Category: Transportation

520 Bridge Moves Forward!

The SR 520 bridge an important project, and one of the key things I work on as a legislator. We have struggled with this project for the entire time I have been in the legislature. The project we are moving forward with will look mostly like the A+ option determined in the SR 520 legislative workgroup this summer and fall. You can find out more about this specific option at the following website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/sr520legislativeworkgroup/options.htm

On March 2nd the House passed 6392 with some minor modifications from the original Senate bill. This is a huge win – the House has blocked forward passage on 520 for years, and we finally overcame the opposition from influential members on the other end of the bridge. Some modifications were made that I believe improve functionality, including identifying some funding for building an additional Sound Transit Link Light Rail station under the Montlake interchange. This would allow a vastly more effective transit connection and would remove many busses from Montlake Avenue, improving the traffic pattern in the neighborhood.

Info on the bill itself can be found here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6392&year=2009

 I expect construction to start on the Eastside projects as soon as this fall or early spring, and the design effort on the Westside landing will continue within the boundaries of the current environmental impact statement. I expect the final design issues on the Westside to be done in the next few months.

I am incredibly pleased with this development, and expect the Senate to concur with our changes in the next few days.

Microsoft goes strong on 520

Microsoft has started a huge new campaign to get the legislature to (finally) approve moving forward on the 520 bridge. The Seattle PI covered it here

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/195479.asp

Microsoft even has their own website for the campaign, and a full page newspaper ad. I’m starting to get mail from people about it, and I agree. I have been pushing this project for years. We are very close to taking the next step – approving funding for the eastside projects. We also need to continue to move forward on the westside, making necessary modifications to the westside design within the conditions of the environmental impact statement.

I’ve written about this project in the past – click the “520” link on the tags sidebar to the right for more pieces.

We should be able to move a bill this week.

520 Generates Controversy

As usual, every time we take a step forward on the 520 Bridge project we generate a bunch of controversy. In December the 520 Legislative Workgroup released its recommendation for the “A+” design option. I’ve written extensively abou tthis and you can read my blog of search local news sites for news about the 520 bridge for details.

On Monday morning Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn held a press conference with House Spekaer Frank Chopp, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, and Sen. Ed Murray to propose a set of changes to the design, which they voted against in the workgroup. Their new proposal is to limit the use of the 3rd lane in each direction to transit only, and to investigate using it for light rail only.

I am not a fan of this change for the following reasons:
 
1. We have an HOV network on all major roads in the area, except 520. If we expect people to carpool we need to provide them with a better experience. It’s not better on 520, so people don’t do it. Imagine an hour in a car where you don’t control the music, you don’t like the people (any more) and it doesn’t give you any speed advantage. If it’s faster you ca n tolerate your co-worker’s unfortunate burping problem, but not if it’s the same amount of time as driving your own car.
 
2. If the HOV lane becomes clogged with busses and HOV vehicles, we can easily increase the occupancy requirement – go to 3 people per vehicle. The goal is to keep that lane moving at a reasonable speed and move the maximum number of people.
 
I’d love to have light rail across the bridge. If they want to add fixed rail to the bridge I am open to it, but Sound Transit keeps weighing in that it doesn’t work. However, I don’t think we should throw the existing Sound Transit plan up in the air in order to consider a major new change of direction. The 520 plan is designed to allow expansion for light rail in the future by adding pontoons. The east side alignment will work smoothly with light rail – all the overpasses etc. are wide enough to handle the capacity. Planning the landing on the west side so that we don’t preclude this option is important. To not preclude the addition of high capacity transit was a piece of negotiation we did a few years ago.
 
As a community we have worked on these plans for over a decade, with participation from both sides of the lake, from transit, from elected officials, from neighborhoods, from everyone. If we are to change major regional plans every time a new mayor of one of the 39 cities in the county is elected we are in deep trouble. This bridge plan improves the westbound peak-time transit experience from Redmond to Seattle by 40+ minutes. We have a plan that won 10-3 in the latest community involvement process, a plan that fits into the budget, that can be permitted, and that replaces the bridge on schedule. We should move forward.

New Newsletter Available

I emailed out a newsletter today. I’m attaching a link to the PDF version of it – this is somewhat easier to print out and read if you’re a print person.

