The die had seemingly been cast: The governor, many neighbors and state transportation officials agreed the crowded four-lane Evergreen Point Bridge should be replaced with a new six-lane span by 2014.
It would be bigger than the current 45-year-old bridge, with shoulders and a bike lane, and lanes for carpools and mass transit, where growing numbers of commuters seem to be heading as gas prices rise. Estimated cost: up to $3.9 billion.
But Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi believes that's not enough. His transportation plan calls for replacing the bridge with "a structure capable of eight lanes using large dual pontoons" and says added lanes could be used for transit. Rossi's estimated cost: $3.3 billion (yes, cheaper than the estimated cost of a six-lane option).
"We have to have greater capacity" on the crossing, Rossi said. "The bridge has been the same since I was 2 years old."
But Rossi's opponent, Gov. Chris Gregoire, and others have focused on the six-lane option since state studies concluded that an eight-lane bridge would be far more costly and create too much traffic congestion on Interstate 5 in Seattle to be worth pursuing.
Gregoire said Rossi's dream of building an eight-lane structure cheaper than a six-lane span is "complete silliness. It doesn't work."
And she and other backers of a six-lane design think it's too late to resurrect an idea they thought was buried. A majority of state lawmakers approved a six-lane configuration, and she said local leaders agreed to compromise on six lanes to settle a four-versus-eight lane argument.
"We've had a decision (for a six-lane design), and that decision should not be re-opened," said Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin.
Connections to a six-lane bridge would include widening part of the southbound tunnel lane and shoulder from I-5 to the eastbound 520 lanes. From northbound I-5, the onramp to 520 would be widened to two lanes. A bus-only ramp would connect to the I-5 express lanes, carrying bus and carpool traffic westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening, reflecting traffic directions on the express lanes. Four elevated street bridges would be rebuilt to accommodate the wider highway.
According to state studies, an eight-lane bridge would also require new capacity on I-5 to accommodate increased traffic from a new bridge, much of which would course through downtown Seattle toward Interstate 90.
Engineers calculated that this would require tunneling under I-5, adding elevated lanes or creating new frontage roads to the side of it, with the third options appearing the most cost-effective. Lanes also would have to be added northbound, requiring excavating into Capitol Hill, they said.
"You chase the problem to I-5," said Ron Paananen, the state transportation department's deputy urban corridor's manager: "You chase the problem to I-90."
Based on this analysis, Gregoire supported a six-lane design, which is being discussed in a mediation process approved by the Legislature and extending to the end of this year.
"As far as I'm concerned, (eight lanes) is not an active issue," said Jonathan Dubman, who represents Seattle's Montlake neighborhood on the 34-member mediation panel.
In 2003, the state estimated an eight-lane span would cost $5 billion to $6 billion. Paananen thinks the cost might be closer to $7 billion to $8 billion now just for the bridge and its connections to I-5 and I-405.
Project Director Julie Meredith said the 2003 estimate included about $2 billion just to connect the bigger span to I-5. Connections to both I-5 and I-405 would be costly and difficult, she said. Estimated costs for connecting a six-lane bridge to I-5 range from $180 million to $260 million.
In an interview Wednesday, Rossi said an eight-lane bridge is what's needed, eventually if not immediately, to cope with the region's growing population.
His idea: build at least a six-lane bridge set on pontoons wide enough to accommodate one more lane in each direction, then add two more lanes once the money is found for them.
His plan comes at a time when commuters have faced rising gasoline prices and appear to be driving less and riding transit more. But Rossi is convinced people will continue to drive and new sources of propulsion such as fuel cells will power their vehicles.
Forcing people out of cars, he said, "is not going to happen."
Other proponents of the wider bridge say the state's analysis of the eight-lane option is flawed.
Jim MacIsaac, a retired planner and member of the Eastside Transportation Association, thinks the state wrongly assumed congestion on I-5 included vehicles from 520.
He said 40 percent of the westbound 520 traffic would exit at Montlake, near the University of Washington. Rossi agrees.
"It was Seattle traffic that filled up the capacity the model was showing for I-5, and it had nothing to do with additional lanes on I-5," MacIsaac said. Asked about this, state consultant Michael Horntvedt said the problem was more vehicles using side streets as well as added traffic from 520.
Rossi's cost estimate is lower than the state's. As with other costs in Rossi's plan, the figure is stated for comparison purposes in 2007 dollars, which don't account for future inflation.
This was done, a campaign spokeswoman said, to get comparable figures for all the projects in Rossi's plan. State estimates are "year-of-expenditure" figures that included estimated inflation during construction.
Ross said if it costs more than he estimates he'll look for savings in other major projects or consider allocating more auto-sales tax revenue to the work.
"If you worry about that you're missing the point," he said. "The point is we need to do this."
He blames "a failure in leadership" for lack of a plan for the eight-lane span. Rossi backers are excited about the idea.
An eight-lane configuration is "absolutely imperative," said Kemper Freeman Jr., a well-known Eastside developer. "I can't believe we're thinking of anything else."
Rossi said his idea isn't aimed at getting votes on the Eastside, where he said, "I already have a lot of support."
But Gregoire recalled leaders already studied the eight-lane proposal and discovered the high costs and traffic complications that left people saying, "No, thank you."
She said an eight-lane project isn't realistic now politically because of opposition in Seattle, where neighborhoods are "not going allow an eight-lane bridge today to land on the west side without litigation and litigation and litigation."
Both Rossi and Gregoire said if a six-lane bridge is built now it could be expanded if communities decide to do so. A key difference is that Rossi's plan would include pontoons large enough for all eight lanes; a six-lane plan design reduces some upfront cost by leaving the expansion upgrade until later.
The two politicians espouse different views about the future of transportation. Rossi advocates added highway capacity as a way to keep people and goods moving.
While in the Legislature, "I worked hard in the Senate to get the five-lane expansion on Highway 202 from Sahalee (Way) west and the new flyover on 520," he said. "I can't tell you how many ... of my neighbors have come up to thank me. It adds 45 minutes to an hour a day with their families."
Gregoire thinks commuting and transportation are changing and projects should reflect this.
"With high gas prices (people) are getting out of cars," she said. Buses are full, and park-and-rides are full. ... Our challenge now is to get them options," such as transit on dedicated lanes.
"Just building a new lane, a new road, is yesterday's thinking."
(Source)
I like Keith from Salt Lake City, and not because he's sexy as hell.
Posts
