Moments ago, the state Senate passsed a 520 plan—Eastside suburban Seattle Sen. Rodney Tom’s (D-48) bill that confirms last year’s 520 plan, including the $4.6 billion price tag and giving the green light for the eastside projects to break ground.
More important, it slapped down a move by Seattle leaders Mayor Mike McGinn, state Sen. Ed Murray (D-43) and Seattle area Reps. Frank Chopp (D-43) and Jamie Pedersen (D-43) to rejigger the plan. The Seattleites want to tame the bridge plan so it doesn’t upend the Montlake neighborhood and more important, they want the two of the six lanes to be dedicated to rapid transit—either bus rapid transit or light rail—as opposed to HOV lanes.
Sen. Murray gave a dejected speech—and was only one of 3 ‘Nay’ votes—complaining that the current plan didn’t promote a comprehensive transit plan that would connect buses and light rail. He also announced: “My constituents are not a bunch of NIMBYs.”
After the vote, Sen. Tom told PubliCola that 5,000 jobs were at stake and it was time to move forward on the project. He said Seattle still had “carte blanche” to design the west side of the project. “We’re not going to design the west side of the project,” he said. However, he added WSDOT had already ruled out Rep. Chopp’s more expensive tunnel option.
Standing next to Tom in the Senate wings, Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48)—a cosponsor of the House version—was quietly beaming. He knows he’s in for a fight on the House side, where powerful Speaker Chopp may pull out the stops to halt the current plan from going forward.
Asked about the coming fight with the House No. 1, Hunter said simply he had the majority of the Seattle City Council on his side, the Seattle chamber, and labor—referring to a recent press conference staged by supporters of the current option. (Chopp’s crew, including Mayor Mike McGinn, held a press conference of their own earlier this month.)
Tweet
Yeah, I think the Montlake end of the plan will be built about never. Is never good for you? There are a whole series of different lawsuits and complaints seemingly currently already being drafted. Wouldn't it be better if the state could meet any of the complaints in any way after what I believe was 14 years of work between various parties to come up with acceptable options that have been discarded?
I can't imagine the second bascule bridge being built (consonance accidental). They would have to take some very expensive houses and build another freaking drawbridge. Really. That's really going to happen.
Screw.
Hey City Council, don't think that the people of Seattle aren't watching you on this one. Are Licata and O'Brien the only Council Members with the guts to stand up for Seattle on this incredibly important issue?
Too little too late. Flip-flop Chopp, Murray and Pedersen already voted yes on this in 2007, so they were for it before they were against it. Rather than give credence to their stumping for the Seattle anti-car, talk-everything-to-death lobby I'm not at all surprised the State is paying them no heed, as well they shouldn't.
@Stacy … please consider that it is just remotely possible that doing something other than Licata, Chopp, McGinn, and mini-me, want is standing up for Seattle. or put another way, these things are never: you're either for me, or against me.
Considered, and duly noted. But this isn't about Chopp, McGinn, or any other elected official; it's about standing up for our City and making smart decisions for our future. In this instance (and many others in the transportation arena), the Council is not only failing to lead, they're not even playing the game. Unfortunately, in politics you have to play the game if you want to win, otherwise, you (and Seattle) lose.
Interesting to read this in Tim Burgess' blog today: “For example, the Mayor and Council are engaged in a special project related to SR-520 design issues and we will soon hire a consultant to help us with technical issues. This work is moving forward and we are more closely aligned on where we want to end up than many people suspect.”
I am highly intrigued by that last statement. It would be good if McGinn could get over the grandstanding & actually get going on this.
By the way, what is with this “Seattle vs. the rest of the world!” stance? Is it a case of “We know better than all the rest of you” arrogance? Shouldn't we be thinking and acting regionally? 520 connects Seattle to major economic centers on the eastside. Perhaps we need to work together to find a regional solution rather than an idealogical vision. Transit, after all, is fundamentally about getting people to work so they can earn a paycheck, right? It's not just about reducing carbon emissions & saving the polar bears.