2009-12-15 Newsletter

I expect to produce much more regular newsletters now that we are approaching the session. Please let me know if there is something you would like me to address. I’ll try to address popular questions that we get in email as well as the stuff I’m working on.

WSDOT report: SR 520 project leads to better travel times for buses and carpools

WSDOT emailed out their periodic status report on Eastside transportation stuff today and these tidbits about comments on the SR 520 project came in. We would value comments on the work product of the  “SR 520 Legislative Workgroup,” of which I am a member. My opinions about the design of the bridge focus on how well it works in the transportation system, particularly the extra 40 minutes transit riders from Seattle to Redmond would get in their lives each way as a result of getting the bridge done.

—–

Today we released a report that shows how proposed improvements to the State Route 520 corridor from Medina to Redmond would affect transportation and the environment. This report, called an environmental assessment, shows that the proposed project is expected to improve travel times for buses and carpools by completing the HOV system from Medina to Redmond and building median transit stops.

The project, formally called “SR 520, Medina to SR 202: Eastside Transit and HOV Project,” is estimated to cost $776 million. The project also would improve water quality and fish habitat, reconnect communities, and provide new commuting options for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Do you have any comments or questions on the document?  We want to hear from you.

To review or comment on the environmental assessment:

  • Join us at a public hearing and open house from 5 – 7 p.m., Dec. 16, at Chinook Middle School, 2001 98th Ave. NE, Bellevue.
  • View documents and comment online at the SR 520 Web page: www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520bridge/EastsideEA
  • E-mail comments to sr520eastside_ea@wsdot.wa.gov
  • Mail comments to Bill Blaylock, EA Environmental Manager, 600 Stewart, St., Suite 520, Seattle, WA 98101.
  • Visit local libraries in Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond and other locations listed on our Web page to view the document.
  • Call the project office at 206-770-3500 to request a free CD and executive summary or to purchase a printed copy of the report.

In order to be included in the final environmental decision documents, all comments must be received or postmarked by Jan. 7, 2010.

SR 520 Legislative Workgroup: Dec. 4 is last day for online comments on west side design, financing

You have until 5 p.m. Friday, Dec. 4 to share your views online about the draft west side design and financing recommendations made by the SR 520 Legislative Workgroup. The panel recently recommended a design option for the Montlake interchange and a financing strategy for the SR 520 corridor.

Also, the draft recommendations report will be posted online Dec. 4. The Legislative Workgroup will consider public comments prior to taking a final vote on their recommendations at their meeting next week.

SR 520 Legislative Workgroup Meeting
When: 10 a.m. to noon, Dec. 8.
Where: Sound Transit, Union Station, Ruth Fisher Board Room, 401 S. Jackson St., Seattle.
Topic: A final vote is scheduled on the panel’s recommendations.

The workgroup will submit a final recommendations report to Gov. Gregoire and the Legislature by Jan. 1, 2010.

Incremental Progress on the SR-520 Bridge

Last year the legislature passed a bill (HB2211) that authorized tolling on 520 starting in 2010. I voted against this for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the bill limited the potential uses of the tolling revenue to only the floating part of the bridge, leaving the eastside approaches waiting. We’re ready to go and only need authorization to start.

The Westside wants to make sure that our project doesn’t start until they get funding for their half. I’d be ok with that if they would only decide on what they want. They are scattered all over the place with competing factions right and left. Sometimes it seems that they are more interested in delaying the project than they are in resolving the design to something that works.

The bill last year set up a process we should use to resolve the design issues and propose a funding plan. The taskforce created in this legislation voted 11-2 today to approve the “A+” option, one of the last designs left standing. The final two contenders were “A+” and “M”.

Continue reading “Incremental Progress on the SR-520 Bridge”

Sound Transit East Link public workshop in downtown Bellevue

Sound Transit included the following blurb in the weekly easatside tranpsortation news WSDOT sends out. These are typically useful events with lots of charts, maps, and staff around to answer questions. It’s probably worth going by for 15 minutes to look at what the options are if you’re interested in Link Light Rail on the Eastside.

