[James Bond Agent 007]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003280662_520bridge29m.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2006/09/28/2003280506.jpg

"Pacific Interchange" plan for Highway 520 gains momentum
By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter

As momentum builds for the six-lane "Pacific Interchange" option on a new Highway 520, Mayor Greg Nickels is urging the City Council to slow down until more is known about how a new highway would affect the University of Washington and its arboretum.

Thursday morning, council members Jan Drago and Richard Conlin released a draft resolution backing the Pacific Interchange plan. A council vote is expected in the next few weeks.

Nickels replied in a letter: "While a six-lane alternative may have transportation benefits to the city and the region, the state has not adequately analyzed the environmental impacts on Seattle's cherished Arboretum, the surrounding wetlands, neighborhoods or the University of Washington. Only when these conditions are fully understood and the state has confirmed its intent to provide appropriate mitigation should we make this decision."

For years, governments on both sides of Lake Washington have argued over whether to replace the feeble four-lane bridge, which opened in 1963, with a four-, six- or eight-lane span.

The Pacific Interchange represents a possible solution.

A six-lane span lets transit buses run in new high-occupancy vehicle lanes to reduce trip times, an improvement that Drago called "a vital task."

Bellevue officials also are working on a statement supporting the Pacific Interchange.

Elected officials have not figured out how to pay for a new bridge, estimated to cost $4.4 billion, possibly as much as $5.3 billion.

The Pacific Interchange concept was devised by Montlake residents; it would spare their neighborhood an enlarged interchange and nine lanes — including ramps — over Portage Bay by moving the complex farther east.

A high-level overpass would begin on Foster Island and cross Marsh Island, ending near Husky Stadium. The existing Montlake Bridge would accommodate mostly local traffic, while vehicles from outside the area would arrive via the overpass. Montlake Boulevard Northeast would be widened from four lanes to six.

The UW has "serious concerns about the impacts," said Aaron Hoard, UW's deputy director for regional affairs, who cited four issues to be negotiated:

• The Arboretum. People who walk or canoe in the Washington Park Arboretum would encounter more columns and ramps. The Arboretum's advisory committee issued a statement this month saying a new highway and its shadows would threaten native plants.

• University lands to be taken for the project, including parking lots next to Montlake Boulevard and south of the stadium.

• Construction work that delays people going to the University of Washington Medical Center or sports events, at the same time Sound Transit builds a proposed light-rail station.

• Urban design. Does a road expansion visually sever the main campus from sports facilities east of Montlake Boulevard or encroach on the Burke-Gilman Trail? "People need to understand there's 60,000 people on campus," said Hoard. "We think of ourselves as a particular neighborhood of sorts."

Seattle's draft resolution suggests several conditions, including reduced lane and shoulder widths, to reduce effects on wetlands and views.

In related news, tests Thursday on soil in the area, which WSDOT initially thought to be contaminated with petroleum, did not show hazardous material.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Just think of the cool views of Husky Stadium you'd get when you're driving in toward the UW!! :banana:

I wonder if that new bridge over the water will be a drawbridge? :???:

[seaskyfan]

I think it would have to be unless it's as high as the Aurora Bridge. That's the east entrance to the Ship Canal, isn't it?

[Seattle FTW]

they are worried about people who canoe? BIG FLIPPIN DEAL

[mhays]

I'd reduce my opposition to the 520 project if the Pacific Interchange was chosen. It would mean much less disruption for Montlake.

[Rondo1]

I went to the most recent open house and the bridge is high, but it will NOT be a draw bridge. In fact the whole Montlake "intersection" would disappear and all of the traffic would move East to the new intersection at this new Pacific Bridge. The other cool thing that I love is that if you look closely at the picture above in the article, they are creating a tunnel where the current Montlake street crossing is. This tunnel is created by a lid that is very much like the one at the east side of i-90 as you enter/exit Mercer Island. On top of that lid will be a new park setting! Very nice. Naturally, UW is against the Pacific Street Bridge as it would mean that the project would take away land currently part of UW property and used for parking lots for the stadium.

