New 520 Bridge

[CrazyAboutCities]

Local residents pitch idea for new 520 interchange


Seattle neighborhood advocates have conjured up a design concept they say may help break the political impasse over the plan to replace the Highway 520 Montlake interchange south of Husky Stadium.

The idea is to shift the busy interchange east, to a site now used by the Museum of History & Industry, which plans to move to South Lake Union in 2011. Either a new tunnel or a drawbridge would then be built connecting the highway to Montlake Boulevard Northeast and Northeast Pacific Street.

Such an alignment may be less upsetting to some neighbors than earlier proposals to expand the current Montlake interchange or put a new exit high above the Washington Park Arboretum.

There are no cost figures or engineering yet to show whether the new tunnel or drawbridge would work.

A small group of neighborhood representatives plan to meet today to discuss the new "East Montlake Interchange," and then on Tuesday, the state Department of Transportation will show drawings to a 33-member design-mediation panel.

"We have to move a little bit cautiously, and hope everything works out," said Rob Wilkinson, a Montlake resident, pitching the new approach.

The Montlake interchange is a big piece of the 520 puzzle. While the state wants to build a new six-lane bridge by 2018, there's a lack of funding and little consensus on its design. Political leaders have tried unsuccessfully since the 1980s to replace or expand the aging four-lane, Lake Washington floating bridge, built in 1963.

When the state previously proposed simply enlarging the 520 Montlake interchange to better accommodate traffic, homeowners complained about added noise and blight.

In response, Wilkinson and Jonathan Dubman, another Montlake resident, proposed the so-called "Pacific Interchange" in 2005, aiming to shift the bulky ramps offshore. A tall exit bridge would have run from Foster Island, over Union Bay, to Husky Stadium. The plan was reviled by Arboretum supporters.

The latest tunnel idea would require a steep grade, tight curves and a speed limit of 25 mph, said project director Ron Paananen. And the proposed drawbridge would encroach on the UW stadium's south entrance, as well as the university's Waterfront Activities Center.

"It gives us some concern, but nothing's off the table," said Scott Woodward, UW vice president for external affairs. He's awaiting details about how the exit, a Sound Transit rail tunnel and two major streets would function together, and where they all would converge near the stadium.

The mediation panel, representing government, environmental and neighborhood interest groups, is supposed to gather facts and send its plan for the interchange to Gov. Christine Gregoire by December.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...change16m.html

The picture of the plan: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2004186107.pdf

[CrazyAboutCities]

I like their idea a lot. I think they should chose drawbridge option not tunnel option. Tunnel option will cost more than drawbridge. I think drawbridge option is more reasonable and easy to access than tunnel option. I really love Montlake lid.

[Capitol Hill]

I didn't like this option at all. Drawbridge has the potential of backing traffic up on 520, tunnel will be too expensive, and the sharp curving roadway that limits speed to 25 will also back traffic up on 520.

I think the original Pacific Interchange was better, although I understand people didn't like the impact to the park.

[citruspastels]

I love the tunnel idea but I think it's probably completely unrealistic.

The drawbridge seems a little silly for an onramp.

[Capitol Hill]

If any of these ideas go through, 10 years after its built, I guarantee you we'll all be saying, "What were they thinking?"

[citruspastels]

so, what's your prefered alternative?

[bgwah]

I kind of wish the Governor had been talking about Montlake when she said "Watch me tear it down," lol.

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Oh maybe, "F*** OFF!" I mean seriously, why should we listen to a group of hundreds (or less) of people who keep changing their minds about what their portion of 520 should look like. They have to face it, 520 was built long before they moved to Montlake (just an assumption); either get used to it or move out! Sorry if I sound too angry; i'm just really sick of Montlake getting whatever they want.

[Seattlelife]

I'm just sick of Seattle being full of NIMBYs. The 520 issue is simply another perfect example.

[BoulderGrad]

Originally Posted by Seattlelife

I'm just sick of Seattle being full of NIMBYs. The 520 issue is simply another perfect example.