If you live or work on the Eastside, Sound Transit wants you to mark your calendar for Wednesday, Nov. 18. That’s when you can learn more about East Link’s downtown Bellevue preferred route and stations, as well as the tunnel alternatives, and provide comments about how East Link can best serve you. The workshop will be held from 4 to 7 p.m. (with a presentation at 5 p.m.) at Bellevue City Hall, 450 110th Ave. N.E.

Light Rail over 520?

Sound Transit Preferred Alternative on the Eastside
Sound Transit Preferred Alternative on the Eastside

A couple of people have suggested quite publicly that we reconsider the decision to put light rail on the I-90 bridge. I sent this as an email reply to Dave Thomas, who publishes a reliably interesting newsletter (http://pugetsoundliberals.org/) in response to an article in the most recent edition (#198.)

520 doesn’t work as the initial light rail route across Lake Washington for a variety of reasons. Personally, I’d love to have a train running across 520 and have tried to negotiate to get this. I’ve been convinced it’s not the right thing to do first. The Eastside legislative delegation has negotiated that the new bridge will have the capacity for, and that the design will not preclude, light rail in the future when it makes sense. The short-term reasons to stay with the I-90 route:

  1. You would have to dig extensive (expensive) tunnels to get anywhere interesting. You can’t easily hook up with the train through the U-District – it’s too deep to get to from Lake Washington. Current train technology doesn’t climb hills as steep as it would take to get to I-5. You’d have to go under, and then under Lake Union.
  2. There isn’t enough capacity on the north-south train on the west side to take all the commuters from the Eastside into downtown Seattle even if you let them off at Husky Stadium and had them take the elevator down.
  3. The design has been done and agreed to for years. Re-opening it is a disaster. I would like a north-south route on the Eastside. Nevertheless, this region needs to learn how to make decisions and execute on them. We cannot keep re-negotiating deals.
  4. Bellevue is a critical job center, and growing much faster (in jobs) than most other parts of the Eastside. This is mostly by design, and it has to be the center of the train route so that we get the density of both housing and jobs we need around the stations.
  5. The environmental sensitivity is largely if you cross the Mercer Slough at I-90 to get to the BNSF route, which isn’t going to happen. The train will almost certainly run up Bellevue Way and over 112th and into downtown Bellevue. (People will argue with me over this, but the preferred route by both Sound Transit and the City of Bellevue is the Bellevue Way one.)

 I agree that it looks like a good idea on first glance.  Once you spend some time looking at it you start to understand why the decisions were made the way they were. If all you care about is vehicle capacity you might want to leave I-90 alone, and that’s (I believe) where the suggestion came from. A functional system runs over I-90 initially.

As a region we have made this decision, and many other decisions that hinge on it, over and over again for the last decade. We should just execute.

520 Financing Options Discussion

The SR 520 Legislative Workgroup will meet on October 20th for a rousing discussion of the financing plan for the bridge.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 10 a.m. – 2 p.m.
Sound Transit- Union Station, Ruth Fisher Board Room
401 South Jackson Street, Seattle, WA 98104

The proposed agenda is

  • Overview from WSDOT staff on the current SR 520 funding delivery plan.
  • Discussion of potential additional funding options, including federal reauthorization, potential future local and regional sources, and tolling options.
  • A report out on the Joint Transportation Committee’s state funding study.

Time and location details for these meetings and the remaining meetings scheduled in November and December are available on the SR 520 Legislative Workgroup Web site.

Most of these meetings have been recorded for later display on TVW, and it may make more sense for you to watch it on your computer while you’re doing something productive, like playing Reversi or something.

520 Working Group Meeting 9/22/09

520 Bridge with traffic

Today I’m attending a meeting of the 520 Legislative Workgroup, trying to work out an agreed upon design for west end of the 520 bridge and a financing plan. You can look at the official documents at the website the state maintains for the project. I’ll provide some links to interesting ones in the middle of the post, but the basic website is www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/sr520legislativeworkgroup/.

We heard community presentations from groups representing the proponents of each of the three alternatives we’re looking at for the Westside design. These were largely focused on specific details of the proposals and were somewhat dense. I have difficulty figuring out the politics of who each of these groups represent; it seems very complex.

Continue reading “520 Working Group Meeting 9/22/09”