Seattle City Councilmember Bruce Harrell

Updates:

Seattle City Council: SR 520 Special Committee meeting on Thursday, 4/08/2010 at 5:30 PM. Council will review consultant’s recommendations and the second half of the meeting will be devoted to public comments.

Senate Bill (SB 6392 – 2009-10: Clarifying the use of revenue generated from tolling the state route number 520 corridor.) Senate (3/09/2010, President signed) House (3/10/2010, Speaker signed)

House Bill (HB 2929 – 2009-10: Clarifying the use of revenue generated from tolling the state route number 520 corridor.) 2010 1ST SPECIAL SESSION: Mar 15 By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.

The Albert D. Rosellini Bridge, formerly the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, and what we all know as the 520 bridge is scheduled to be replaced with a new floating bridge by 2014. Approximately 115,000 vehicles carrying 155,000 people use the bridge everyday (note: the bridge was only designed for 65,000 vehicles). Everyone agrees that the second longest floating bridge in Washington needs to be replaced as soon as possible and the replacement should be six-lanes (3 lanes east and 3 lanes west). While discussion to replace the 47 year old bridge began in 1997 and engineers have identified 2017 as the last year of its useful life despite annual repairs, recent debate over final designs and engineering of how to use the third lane and the impact of traffic flow through the neighborhoods at the Montlake interchange has prompted a 120 day timeline for the State and the City of Seattle to reach an agreement and not jeopardize the 2014 completion date and the $4.65 billion dollar budget allocated for the SR 520 project.

To be candid, this is what is laid out on the table, for all parties to reach an agreement. Representatives on the west side favor using the third lane for high-capacity transit (bus-rapid transit in 2014 and light rail installed for future use). The current proposal (option A+) supports using the third lane for HOV (high occupancy vehicles). Governor Gregoire and the office of the Attorney General state that revisiting the configuration of the third lane would set the project back 18-24 months.

A poll conducted by Constituent Dynamics with a survey of 1,852 people in Seattle and folks from the eastside legislative districts resulted in 16 percent who prefer HOV lanes, 69 percent preferring light rail and bus lanes, and 15 percent were not sure. There are no Sound Transit 2 dollars set aside for a 520 rail line and the new options (improved transit connections and a smaller interchange footprint), based on the data presented to the City council thus far, indicate that it is more expensive than the current $4.65 billion price tag. Remember, the Sound Transit 2 measure will bring light rail over the I-90 Bridge. Additionally, a letter sent by Council to Governor Gregoire requested the following objectives:

• 1) Ensuring that the Eastside connections and crosslake bridge are designed and built to maximize the opportunity for dedicated transit lanes as part of a design that will be limited to six lanes, as provided for in RCW 47.01.405
• 2) Reducing the height of the crosslake bridge structure from the thirty feet in the current plans.
• 3) Continuing to narrow where possible the lane widths and general overall footprint of the corridor without compromising public safety and emergency access.
• 4) Identifying ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate project impacts during and after construction.
• 5) Using innovating noise mitigation technologies and recognizing these investments as an integral and inseparable part of project design.
• 6) Optimizing transit connectivity and functionality across the entire SR 520 corridor, along Montlake Boulevard, and in vicinity of the future Multimodal center on the UW Campus.

Our request to continue work on the Westside configuration over the next 120 days is not meant to jeopardize the schedule and budget. The request is based on listening and working with the people in this neighborhood that will be severely impacted by the construction and the future traffic flow.

As we all continue to work together to reach an agreement, we should remind ourselves that the State has made a policy commitment to reduce green house gases and vehicle travel mileages in the next decades. House Bill 2815, passed in 2008, set statewide benchmarks to reduce annual per capita vehicle miles by 18 percent in 2020, 30 percent by 2035, and 50 percent by 2050. The State legislature passed Senate Bill 6392, confirming the 2009 plan for SR-520 with the $4.65 billion dollar budget.

I do not want to have to rebuild 520 twice or have to reconfigure our substantial investments on the west side in order to support light rail on 520. At some point I hope to have light rail on 520 and I do not believe that using it for HOV now erodes our ability to convert the lanes to Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail. My position on 520 is based on the historical information concerning the I-90 Bridge, current state financing, the schedule to complete the project by 2014, and the economic importance of having two safe bridges between the two biggest economic engines in this region, Seattle and Bellevue. Because of the Sound Transit 2 measure, light rail on I-90 should be ready to service Bellevue by 2020. The East Link line is estimated at $2.8 billion of the $17.8 billion Sound Transit 2 measure approved in 2008. The vision to have light rail on I-90 has been the plan for over 30 years and it still makes the most sense today and it was actually designed to accommodate light rail. A 1976 Memorandum Agreement for I-90 signed by the cities of Seattle, Bellevue and Mercer Island, King County, Metro Transit and the State Highway Commission directed that bridge design and construction accommodate future conversion to rail and commits the two-lane center roadway for that purpose.

The center lanes with Light Rail will provide 50 percent greater capacity than the current lanes. The average time saved using light rail on the future I-90 link from downtown Seattle to downtown Bellevue will be 19 minutes when compared to driving.

At the end of the 120 day window, the City and State must reach an agreement on final Montlake Interchange design and make a decision on the fate of dedicated transit lanes without jeopardizing the schedule and budget. I must admit, I still have some significant concerns about two bascule bridges over the Montlake cut. I have always expressed my concerns about bottleneck traffic when two bridges are drawn. We have hired a consultant to continue plowing through these concerns and others so stay tuned. We must all understand that with such a complex transportation project, everybody will not be in total agreement, and at the end of the day, we need to replace a deteriorating bridge on time and on budget and as soon as possible.