Yeah, i know, seriously.... Since you seem to understand our needs around here so well, can we build the 520 bridge in your back yard instead?

[PDXPaul]

I like this plan. I hope we can accept it as a compromise between the UW and Montlake and get going. It gets the interchange out of the neighborhood, routes the traffic directly to pacific where most of it is going, but won't create the eyesore the Pacific interchange would have.

While a drawbridge is illogical, I'm going to bet the tunnel would be prohibitively expensive and we get by with the draw bridge on Montlake right now so its not impossible. If you make the bridge high enough for boats to clear, you get the view issues UW had with the Pacific option.

Also I really think they ought to build the pontoons big enough for 4+2HOV+2HCT from the get go. Capacity is going to be needed in the future across the lake, I don't want to lose those 2HOV's when we could run the trains right next to them for an extra half billion.

[Tcmetro]

I agree with BoulderGrad, this is not NIMBYism. The Bridge will affect them for a hundered years.

Why cant the new bridge follow the same alignment as it currently does?

[sequoias]

Just build a effective interchange and bridge and ignore the people whining where they live. They chose to live nearby the bridge! Just pave those homes over and build skyscrapers that poke higher than the bridge and get over it.

[uwhuskies]

Originally Posted by Seattlelife

I'm just sick of Seattle being full of NIMBYs. The 520 issue is simply another perfect example.

Whew! That felt great. I agree with your NIMBY comment. That is why the rush hour commute takes 8 hours a day, every day. Everytime someone suggests a solution you always have a naysayer without ANY solution dogging the idea. Let's get serious about living in the city and start building places to live, work and ways to get there.

[BoulderGrad]

Originally Posted by uwhuskies

Whew! That felt great. I agree with your NIMBY comment. That is why the rush hour commute takes 8 hours a day, every day. Everytime someone suggests a solution you always have a naysayer without ANY solution dogging the idea. Let's get serious about living in the city and start building places to live, work and ways to get there.

Oh cool, you get it too, can we build the new 520 in your backyard as well?

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by BoulderGrad

Oh cool, you get it too, can we build the new 520 in your backyard as well?

If it improves traffic - YES! I'll move for the good of society. Geez, you'd think these NIMBYs were living on sacred ground. It's just a pile of bricks!!

[Capitol Hill]

Originally Posted by citruspastels

so, what's your prefered alternative?

I prefer the original Pacific Interchange design. It seemed the most logical, note, not the cheapest, but most logical. It put the intersection near the traffic generator (UW), but it was high enough for boats to go under without drawbridges, or have extreme ramps that slowed everything down to 25 mph which would back up to the highway.

[Seattlelife]

Originally Posted by BoulderGrad

Yeah, i know, seriously.... Since you seem to understand our needs around here so well, can we build the 520 bridge in your back yard instead?

I know it's easy for someone not affected by this to call them NIMBY's. My problem is that Seattle ALWAYS runs into this. I bet there were people opposed to the Brooklyn Bridge being built because it required them moving, blocking their view, or it increased local traffic. But there's no question it was the right thing for N.Y.C. to do.

Another example of annoying NIMBY's in Seattle can actually be found in my family. My aunt and uncle used to live just north of the airport because my uncle was a commercial pilot. When the region was talking about putting in the 3rd runway my aunt was furious because it would create more overhead plane traffic. Planes fly over their house every couple minutes. Adding a a third runway isn't going to make much of a difference but it will help all commercial and pleasure flights to and from Seattle in turn helping our local economy.

I know there are multiple sides to all stories and people have the right to protest. At the same time people in Seattle often times need reminding that they are not the only ones on the planet and that sometimes the benefits of these projects are greater than them.

[CrazyAboutCities]

I totally agree!!!

[CrazyAboutCities]

Dubai is planning to build world's longest arch bridge soon. I like this design a lot. I think this bridge design might work for 520 Bridge too.