A view of the state’s preferred design for a second draw bridge over the Montlake Cut. We’ve embedded the entire visual quality report at the bottom of this post.
With the downtown Viaduct replacement project shifting from debate to vigilance mode, Seattle also has another large state-run transportation project to keep its eye just below Capitol Hill. The process to achieve approval for the western stretch of the SR 520 Replacement Project has begun with a flurry of land use applications for the key construction components including the highway itself and its connective changes such as the landscaped lid that will cover the roadway in Montlake and the construction of a new draw bridge spanning the cut. Below is a rundown of the applications open for comment over the next month as well as visualizations of what the state’s “preferred alternatives” for the new bridge will look like.
Earlier, CHS reported on possible efforts by community groups including Sustainable 520 and the North Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association to block the western portion of the replacement project. From the groups’ letter to the Seattle City Council:
Increasing the number of vehicles that have to get through the Montlake interchange will extend the congestion far beyond Montlake, into Capitol Hill, Roanoke Park, Portage Bay, Madison Park, and the university district. Most trip times will be longer not shorter; congestion on the Seattle side will offset any time improvement crossing Lake Washington.
The eastern work, by the way, is already full steam ahead.
Here are the four land use applications submitted by the state, feds and the SDOT for approval. Each is open to comment through September 16th. Below, we have also embedded the replacement projects’ Visual Quality and Aesthetics Discipline Report which provides visual representations of the areas around the bridge and how they would appear under the preferred construction alternatives if the state’s projects are approved.
Project 3011843: SR 520 Replacement Project – Floating Bridge (Seattle Portion) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow replacement of the existing floating bridge in an environmentally critical area. Proposed bridge will be 6 lanes wide, measure 21′ in height from the water line to the top of the railing, and be 3,790 feet in length in the City of Seattle portion. Work includes 11,366 cu. yds. of grading. Project includes construction of a temporary 4 lane bridge. Environmental documents prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration.
Project 3012587:SR 520 Replacement Project – West Approach Portion (Montlake to floating bridge). Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow replacement of existing roadway and west approach to the floating bridge with 2 new structures a total of 6 lanes wide. Project includes a landscaped lid over a portion of the new roadway and development of a wetland for storm water treatment in an environmentally critical area. The overall height of the new bridge ranges from 21′ to 60′ from the water line to the top of the railing. Construction includes temporary work bridges and grading of 154,916 cu.yds. of material and off-site mitigation. Mitigation site review under Projects 3012592, 3012593, 3012594 and 3012595. Environmental documents prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration.
Project 3012586: SR 520 Replacement Project – Montlake Bridge Portion. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow construction of a second draw bridge, 3 lanes wide, east of and parallel to the existing Montlake Bridge in an environmentally critical area. Work includes 6,929 cu. yds. of grading and new approaches on the north and south side of the Montlake Cut. Environmental documents prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration.
Project 3012585: SR 520 Replacement Project – Portage Bay Bridge Portion. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to allow replacement of the existing Portage Bay Bridge in an environmentally critical area. Proposed bridge will be 6 lanes with a height of 84′ from the water line to the top of guardrail on the west end and a height of 27′ from the water line to the top of guardrail on the east end, with a total length of 2,700′. Work includes 50,341 cu. yds. of grading. Project includes construction of temporary work bridges and off-site mitigation. Mitigation site review under Project 3012591. Environmental documents prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration.
FEIS Att7 Visual Quality DRAPart1
Currently, it is often very slow-going when one drives along Montlake Blvd between Husky Stadium and 520, and it seems to me this is mainly due to the two traffic lights just south of the Montlake Bridge (they allow access to Montlake Blvd from the east and west residential areas). I can see that they are needed now for the sake of those residences, but at the expense of everyone else using Montlake Blvd.
However, I hope the re-doing of this area will include a solution to this problem, so that traffic can flow more freely through there.
Not to mention the fact that a sailboat, A SAILBOAT, being navigated by someone who is going out on the lake AND BACK can cause hundreds of cars to sit and idle their engines and disperse unnecessary exhaust because one boatowner needs to amuse himself. I don’t think there is another instance in this city where a single individual can cause so much pollution for such a stupid reason. This is so environmentally reckless it has to stop!
The traffic light is also necessary so people coming from the south can U-turn and access westbound 520. I suppose they did *that* to avoid having to take out more of the neighborhood to build another ramp on the east side of the street?
As for the sailboat issue: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bridgeopenings.htm
Federal law gives marine traffic the right-of-way over vehicular traffic. The City of Seattle must apply to the U.S. Coast Guard for exceptions to that rule. The exception for bridge closures during rush-hour periods is granted by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard also allows vessels to be held for 10 minutes on the Lake Washington Ship Canal bridges to allow accumulated vehicular traffic to clear.
Well, then this shows how antiquated the federal laws are. I am willing to concede commercial traffic even though we have to deal with hazards such as captains of gravel barges falling asleep and crashing into the 520 bridge. Think about how ridiculous this is: someone in Portage Bay or Lake Union can decide they want they want to take their SAILBOAT on the lake and inconvenience hundreds of people and pollute the atmosphere unnecessarily to boot. The solution is to have very restricted hours when PLEASURE SAILBOATS can go through the cut. SAILBOAT owners who go through the either the Fremont, University or Montlake Bridges are the BIGGEST polluters in this city for frivolity.
There already are restricted hours.
I see you didn’t carefully read the comment, I said “VERY restricted hours”. Sailboaters traveling through draw bridges are the biggest, PREVENTABLE, polluters in this city.
They already have very restricted hours. So, now we agree. You are being very vague.
I see must you be a sailboater with a very different view of restricted hours. You can sail your boat through the bridge on a whim from 10am to 4pm and 6pm to 11pm on weekdays and anytime from 7am to 11pm on weekends and holidays. This should be restricted to 2 hours on weekdays and 6 hours on weekends. The amount of pollution and inconvenience you generate 2X every time you decide to enjoy the great outdoors is disgraceful but undoubtedly this is not a concern of yours.
Wouldn’t restricting the hours that cars can be driven cut down on pollution more?
I agree with sluggo. It’s ridiculous that a single sailboat, and it’s privileged owner, can cause such massive backups along Montlake Blvd on a relatively frequent basis.
Of course, these boats must pass through the Montlake cut, but I think the times when they can do that should be more restricted.
The majority of the traffic, congestion, and pollution throughout the year occurs during the hours when the bridge is restricted from opening. When it does open, you can always turn your engine off. The boating season for most also is limited.
Seems to me you are making a big deal because you just need to complain about something whether it is entitled boaters, blue angels, or fill in the blank.
I do own a boat but I refer to it as a kayak.