PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
Design concept for a new bridge over Portage Bay
An early rendering of the Roanoke Lid concept
Washington is moving forward with the 520 Portage Bay Bridge and Roanoke Lid Project even as it is still scrambling for the best way to pay for it.
WSDOT announced it awarded a contract for the job to Skanska on March 11th.
CHS reported in November on the $1.375 billion price proposal from Skanska for the contract — a bid 70% higher than the state’s estimate. An agreement with Skanska extended the window to accept the bid, giving Washington legislators “more time to address the funding gap” during its just-wrapped budget process, WSDOT says.
The new plan? Move forward with the $1.375 billion bid but find a way to cut costs and close the gap. WSDOT says legislators have ordered it to seek “cost reduction opportunities.” That could mean new, scaled back designs for the planned lid and new bridge.
“This process may result in scope changes,” WSDOT said.
A report on cost cuts and closing the project’s budget gap is due to the legislature by the end of the year.
Work continues on the Montlake Lid portion of the multiyear 520 replacement project. WSDOT says the $455.3 million Montlake project remains on schedule for 2024 completion even with a few last minute hiccups to deal with.
The Roanoke and Portage Bay projects had been planned for 2030 delivery dates but that schedule is likely to change.
CHS reported on the western 520 projects and previous cost increases here in 2022 as WSDOT made a number of changes to the design of the Portage Bay Bridge and a Roanoke Lid from the original environmental assessment in 2011 including the addition of a shared use path on the south end of the bridge that could more fully connect people walking and rolling from North Capitol Hill across the lake. Other walking and biking connections around the Roanoke lid, including wider, separated spaces for people biking were also added.
The timeline for construction on the Portage Bay segments had included a 2024 start date.
The costs and challenges around the project also provide backdrop to Seattle’s hopes for lidding portions of I-5 through the city that were recently boosted by $2 million federal “research and planning” grant. “Highways that run through major urban areas can reduce green spaces, stifle economic growth, and cut-off entire communities from neighbors and business,” U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal representing the WA-07 district including Capitol Hill and much of the city’s central and northern neighborhoods said in the announcement.
What impacts the future 520 lids will have in this regard isn’t clear. The Montlake Lid is designed as a park-like passthrough that will be an island of lawn in the middle of a sprawling interchange of freeways, surface streets, transit stops, and bike and walking paths.
Meanwhile, state leaders are considering another way to raise more money to help pay for soaring costs on the work to replace 520 — higher tolls and extending the tolled portion of 520 to include areas of the highway like the planned-for Roanoke Lid and new Portage Bay bridge.
PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
I don’t get why the Montlake project, however it happens and if it happens, is planned as an island of lawn. Wouldn’t native and drought resistant plantings require less water and maintenance?
As far as the Lid-5 movement goes, it looks like it will benefit the more expensive and commercial parts of the I-5 corridor while leaving the a lot of the older, cheaper parts of the Hill to suffer the noise of construction and get none of the benefits.
Why do you believe that the grass will ever grow there?
Either it will be an off leash dog park or a camping ground.
Native/drought resistant planting? That is hardly a natural space, why do you believe that anything local would work in that space, could be walked on, and wouldn’t require constant maintenance?
Mushrooms grow in literal shit and weed can grow in the cracks of cement drainage ditches lol. You’re overlooking just how much life can actually thrive in places we consider inhospitable. Grass is crappy in places you’d expect it to be good too…the problem there is grass not the highway lid.
The idea that horticultural maintenance is even a significant budget issue though is absurd when clearly the construction aspect is the part that’s hugely overpriced here.
I understand why this would cost a billion and a half dollars to build.
I don’t understand how this is delivering a billion and a half dollars of value to Washington state.
With much less traffic going to work everyday, it starts to feel like a white elephant scheme. If the light rail I90 comes online the reasons for funding yet more road are also diminished. Maybe just retrofit the current roadway and call it good.
The plan to toll the I5 to UW portion will also have ominous side effects for surface streets and I5 itself as motorists will fight to avoid taking 520 to Montlake.
Traffic levels have returned to pre-pandemic numbers. Sadly this is because more people seem to be driving rather than using public transit, where numbers are still way down.
I use 520, Monday and Friday it’s empty and people avoid the cost on weekends. So basically 1.5b for a three day week when light rail will soon replace it for Bellevue. It’s also worth noting that the road doesn’t get any extra general purpose lanes, so unless you HOV or bus, it will be the same experience.
It doesn’t seem like the juice is nearly worth the squeeze for a lid at Roanoke: pedestrian traffic is not very heavy for either of the current bridges, there’s already a decent foliage barrier from the highway, and there aren’t major population centers or destinations to connect… All quite different from the ongoing Montlake lid project and the possible I-5 lid.
Another waste of money. Crumbling bridges, among other infrastructure problems on top of everything else.
Put a Lid on it! It’s like a Portlandia sketch.
I think the “Roanoke Lid” is a colossal waste of money. There is already a perfectly nice park just across the street to the north (Roanoke Park). Sheesh!
Highways through cities should be lidded or buried. Period. If they need to save costs they should reduce the size of the bloated roadways and ramps.
I‘m the last one to hate on lidding inner city freeways, adding parks/greenspaces and improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and connections BUT the price tag for the Roanoke project seems really steep. Three times the cost of the already very involved Montlake project!?!? Based on the recent cost overruns on projects like the Convention Center expansion and the Aquarium, this will easily be another 10% or so more by the time it’s done so something’s gotta give.
I have a cost reduction opportunity for them: abandon this terrible idea.
Lidding a freeway is expensive beyond comprehension. Folks love the idea if it’s in front of their abode. Folks hate the idea if it’s in front of someone else’s abode. This is the definition of NIMBYism. No judgement here, EXCEPT, we all pay taxes to pay for every cockamamie special interest, that WE put forth.
Then, we all come here to complain about the high cost of living in Seattle. Golly!
What did Pogo say?
Are we having fun yet?