Below are some answers to questions we often hear. We welcome your suggestions for new or improved questions and answers to: cleman@oo.net, (206) 322-5463.

What do you think of the Governor's Dec. 15 recommendation ?
It is poorly reasoned and mistaken. The Governor's report recommends a six-lane SR520 and while not yet openly advocating for the Pacific Street Interchange variant of the six-lane, goes way easy on it. The Governor's preference for a six-lane floating bridge faces an even worse deficit than the Alaskan Way tunnel according to her own expert review panel. If her financial objections to the Alaskan Way tunnel are to be taken seriously, then she must disqualify the six-lane SR520 alternative as well. Also, note that, to their credit, none of the Viaduct alternatives will add lanes, but now the Governor says, add lanes to SR520.

The Governor acted before having full access to thousands of agency, expert, and public comments that WSDOT has been slow to share. They show unacceptable environmental and neighborhood damage from a six-lane SR520. Only the four-lane green alternative provides a floating bridge that meets the financial, safety, and transit goals that the governor and all of us share. As the first Governor to be given control over WSDOT, Gregoire has not used her new powers well. She has allowed this prehistoric agency to run the show. Fortunately, the decision is not up to the Governor, but rather the legislature, so it is more important than ever for our legislators to hear from us.

You're against strengthening SR520 against earthquakes and storms, aren't you?
No--quite the opposite. The No Expansion of SR520 Citizens Coalition has been working since 1994 to protect the SR520 bridge from earthquakes and storms, and if we had had our way, the bridge would already have been rebuilt. Unfortunately, efforts to replace the bridge affordably with one that would be secure in earthquakes and storms and be safe to drive, bus, bike, or walk have been delayed for more than a decade by people whose real agenda is to add traffic lanes to the bridge. More delay is in store because their proponents are in denial that there simply isn't enough money to build WSDOT's expansion alternatives. And assuming that there's money, those overbuilt alternatives would take years longer to construct than would our affordable, reasonably scaled four-lane Green Alternative. Our proposal will more quickly and assuredly strengthen the bridge against earthquakes and storms, reduce traffic collisions, and reduce fatalities and damage to vehicles and people when collisions do occur.

But surely you're against more people driving across the SR520 bridge, aren't you?
Actually, no. We're fine with more people driving across--in fact, our four-lane Green Alternative would accommodate more drivers, more safely, because of its wider lanes and its intermittent, "bulbed out" shoulders. The "no expansion" in our organization's name means that we're against adding more traffic lanes to the four-lane floating bridge, against WSDOT's plain to make those lanes bigger than on I-5 and other freeways, and against building huge continuous "safety" shoulders that will eventually be converted to new traffic lanes.

Why are you against adding more lanes to the floating bridge?
Adding more lanes to the SR520 floating bridge would damage the Arboretum, the Union Bay wetlands, and neighborhoods, and it would weaken transit, increase single occupancy vehicle driving, and worsen global warming, at the very time that our region should be leading the way to a better future. And we cannot afford the extra billions of dollars to add lanes. Our four-lane Green Alternative is the only affordable alternative.

What is the Green Alternative?
Concluding that WSDOT's four and six lane alternatives for SR520 were unacceptably damaging and unaffordable, a coalition of public interest groups has proposed the Green Alternative, with the following features:

(1) a four-lane floating bridge that accommodates more traffic (lanes and shoulders wider than currently, but not as wide as WSDOT proposes);

(2) five or six lanes over Portage Bay--three HOV, one of the three being reversible to the I-5 express lanes downtown;

(3) safety shoulders that are intermittent, thus cast less shadow and cannot be converted to traffic lanes;

(4) bus and HOV priority on nearby streets and ramps;

(5) ramps in the Arboretum closed permanently;

(6) no widening of Montlake Blvd., Pacific St., 25th NE,, or Sand Point Way;

(7) keep the HOV lane on Pacific and the bus "flyer" stops on SR520.

What is the Pacific Street Interchange Alternative?
WSDOT's six-lane alternatives are both bad, but the one known as the Pacific Street Interchange has the worst impacts of all--and is the most expensive. It would not only expand the floating bridge to six lanes, but move parts of it out of Montlake and North Capitol Hill into other neighborhoods and the University of Washington, and further into the Arboretum and Union Bay.