Interesting to read this in Tim Burgess' blog today: “For example, the Mayor and Council are engaged in a special project related to SR-520 design issues and we will soon hire a consultant to help us with technical issues. This work is moving forward and we are more closely aligned on where we want to end up than many people suspect.”
I am highly intrigued by that last statement. It would be good if McGinn could get over the grandstanding & actually get going on this.
By the way, what is with this “Seattle vs. the rest of the world!” stance? Is it a case of “We know better than all the rest of you” arrogance? Shouldn't we be thinking and acting regionally? 520 connects Seattle to major economic centers on the eastside. Perhaps we need to work together to find a regional solution rather than an idealogical vision. Transit, after all, is fundamentally about getting people to work so they can earn a paycheck, right? It's not just about reducing carbon emissions & saving the polar bears.
Crooks had the cookie jar slammed on their fingers!
Guffaw!
Did Josh and Erica forget to go to the Mayor's State of the City Speech this afternoon? If I recall correctly they forgot about another one of his public appearances.
Erica was at McGinn's speech. And talked to lots of Council Members and city staff about it afterward. We will definitely have a report.
And yet again McGinn's ham handed approach to things results in failure. At what point does he figure out that he is not an activist but a mayor and start to work within the system? There were some good parts of his plan but of course McGinn could not negotiate to save his life…
Oh and Stacy, I live in Seattle and don't consider your narrow viewpoint to be representative of all of us.
This is clearly more of a Montlake and yacht club issue than a Seattle issue. Everybody sees through the stunt that tried to transit wash the bridge and turn it into more than being about a few rich people wanting the screw over the rest of the City, except the Mayor and a couple of council members who don't really know much.
This is the plan Montlake activists are opposing compared to the plan they support: Much better for transit for eveyone, much better for the environment overall, including climate, much better for reconnecting the neighborhood, much better for reduced noise. And best of all, actually capable of being built, as opposed to the new Montlake plank, which amounts to “do nothing,” because obviously no one else will agree.
You are right, this is about standing up for our City. Unfortunately that doesn't mean standing up for a few neighborhood activists in and around Montlake, but standing up for the whole city. Amazingly, 44 members of the state legislature stood up for the whole City of Seattle today, not just the small part McGinn is standing with.
The Seattle versus the rest of the world stance is a creation of the PR groups supporting the yacht clubs and Montlake area activists. It is a stunt, not much reality to it.
Montlake is using the transit issue as a smoke screen.
They and Rep Chopp clearly want Option M the Union Bay tunnel. They suckered the transit crowd and naive Mayor into the fight with a nonexistant issue
The road lobby may have the union bosses, half the city council, and the Chamber on their side, but that still doesn't carry the weight of constituent requests. If a whole lot of environmentalists and transit advocates urge opposition to ESSB 6392 until we get the transit-only lanes, then this bill will still be in for a rough ride.
Notice that its companion bill died today for lack of a vote on the House floor.
Josh was down in Olympia (unless I saw someone who looked exactly like him). What's happening down there is probably as important as McGinn's speech.
only in this city would the options for a new bridge get to the letter “M”. i am too bored and confused to count, but that's probably about 10-12 options too many
The transit only lane is a political calculus adding the pro-transit folks to the option K/Montlake Cut Tunnel folks. I believe I was the first to bring up the option K concept, in 1988, but it may well prove too expensive.
I will still defend it, so long as the lane is joint use for both bus and light rail transit (and perhaps intelligently equipped public safety vehicles).
At this point there are two paths, tweak the option A+/L (L is a bridge version of K, and might be the best compromise) range of options to improve transit function and reduce impacts on Montlake OR continue to look at option K in a larger context.
The reality of Montlake being able to delay the project still, is a political reality. This would give the time to look at the transit network options in further refining option K. For example, why not drop that third transit lane from the Montlake to I5 segment and enhance transit connectivity from Montlake to Capitol Hill (and Downtown) as well as Montlake to the University District (and I5)!