the biggest laugh of the debate.
“Wow, we were just asked a question about 520 and Joe Mallahan asked about the Viaduct. I think he’s turning into a one-issue candidate here,” McGinn quipped.
Of course, like the tunnel, some Seattle folks think they get to tell the state how to rebuild a section of a congested important state highway.
After Montlake community elitists and other assorted almost professional obstructionists get over them selves, the state will proceed to build six lanes.
And in the real world, when 4 lanes are totally congested for 15 hours a day – a rebuild would warrant more capacity.
I thought McGinn’s answer to congestion was to have people walk or stay home.
I think a good solution to relieving a lot of the traffic is to entice major eastside employers to move into central Seattle where they can more easily be served by public transportation. The Microsoft campus is spread out and inefficient. They would do much better to be located downtown or in South Lake Union.
That roadway is in Seattle…why wouldn’t we have a say in it? Do you understand the implications of leaving everything up to WSDOT? This is a department of engineers out of Oly that could care less about Seattle quality of life. I imagine the result to be something like this http://cache.io9.com/assets/resources/2008/04/intersection.j.
A city comes to mind that was very successful at building its way out of congestion by adding more highway capacity. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0115706. Exaggeration today maybe, but if we keep expanding roadways just because there is congestion, that is where we will be headed.
Adding more capacity may seem like the answer, but all it does is encourage more driving. Further, more capacity on 520 means more traffic dumping onto I-5…which is already congested. Should we expand that too? Where does the expansion end?
Moving to Seattle doesn’t make any sense for Microsoft. 80% of their employees live on the eastside.
To think that building six lanes will relieve congestion is silly. While there might be temporary releif on the bridge, you will simply add to congestion problems near UW, Montlake, and on to 1-5, not to mention the trouble on the eastside.
Physically its hard to accomodate the stuructre as well. As McGinn pointed out, there has been a long-standing stalemate over how to connect the bridge on our sid because it will no doubt displace people.
A 4-lane, like the surface/transit, was taken off the table by olympia legislators. But a 4-lane, with of course, the accomodating light rail would be a much smarter and long term solution to the problem.
At this point Option A is looking good to me and might be worth rallying behind to prevent something worse. From what I understand Option A:
-uses the existing Montlake interchange area instead of adding more ramps in the Arboretum
-adds an HOV in each direction and bike path, but no new general purpose lanes
-has the capability for light rail should there be future plans to add it to this corridor (but I-90 light rail will almost definitely come first by a long shot)
Both candidates dodged the question it seems…
I love the analogy:
Adding road capacity is like loosening a fat person’s belt.
People will take advantage of whatever additional capacity is provided, to no good end.
!. Stalemate is cool at the moment since the state has cash flow issues, and can’t do the tunnel and 520 at the same time. In the cash gushing days, they would be building both.
2.You build now for the 100 year future. More capacity makes sense.
3. Sure ignore the state. Same issue, at some point the state will pass the construction authorization and fund it. AND, Seattle will live with the decision. I assure you it will be 6 lanes and maybe plus for more transit, rail or bus.
4. Remember, building for the next 100 years — which will mean double population and new fueled non polluting autos… coming thanks to international innovation via China, India and Euro.
5. By the way, the next Gov. is apt to be a R. – attorney general Rob Mc Kenna is in the wings. In that era, Seattle has less clout… not more. And our reputation of the decade bicker does not serve us well. It invites decisions while we process.
Cheers.
Microsoft has opened a number of offices in downtown Bellevue and South Lake Union. I would be surprised if they closed existing buildings, but they recognize the efficiencies in central locations, density and mass transit.
The is no plan to build the maze of LA style freeways – this is one SMALL segment of a state highway – a few miles, but, so critical because of the longest floating bridge in the world … and costly – pushing 5 (yes five) billion.
The bridge is worn out, so it seems, and must be replaced. So simple Seattle obstructionism will not continue to play with the rest of the state.
There will be people displaced, more mass in the new structure, rebuilt connections with I-5 and in Montlake at the approaches …. why is this so surprising? And casting the state agency which is in control of state road construction as the devil makes little sense.
For good or bad, DOT will supervise and design the over all plans and strategies to get the replacement structure built. Won’t be any thing else if the state pays the bills … the matter of the 5 billion.
