City Hall
McGinn Urges Council to Support His Plan for Rail on 520
As we noted in today's Morning Fizz, Mayor Mike McGinn took issue with my reporting on the fact that a wider new 520 bridge designed to accommodate light rail could conceivably be converted into an eight-lane bridge for cars instead. Yesterday, I met with him in his office, where he sketched out his vision for a new 520 bridge—and explained why he believes his plan couldn't be converted into eight general-purpose lanes for cars.
McGinn doesn't dispute that eight lanes would technically be possible on a wider bridge (a possibility that Nelson/Nygaard consultant Tim Payne confirmed at a public hearing on the 520 options at council chambers yesterday evening). However, he argues that it would also be possible to build eight lanes on the narrower bridge supported by the state and a majority of the city council, by narrowing the shoulders and shrinking a proposed bike lane. "My question is, why won't the city council stand up for light rail over 520 ... and will they stick with red-herring arguments about things that also apply to their plan?"
That's true, but the fact remains that a wider bridge would make it much easier to restripe eight lanes—either by reducing the outside shoulders to eight feet (there's precedent for that on I-90, where shoulders are planned at between six to eight feet)—than a narrower one. If the bridge was 115 feet wide, as in the state's preferred six-lane alternative, the shoulders would have to be much smaller than standard—probably around three to four feet. Shoulders that narrow wouldn't allow cars to pull off the road, and as far as I know, building a new bridge with such narrow shoulders is pretty much unprecedented.
McGinn also said that, because the two center 520 lanes in his plan would have to separate from the main bridge structure over Foster Island, they could never be converted into general-purpose lanes—they'd have to be dedicated to bus-rapid transit or light rail.
"I think [the council is] concerned that it's not possible to do better than what's been proposed" by the state," McGinn said. "I think if Seattle stands together and says we want this bridge to be designed to accommodate light rail, we have a chance of getting other leaders in the region to respond to our concerns. But if we don't stand together, there's a strong possibility that we're going to get a bad alternative pushed through our city."
McGinn doesn't dispute that eight lanes would technically be possible on a wider bridge (a possibility that Nelson/Nygaard consultant Tim Payne confirmed at a public hearing on the 520 options at council chambers yesterday evening). However, he argues that it would also be possible to build eight lanes on the narrower bridge supported by the state and a majority of the city council, by narrowing the shoulders and shrinking a proposed bike lane. "My question is, why won't the city council stand up for light rail over 520 ... and will they stick with red-herring arguments about things that also apply to their plan?"
That's true, but the fact remains that a wider bridge would make it much easier to restripe eight lanes—either by reducing the outside shoulders to eight feet (there's precedent for that on I-90, where shoulders are planned at between six to eight feet)—than a narrower one. If the bridge was 115 feet wide, as in the state's preferred six-lane alternative, the shoulders would have to be much smaller than standard—probably around three to four feet. Shoulders that narrow wouldn't allow cars to pull off the road, and as far as I know, building a new bridge with such narrow shoulders is pretty much unprecedented.
McGinn also said that, because the two center 520 lanes in his plan would have to separate from the main bridge structure over Foster Island, they could never be converted into general-purpose lanes—they'd have to be dedicated to bus-rapid transit or light rail.
"I think [the council is] concerned that it's not possible to do better than what's been proposed" by the state," McGinn said. "I think if Seattle stands together and says we want this bridge to be designed to accommodate light rail, we have a chance of getting other leaders in the region to respond to our concerns. But if we don't stand together, there's a strong possibility that we're going to get a bad alternative pushed through our city."