Here's more details on the project.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/Plans/6_Lane.htm

[PDXPaul]

So the montlake interchange would be removed with this option and shifted up to pacific?

I'm okay with getting rid of the parking lots, it's make game day a little less fun, since that's kind of a staging area, but whatever. Light rail's going in there too, so hopefully there'll be a big bus stop there for transfers.

And if it can help the backup on montlake that'd be great.Expanding that to 3 lanes is going to be a bit of a project too.

[sequoias]

I notice a fatal flaw in pacific interchange is that....the road that goes thru Washington park is only 2 lanes and that's a really bad idea. It would be too busy and noisy for the park dwellers (people and animals) You don't want all that noisy traffic roaring thru that park. The intersection at Washington Park/Madison St. is already congested because of only 2 lanes. They had long line of cars waiting for the light and stuff. I do hope they have another alternative to that. They should route it to 24th Ave (Montlake) the same as it was before because it's 4 lanes.

[AZchristopher]

It looks nice but I agree with the mayor in that the impact on UW needs to be looked at more. Otherwise this just looks like the planners are shifting the major impacts from Montlake to UW.

[Rondo1]

It looks nice but I agree with the mayor in that the impact on UW needs to be looked at more. Otherwise this just looks like the planners are shifting the major impacts from Montlake to UW.

The problem with your statement is that the planners didn't come up with this plan. This specifially came from the neighborhood committee. They were asked to submit their ideas and thats where this whole Pacific Bridge option was born. It was never part of the original bridge proposal, but due to its support of the neighborhood it gained traction quickly.

[mhays]

I notice a fatal flaw in pacific interchange is that....the road that goes thru Washington park is only 2 lanes and that's a really bad idea. It would be too busy and noisy for the park dwellers (people and animals) You don't want all that noisy traffic roaring thru that park. The intersection at Washington Park/Madison St. is already congested because of only 2 lanes. They had long line of cars waiting for the light and stuff. I do hope they have another alternative to that. They should route it to 24th Ave (Montlake) the same as it was before because it's 4 lanes.

I'm sure they could still get there from Montlake by going eastbound a few blocks on the south side of 520, just like they can now.

[mhays]

The problem with your statement is that the planners didn't come up with this plan. This specifially came from the neighborhood committee. They were asked to submit their ideas and thats where this whole Pacific Bridge option was born. It was never part of the original bridge proposal, but due to its support of the neighborhood it gained traction quickly.

Planners took the neighborhood's suggestion and made their own revisions.

[Rondo1]

By the way folks, if you want to comment on the bridge you are free to. I was just sent this link due to an extension of collecting public feedback. Here's the original email:
===============================
From: SR 520 Bridge Replacement & HOV Project [mailto:SR520Bridge@WSDOT.WA.GOV]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:56 PM
To: SR 520 Bridge Replacement & HOV Project
Subject: SR 520 Draft EIS comment period extended to October 31, 2006


In response to agency and community requests, WSDOT has extended the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) comment period until October 31, 2006.

The SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Draft EIS, released in August 2006, evaluates two build alternatives – a 4- and 6-Lane replacement, and multiple design options for the 6-Lane Alternative. Responses to comments received during the Draft EIS comment period will be included in the Final EIS.

To submit your comments or to download a copy of the EIS, please visit the project website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR520Bridge.

Thank you for your continued involvement in this critical project.

Paul Krueger, WSDOT
Environmental Manager, SR 520 Project

[uwhuskies]

I hope this will be built in my lifetime.
:slob:

[Fiat Lux]

I'd reduce my opposition to the 520 project if the Pacific Interchange was chosen. It would mean much less disruption for Montlake.


I am the exact opposite. I am 100% for the 520 project, 100% against ruining one of the best open areas in the city with an on ramp that will flood even more car traffic into the U-District.

Buyout those rich people who hate the bridge expansion adjacent to 520 instead of removing one of the best open spots in Seattle.

[Fiat Lux]

By the way folks, if you want to comment on the bridge you are free to.

