A Losing Game of Bridge City Council Caves to Anti-Transit Plan for the 520 Bridge

Nothing but problems. Ananda LaVita

Until very recently, the Seattle City Council's position on the 520 bridge seemed clear. The council wanted to replace the decaying four-lane bridge with a new six-lane span that used the new lanes for transit, it wanted buses crossing Lake Washington to stop close to the future light-rail station at Husky Stadium, and it wanted to restrict the potential flood of cars entering the city. To drive the message home, the council unanimously passed two resolutions, one specifically calling for giving "priority to design elements that enhance transit." It wrote a letter to the governor in January, calling on her to "maximize the opportunity for dedicated transit lanes." The next day, Council Member Tim Burgess wrote on his blog, "I personally believe that the two additional lanes—lanes five and six—should be limited to transit-only from the start." And council president Richard Conlin assailed a state recommendation for the west side of the bridge in November because he was "not convinced it makes the connections between buses on 520 and the light-rail station at the university. And I'm not sure what it does as far as accommodating future light rail," he said.

But then the council did something unexpected.

A five-person quorum of the Seattle City Council stood side by side with Eastside legislators and suburban officials at a press conference on February 4 to demand that the 520 bridge project proceed—before any of Seattle's requests had been met.

"It is time to put over a decade of planning behind us," said Bellevue City Council member Grant Degginger.

Indeed, it's an urgent project. The current floating concrete span, completed in 1963, is leaking and will sink unless replaced or repaired; the state wants to rebuild it by 2014. "It is time to begin construction," said Degginger. And Conlin stepped up to the microphone to concur.

But critics argue that beginning construction on the east side of the bridge would commit Seattle to an unworkable plan for the west side—and lock the design into everything the Seattle City Council opposed.

The state recommended in November that the two new lanes hold buses and carpools (lacking dedicated right-­of-ways for buses or future light rail), and that a second drawbridge be built across the nearby Montlake Cut to handle all the extra traffic. The state estimates that during rush hour, 500 more cars per hour will cross the bridge's midpoint than currently do—bringing thousands of additional cars a day into the already congested streets of Montlake and onto I-5. Moreover, the bus stops under the state plan are several blocks from the future Husky Stadium light-rail station. This option is called A+.

"The council says they oppose this A+ option, but today they are standing with people who support A+," said Mayor Mike McGinn, reached by phone after the press conference. He says modifying the design wouldn't necessarily take longer, but beginning construction "will lock us into a six-lane highway and not getting the transit we should."

Opposition forces are ready for a fight. The Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520 launched a campaign early this month to oppose the state's plan. "I hope we can avoid a lawsuit," says Fran Conley, ringleader of the group, which includes several neighborhoods within a couple miles of the Montlake area and is supported by Mayor McGinn and Seattle's entire 43rd District legislative delegation. "We would much rather negotiate, but we have hired a lawyer and developed a war chest."

The group is trying to negotiate a plan that puts light rail on the two new lanes, mitigates added traffic to the Arboretum, lowers the bridge's 30-foot height across the lake (a three-story wall across Lake Washington), and connects buses with the transit station at Husky Stadium.

The public supports this plan and rejects the state's plan. In late January, Constituent Dynamics conducted a poll, funded by the 520 coalition, that found 69 percent of residents on both sides of the lake preferred "light rail and buses" in the new lanes. They also preferred a shorter, narrower bridge. For their part, all five of the council members at the press conference (Richard Conlin, Sally Clark, Tom Rasmussen, Jean Godden, and Tim Burgess) oppose the state's preferred option, too—at least in theory—saying that plans for the west side of the bridge must be completely reconfigured. However, they contend that Seattle can still influence the bridge's design after construction starts.

The city has agreed to a 120-day negotiation period with the state, and it has retained a consultant to help. Council Member Burgess says that the Washington State Department of Transportation and the city "have agreed to sit at the table and explore alternatives that would lower the height of the bridge across the lake, possibly shrink the size of Montlake interchange so it has a smaller footprint, consider alterations to the on- and off-ramps in the Arboretum, and improve ease of use to a transit connection." Sounds good, but caveats in Burgess's language—"explore alternatives," "possibly," "consider"—reveal Seattle's weak footing. If the state doesn't agree, the city has little recourse.

In all likelihood, calls for light rail across the bridge are unrealistic; including train tracks would require another environmental study for light rail, which the state never did despite years of planning (but light rail could be laid down in future years). But the council giving the go-ahead on construction raises serious questions about the city getting what it wants: How can the council achieve design changes to "transit connectivity and functionality across the entire SR 520 corridor" or reducing the height of the bridge after breaking ground? Moreover, how does the city change the dysfunctional west-side proposal while staying within the project's budget? The state legislature capped the whole project's budget at $4.65 billion; the west side at $2 billion. Other options studied by the state—such as the one preferred by Conlin—are $2.5 billion or more.

Asked how Seattle could accomplish its goals with less money than estimates say we need, Conlin says, "We are not sure." Asked the same question, state house transportation committee chair Judy Clibborn, a democrat who represents Mercer Island, says, "I don't have an answer."

The majority of the city council, by joining forces with the suburbs, has largely relinquished the city's bargaining power. In trying to negotiate with the state, all it can do is ask for what it wants—and the state can run out the clock and turn down the city's requests. Instead, the council could have teamed up with the Coalition for a Sustainable SR 520 and remained steadfast in demanding a transit-oriented Montlake interchange. Doing so would have required compromise among the Seattle factions, but those factions at least have a common goal in mind: build a transit-oriented city. The state has shown zero interest in that sort of planning.

"I think that battle is over," laments state senator Ed Murray (D-43). Now that the council has given its approval to begin construction, it is "boxed in" on the design option. "That's a done deal," says Murray.