I have no desire to sink or swim on any plan designed and advocated by Montlake elitists. And the rest of the state I suspect is already getting tired of the Seattle whining.
By the way, both bridges, 520 and I-90, should have rail capacity. Easy and best solution to the future needed links from Seattle to the booming and growing East Side.
And Redmond is making its own nice urban village as well. Didn’t know that many Microsofties lived on the east side. Figured most lived over here ’cause I see so many of them on their way to work in the morning. Probably indicative of how many people they employ.
We should also take into account that Microsoft is the only employer I know of that sends their own buses to pick people up. Walk down Pine by Cal Anderson in the mornings and you’ll see a member of their mass transit fleet.
“more mass in the new structure”
And how! Did you watch the videos? All of them look massive; call ’em what you like, but I’d be pissed too if I lived in Montlake. Those videos must be on opening day though, because there isn’t any traffic.
“By the way, both bridges, 520 and I-90, should have rail capacity.”
For sure. Eastside cities are rapidly creating their own urban centers worth connecting to our urban centers. Hope that doesn’t mean an even more massive structure though.
“The is no plan to build the maze of LA style freeways – this is one SMALL segment of a state highway”
If we keep expanding our freeways, that’s the future we are looking at. The small segment comment is exactly my point; it is part of a system. Making more capacity on one piece of the system requires handling that capacity in the rest of the system as well. I’m imagining the state going around the system in circles, widening segments one at a time, scratching their heads, wondering why it’s not fixing traffic.
“simple Seattle obstructionism will not continue to play with the rest of the state.”
Doesn’t mean we should roll over and let the rest of the State tell us what to do with our land. The rest of the state doesn’t understand that increasing car capacity indefinitely just does not work in dense urban areas (hmm, some folks in Seattle as well, come to think of it). We can’t all move about in our own 300 SF box…jut not enough space for it. We are all smart: at some point, people will figure it out, start taking public transit, carpooling, using microsoft’s bus, or what have you. But not if we keep giving everyone an inkling of hope that there won’t be traffic one day; just gotta hold out.
Umm..sorry…long-winded. I like discussing this kind of stuff.
You get the traffic for which you build capacity. In a metropolitan area such as this we always have to consider induced demand when adding capacity. It won’t relieve congestion, just bring more traffic.
The original post states “WSDOT spokesperson Dawn Lindsey said the bridge will be engineered so it can carry rail traffic”. What WSDOT and most espousing conventional wisdom mean by this is to build a 6-lane bridge that can be expanded with add-on “leggo-like” pontoons to support light rail in what would become effectively an 8-lane structure. What McGinn proposes, and what I support as well, is to build a 6-lane bridge that includes RoW for rail within those 6 lanes. No add-on structure later for rail.
Unlike the I-90 bridge retrofit, a new 520 bridge can be designed with rail tracks embedded in the bridge deck so both buses AND light rail can use those transit-only lanes across the bridge. Each direction, 2 general purpose tolled traffic lanes and 1 transit lane that can serve both bus and rail.
Even if the connections on either side of the Lake for light rail are a decade beyond the opening of the new 520 bridge, we will be ahead of the I-90 process by building for rail from the outset instead of attempting a technically challenging and disruptive retrofit later. In the short-term the transit lanes could be open to vanpools (very high occupancy vehicles, e.g., 5+) as well as buses. When light rail is connected at both ends, these center two lanes become transit only.
Another problem with all of the options currently under consideration is they eliminate the transit flyer stop at Montlake Blvd. If we instead only include 4 through lanes of SR 520 underneath Montlake Blvd, then transit flyer stops with platforms in both directions can be added and the footprint not become too wide. I agree that option A is far superior to either K or L, which push traffic problems into the Arboretum. The new hybrid versions don’t really solve the basic problem that we get if Lk Washington Blvd continues to be used for traffic access to/from the south. Montlake Blvd is the natural cross-road and main arterial, so that is where the intersection should be located.
Toll rates that vary by time of day to manage congestion and increased transit service with maximized connections through retaining the flyer stops will help keep traffic to a manageable level. More lanes only invite more traffic. Connecting those lanes directly to Lk Wash Blvd sends more traffic through the Arboretum, which is completely unacceptable.