Currently, SR520 is entirely south of the Ship Canal, but this alternative would cross the Ship Canal, so the U.S. Coast Guard requires a 110-foot clearance, occasioning a huge bridge over Foster Island and Union Bay. Also, this "Pacific Street Interchange alternative" (a deceptive name, as its actual location, and most damaging impacts, should have more accurately earned it the name,"Marsh Island and Union Bay" alternative) would put a 400-foot-wide interchange over what is now wetlands and the northwest's largest sockeye salmon run.

The Pacific Street Interchange six-lane alternative would take irreplaceable land that UW needs for either open space or expansion. The vast amounts of new traffic that it would direct into the University district would cause the decommissioning of the Pacific Street HOV lanes, to be replaced with general purpose traffic; and construction of new lanes on Pacific and on Montlake Blvd, and possibly other streets.

Have any cities support the Pacific Street Interchange alternative?
Actually, only one--Bellevue. Its City Council took this position prematurely on Oct. 9; the EIS public comment period ended on Oct. 31, and WSDOT did not release until Nov. 28 the 1700 public comments, which included penetrating analyses by such agencies as the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Wildlife, NOAA, the University of Washington, and four units of the City of Seattle, as well as many individuals and organizations. Bellevue should rescind its recommendation in favor of one that is less destructive and more affordable.

What have community groups said about the Pacific Street Interchange?
Almost all the community groups that have taken a position on the Pacific Street Interchange alternative have opposed it, among them the Laurelhurst Community Club, Madison Park Community Council, University District Community Council, University Park Community Council, Broadmoor Homeowners' Association, Ravenna-Bryant Community Association, Eastlake Community Council, and the 46th district Democrats.

But wasn't the Pacific Street Interchange proposal generated by the community?
Not really. An interchange very similar to the Pacific Street Interchange was designed by WSDOT in the mid 1960s as a part of what was then to be called the R.H. Thompson Expressway. The interchange, and the associated expressway,were rejected in 1972 by Seattle voters, and dropped by WSDOT after the Seattle City Council withdrew the City's cooperation. The only real difference between what was rejected then and the current Pacific Street Interchange is that the original WSDOT design would have been partly underwater.

Isn't the Pacific Street Interchange good for transit?
Not really. The SR520 corridor is already the state's outstanding corridor for transit and HOV use, largely because single occupancy driving on SR520 is more constrained. The six-lane Pacific Street Interchange Alternative will create more capacity for single occupancy vehicles, reducing the current transit advantage.

The Pacific Street Interchange does not have the specific advantages for transit that have been touted for it. Elsewhere in this web site, the UW's Mirai consultant report is reprinted; the report shows that the Pacific Interchange provides little or no transit improvement. Its elimination of the Pacific Street HOV lane will slow buses down. Its elimination of the Montlake flier stop will degrade the bus opportunities for those who live or work south of the Montlake cut. They will have to walk much further to their buses, and without any real improvement in bus times. Centralizing the bus stops at the light rail station would assist a limited number of people who, in the absence of the Pacific Street Interchange, would simply walk another block or two between their bus and the light rail station.

So which alternative best helps transit?
The Green Alternative, because it focuses on low-cost, practical steps to maintain the current excellent transit service in the corridor and make further improvements in transit conditions without encouraging a lot more driving. When the I-90 bridge sank and SR-520 was the only route across the lake, bus service on SR520 improved rather than degraded, because WSDOT converted an I-5 shoulder to bus only, to make it easier for buses to get to and from the SR520 bridge. There is no need for an HOV lane on the SR520 bridge so long as buses and car pools have an advantage in getting to and from the bridge.

Shouldn't two HOV lanes to be added to the currently four-lane bridge?
No. Building high occupancy vehicle lanes increases single occupancy vehicle traffic. As car-pools, van pools, buses, and motorcycles move to the new HOV lanes, they leave space on the general purpose lanes that is filled in by single occupancy vehicles,creating more incentive to drive alone. On how building new HOV lanes encourages single occupancy driving, undermines transit, and harms the environment, see Rethinking HOV, a report listed in this web site's Links section.

Throughout the country, HOV and transit lanes have, once built (and sometimes even on the day they opened) been converted to general purpose lanes; and highway shoulders have been converted to traffic lanes. Without measures to prevent such conversions, the SR520 traffic models and the environmental analysis that depend on them are not worth the paper they are written on, because once built, SR520 is likely to have much more traffic than was promised in the EIS.

