Thoughts on 520 and consultant report
4 Comments (Leave Comment)
I wanted to share some thoughts on the consultant report while they are fresh on my mind.
- Require that the state manage 520 to maintain Seattle’s standard of performance. I propose requiring that the HOV lanes move at a minimum of 45mph during rush hour 95% of the time, and we require the state to report back to us on the performance every three months. If the performance drops below the standard in any quarter, the state would be required to take mandatory action within six months, such as increasing the toll or HOV requirement until the performance standard is met.
- Design 520 for future light rail. We heard the consultant say WSDOT is currently interpreting the light rail-ready language to mean that it may require massive retrofitting at a some point in the future. This is completely unacceptable to me. If this is a 75 – 100 year plan, we should insist that the corridor is designed with the assumption that future light-rail will be built.
- Never more than 6 lanes in the corridor. The state needs to agree to permanently freeze 520 into 6 lanes, including future BRT and light rail alignments. At no time in the future should the bridge be widened or restriped to accommodate more than six lanes.
- Reduce the number of lanes dedicated to on- and off-ramps. The urban interchange is an improvement over the slip lanes, but it is still massive. The current seven lanes is already a pedestrian no-man’s land, and increasing it to eight lanes of traffic crossing Montlake at 520 is a design only Kemper Freeman would love (see NE 8th and Bellevue way). For Westbound 520 at Montlake, three off-ramps lanes would replace the one current lane. How many cars does the state expect to dump onto our streets? Today, we heard the consultant say much of this is designed as storage to avoid back-ups on 520. Rather than building new lanes, we should ask the state to develop a demand management plan that would accommodate the following: No more than two westbound off ramp lanes, two eastbound on ramps lanes, with one lane designated for HOV on both, and one lane westbound general purpose on-ramp, and one lane eastbound off ramp for general purpose traffic to and from I-5 at Montlake. We should also ask for specifics on how they would manage demand such that a 4 lane portage bay viaduct would work.
Working within the state’s time frame and moving forward with pontoon construction is important, but it is not as important as getting this 75-100 year project right from the beginning. I am certain that if we put our collective political will behind a better design for Seattle, we can achieve our goals within a reasonable timeline. We need to ensure that no one is using the EIS process as an excuse to build a bridge that doesn’t work for Seattle.
The Council is holding a special meeting on Thursday night in chambers from 5:30-8:00 PM. Sign up for public comment starts at 5 PM, but doesn’t begin until 6:15 PM, after the consultant’s presentation. I hope to see you there.
Posted: April 5th, 2010 under Environment, Transportation
Tags: light rail, SR 520
Comment from Bill Bradburd
Time April 6, 2010 at 12:33 am
Mike, 520 is a bad corridor for a major light rail investment. Between UW and Microsoft there is absolutely nothing worth serving with transit on the corridor. Overlake is already getting light rail, so why build more on 520.
Bus service is way more flexible to branch out and serve all the various suburban places on the east side.
Light rail costs too much per mile.
Dedicated BRT/HOV lanes with dedicated ramp to the UW light rail station. And please, no arboretum exit.
And as others have advocated – MSFT needs to start adding high density housing around its campus.
(but truth be known, my heart’s with the ‘let it sink’ crowd.)