The state's proposal for the new 520 Montlake Interchange.

Neighborhood residents who opposed the state's six-lane plan to rebuild the 520 bridge across Lake Washington say they still oppose the state's new "preferred" alternative, which addresses some of their traffic and aesthetic concerns about the bridge.

Here at PubliCola, we had a theory that  Gov. Chris Gregoire's announcement last week that the state had decided on a preferred alternative for replacing the 520 bridge was bad news for Mayor Mike McGinn, who wants to put light rail on the bridge.

The theory: The new bridge proposal includes so many concessions to neighbors (a lid over Montlake Blvd., lower speed limits, no on-ramps from the Arboretum to 520, a shorter bridge deck, etc.) that they would feel compelled to drop their opposition to the state's proposal.

McGinn opposes the plan because he wants a new bridge to be able to accommodate light rail from the start. So his coalition with neighborhood activists, whose concern is more aesthetic, seemed tenuous to us. (McGinn got his start in politics in 2005 as anti-NIMBY neighborhood activist who defied stereotypes by embracing things like development and mass transit). Last week, he raised numerous concerns about the new preferred alternative, including the fact that, in his words, "it's still not light-rail-ready at this point."

When I asked McGinn last week whether the new proposal made it less likely that neighbors would continue to fight the state on 520, breaking apart his coalition, he said, "I think you should speak to the Montlake neighborhood before jumping to conclusions," he said.

So I did, and, well—burn on me. Members of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520 tell me the state's latest proposal still doesn't meet the majority of their concerns about the new proposal, and that they have no plans to let up on their opposition to the plan.

Jonathan Dubman, vice president of the Montlake Community Club, says that although "there appears to have been a sincere effort to address our concerns, the plan continues to have some elements that are highly objectionable." Among them: The second drawbridge across the Montlake Cut, which Dubman says won't speed up transit but will take out homes and harm endangered species; the fact that the new proposal doesn't include a lid over I-5 that was included in previous plans; the fact that the new bridge would still be an elevated viaduct, albeit a shorter one; and that a loop ramp for eastbound 520 traffic would cut off a planned green belt, forcing trail users to "cross a bunch of different streets."

Similarly, Fran Conley, coordinator for the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, says the new proposal "doesn't resolve the underlying issues" with the new bridge. "The basic problems are that it won't work for moving people, it won't work for parks and open spaces, the state doesn't have the money, and it causes too much health damage," Conley says.

Dubman wouldn't say whether his group planned to move forward with a lawsuit against the state, but didn't rule out the possibility. "There's nothing to report on that right now," Dubman said.