What about global warming?
The City of Seattle’s recent "green ribbon" commission report warns that increased driving is our regions largest single contribution to global warming. Each gallon of gasoline used by a motor vehicle produces about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. Increasing the number of SR520 bridge traffic lanes will cause more driving, and hence produce more greenhouse gases. Keeping SR520 at four lanes--and not an overbuilt four lanes such as WSDOT has proposed--is the most important single step that our region can take to reduce its future impact on global warming.

Why care about construction impacts?
We can differ about the ultimate design of SR520, but the construction process is what will most affect many of us. Construction will cause huge impacts from truck noise, vibration, dust and pollution, traffic safety and tie-ups. Plus, building the six-lane alternatives (especially the Pacific Street Interchange) will cause years more of impacts, such as tens of thousands of additional trips by fully laden dump trucks, concrete trucks, and other vehicles.

What about noise?
WSDOT's EIS considers only noise impacts of 66 decibels or higher, and only at the first floor even though many homes, businesses, schools, etc. will suffer 66-decibel noise on upper floors, and many others will experience an increase in noise, even if the increase does not reach the 66-decibel level. WSDOT defends this omission on the grounds that the federal government requires noise mitigation only at or above 66 decibels, and only on the first floor. But note that, as federal noise mitigation is not allowed to be spent for interior residential or office uses above the first floor, or for noise below 66 decibels, it is all the more important to consider the full noise impacts of the various alternatives, because each alternative brings with it a certain level of noise that cannot be mitigated with federal dollars. The six-lane alternatives would cause more 66+ decibel noise above the first floor than the four-lane alternative. Also, for noise impacts that remain under 66 decibels but are still disturbing to the average resident or business, the six-lane alternatives will cause more noise increases for more people than the four-lane alternatives.

Do theSR520 expansion alternatives respect cultural sites?
There are strong federal and state laws protecting Native American cultural sites. Failure to detect or respect a Native American cultural site in Port Angeles that was disturbed during construction of the Hood Canal Bridge pontoons forced WSDOT into a costly and time-consuming relocation. The SR520 EIS states that "Foster Island in Union Bay, now part of the Washington Park Arboretum, at one time was used as a resting place for the dead. The Duwamish placed their dead in canoes or boxes that were hoisted into the island's trees. Native people, working with anthropologists in the early twentieth century, recalled when the trees were full of boxes with skeletons in them. The lashings of these boxes gave way from time to time, and the ground was covered with bones that had fallen from the trees. Historians have reported that these bones were removed when the Arboretum was developed, and no traces of the island's former use are now plainly visible to present-day walkers and birdwatchers. However, it is possible that native people in earlier times may have buried their dead in the island's marshy ground." For more details, see Brian Miller's Seattle Weekly article in the “In the News” section.

What would it cost to expand SR520?
Out of concern for the unreliability of WSDOT's cost estimates, the Governor and legislature created an Expert Review Panel whose September 2006 report found that WSDOT had underestimated by 37 percent the cost of its biggest alternative (the Pacific Street Interchange). Under the panel's prodding, WSDOT's re-estimate is that this alternative would likely cost $4.38 billion, with a possibility of $5.34 billion. The other six-lane alternative's likely cost is $3.9 billion, with a possibility of $4.86 billion. Even WSDOT's four-lane alternative's likely cost is $2.79 billion, with a possibility of $3.47 billion. And the escalation and over-runs are only beginning.

Is there money to expand SR520?
No. WSDOT's alternatives are so overbuilt that they are unaffordable. The Governor's Expert Review Panel stated in its September 2006 report regarding all of the WSDOT alternatives (four and six lane alike): "the identified funding sources, both secured and anticipated, fall far short. ... we find it unreasonable for the SR520 bridge project to assume that it will realize sufficient funding from secured and anticipated funding sources." (pages 2-16 and 2-14) In an Oct. 31 letter to the Governor, the Panel reiterated: "There is not enough funding identified for either alternative for SR520."