Thanks, I emailed again. A bunch of us UW alumni are working to kill this project. 520 needs to be fixed, but we shouldn't ruin the city to do so.

[Rondo1]

Thanks, I emailed again. A bunch of us UW alumni are working to kill this project. 520 needs to be fixed, but we shouldn't ruin the city to do so.

Well everyone should get their say, but I won't lie - I'm all for it.

[destroybananas]

520 is a joke of a highway and needs to be replaced, it's a constant bottleneck no matter what time of the day because of the carpool lane that ends before you drive over the span, and it's always jammed at the U-district area as well...
This was not done right from the beginning. Now we're stuck with the bill to pay for mistakes that were done in the past. This new bridge needs to be 6 lanes with room for future mass transit. We all know that this area is only going to grow more. So why not do it right.

[destroybananas]

Thanks, I emailed again. A bunch of us UW alumni are working to kill this project. 520 needs to be fixed, but we shouldn't ruin the city to do so.

Oh yes...great solution :whip:
What would you suggest mister "civil engineer"?

The city is already ruined because of it's current design. It can't get any worse.

[Rondo1]

[QUOTE=
The city is already ruined because of it's current design. It can't get any worse.[/QUOTE]

Now THAT I would have to agree with. Seattle is a pretty poorly designed city. Dont' even get me started on that damn convention center over our major freeway where only 2 lanes actually pass through. :shrug:

[Skian]

Well the freeway was always down to two lanes there and was gridlocked long before the convention center. At least the convention center hides all those parked cars............. :rolleyes:

[Complex01]

Well what ever they do, its not going to be liked by some people, but they do need to expand it. I hate crossing that bridge at times, i guess that why i dont ever really go to the east side. But true "future mass transit" must be considered.


:wizard:

[MrVandelay]

This is such rubbish! No WAY am I going as a voter to support the UW's 'handout' request for 'compensation' due to construction. EVERYONE is going to face 'hassles' of any future bridge/road construction. The state doesn't pay me if it takes me longer to get to work due to construction. This is complete crap UW :hell:


http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_121806WABuw520compensationSW.2044751a.html

SEATTLE - The University of Washington wants the state to pay for new walkways, garages and traffic cops to make up for hassles from future construction of a new 520 bridge.

Under a proposed six-lane interchange, an overpass would deposit traffic between Husky Stadium and the UW Medical Center.

The university says before construction starts, the state Transportation Department should build two parking garages for $34 million. It also wants $60 million for what officials say would be higher costs for a proposed stadium remodel if highway work is happening at the same time.

The UW wish list also includes $25 million to the medical center and $3 million for lost ticket sales in football and basketball.

The list was provided to The Seattle Times.

The costs would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the Highway 520 plan that's already short $2 billion

[mSeattle]

I don't understand why people are so complaining now and don't want to pay for the road construction impacts. Lost ticket sales to sporting events??? This is what people wanted by voting transit down all these years.

[MrVandelay]

I'm willing to pay for the new construction of the bridge, but I don't think that the UW should receive any compensation money for 'hassels'. If you look at the design rendering, the final product of the new 520 construction will enhance the UWs access to the Stadium, medical center, and school.

I'm just not happy that they (UW) wants compensation ontop of receiving better access to their facilities.

[Last Chance]

^Yup. And one step beyond that, I want to make sure that anyone that loses their land is fairly compensated as well (That includes UW). But compensation for hasseling is out of the question...

[northface]

UW will be losing lots of money, during sporting events..... and not to mention that parking lot if they construct this.

[MrVandelay]

UW will be losing lots of money, during sporting events..... and not to mention that parking lot if they construct this.

$3 million just for lost ticket sales???? Do you really think that people who are intent on seeing a Huskey game is really going to let a little traffic stop them? Common, we live in Seattle, I routinely figure an hour to travel anywhere. I really doubt that they will loose money on 'ticket sales'.

[mSeattle]

They could accomodate game day traffic through express buses. There are usually buses that don't get used on the weekends because some routes are only weekday routes. With the recently passed bus thing, there should be even more. This is not good leadership by example.