Aside from WSDOT's costs, would SR520 expansion also impose local costs?
Yes, costs to King County and the city governments would be huge. Accommodating the additional traffic from WSDOT's six-lane alternatives, especially the Pacific Street Interchange, will require new traffic signals, signage, pedestrian improvements, and maintenance, as well as new traffic lanes as outlined earlier. In addition to the expansions of Pacific Street and Montlake Blvd. specified in the EIS, other local streets that may need to have lanes added if one of the SR520 six-lane alternatives is adopted, include, in Seattle: 25th NE, Sand Point Way, 23rd Ave. E., and Martin Luther King Way. East of Lake Washington, SR520-caused road expansion could be on 148th Avenue NE and SE, Bellevue Way NE into Bellevue, and Lake Washington Blvd. NE into Kirkland.

Is there an alternative that we can afford?
Yes, the Green Alternative, at less than $2 billion. While meeting all of WSDOT's capacity, safety, and security goals, the Green Alternative can save hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the other alternatives by keeping to four lanes, reducing the widths of lanes and shoulders, eliminating some proposed new lanes on and near the Portage Bay Bridge, eliminating the proposed new floating bridge's high profile, and other measures.

Could the Regional Transportation Improvement District help fund WSDOT's four and six-lane alternatives?
Doubtful. ESHB 2871, the 2006 state law that governs RTID (a regional taxing district established to seek voter approval for partial funding of SR520 and other projects), states: "The planning committee must develop and include in the regional transportation investment plan a funding proposal for the state route number 520 bridge replacement and HOV project that assures full project funding for seismic safety and corridor connectivity on state route number 520 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405." But the Governor's Expert Review Panel has stated firmly that "there is not enough funding identified" for WSDOT's four and six-lane alternatives. It appears that RTID would be violating its own charter if it funded these alternatives, which would not have "full project funding."

Could the Regional Transportation Improvement District help fund the Green Alternative?
Definitely. The four-lane Green Alternative is the only alternative whose cost is low enough (under $2 billion) to be fully funded. And there is nothing in the RTID legislation that makes capacity expansion a higher or even an equal priority to seismic safety and corridor connectivity.

When do I vote?
State law now requires the tri-county Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID) and Sound Transit to submit joint ballot measures for a public vote, currently slated for fall 2007. The public must approve both the transit and roads package for the joint ballot to pass (i.e. if one of the two fails, both fail). The roads package will include both the 520 Bridge Replacement and the Alaska Way Viaduct Project.

Can I still comment on the EIS?
Yes. TheSR520 draft environmental impact statement is available at www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR520Bridge. Free CD/ROMs of the EIS are available by calling(206) 381-6400 or by e-mail to kruegep@wsdot.wa.gov. Although the official comment period ended on Oct. 31, WSDOT is still accepting comments on the EIS, which can be sent to sr520deiscomments@wsdot.wa..gov [sr520deiscomments@wsdot.wa.gov]. If you write, please mention opposition to both six-lane alternatives (especially the Pacific Street Interchange) and support for a four-lane alternative (but that you prefer the Green Alternative to WSDOT's overbuilt four-lane alternative), and request that WSDOT analyze the Green Alternative equally with the other alternatives in the final EIS.

Can I see the comments WSDOT has received so far?
Yes, because the No Expansion of SR520 Citizens Coalition filed a request under the state Public Records Act, causing WSDOT to put all 1700 comments on a CD/ROM. These comments by agencies, public interest groups, businesses, experts and other individuals area gold mine of information. You can obtain a copy of the disk by phoning (206) 381-6400 or 437-0719, or by e-mail to benderb@wsdot.wa.gov.

Why bother to contact elected officials?
Because if you don't, the expansion advocates will win. Because elected officials--especially the Governor and state legislators--will make the final decision on SR520. Because elected officials rely heavily on what they hear from the public. Because ifwe do not use our democratic rights, we will eventually lose them.It is urgent that you and everyone you know contact your elected officials by letter or e-mail, and if possible also by voice mail or in person to express your views on the SR520 alternatives.

OK, but how can I get the addresses of elected officials?
Elected officials' addresses, or links to them, are listed in the Home section of this web site.

How can I make a difference in what I say to elected officials?
Please make it clear that you prefer the four-lane Green Alternative over WSDOT's four lane alternative, and that you strongly oppose the six lane alternatives, especially the Pacific Street Interchange. Public officials pay more attention to messages that are addressed to them personally and less attention to messages in which they are one of many addressees. Also, please use your own words. You can leave voice mails after hours; if you write, try also to phone. And be kind!!