As a point of historical interest, the photo above shows Portage Bay prior to Viaduct construction in the late 1960's. Thanks for sharing and signing!
The message below was provided to Governor Inslee, and Transportation Committee Members Liias, Barkis, Fey and King with copies to our Legislators Pedersen, Chopp and Macri.
The intent of the message is to respond to two concerns the highway department has raised of project delay and impact to the aquatic environment.
We believe the work of our group demonstrates that following the suggestions in our petition results in faster construction and improved aquatic environment.
December 19 note to Governor Inslee
Governor Inslee,
We are providing a response to what we perceive as the major objections to our petition request to allow contractors to evaluate costs of marine based construction for the final segment of SR 520.
In basic terms, from a societal benefit perspective, the work bridge proposal costs more than marine based construction and leaves the environment worse off. Why would we do this as a society? A transportation agency is not equipped to conceive of this or any highway project in terms beyond highway building, it is not within their mission. It is within the mission of your office and the legislature to reconsider this decision and that is what we are asking for.
The major objections we have heard from WSDOT are that shifting construction to barges would disturb the bottom of Portage Bay and that permits might require an additional two years. We address these concerns below.
Project delay is not our goal nor is it necessary. We are proposing to accelerate construction so benefits are available two years faster. Marine based construction can start immediately on contract award and the north span can be built without any change in permits. This saves at least a year. Other time savings result from not having to remove the work bridge and from allowing use of larger parts brought in by barge. During construction of the north span, permits for sediment removal to allow water-based equipment to access the south span can be obtained.
What is most likely from a permit standpoint is an amendment to the current Corps permit. We believe WSDOT has received over a dozen Corps Permit Amendments since the start of the project so it is not an unusual activity. Corps concurrence with an amendment is likely, even if an agency consultation process is required. There is no unique, fragile environment to preserve. The sediments are deposited from roadways and contain rubber dust with a compound recently discovered to be the main factor in killing migratory fish. Removing some of these sediments would be an improvement in the natural environment.
Environmental effects When SR 520 was constructed from barges in the late 1960’s barges were used for construction. Why can’t we use this water access route again? The main reason put forth by our highway department appears to be that the south side of the viaduct has become somewhat shallower due to siltation over the past 60 years. Siltation is a result of the fact that storm drains from SR 520 have dumped silt from the viaduct directly into the bay for over 60 years without treatment. Storm drains from Seattle streets that also contribute to silt load at least flow through vegetated channels in Interlaken Park prior to discharge. Removal of some of this silt would create deeper water, lower water temperatures and improve habitat for fish, and aquatic plants. Work bridge construction and presence will disturb and negatively impact sediments.
Recreational benefits accrue as deeper water will enhance small boat activity in South Portage Bay, the only area on the ship canal between the locks and Montlake Cut that is safe from large boat traffic.
The marine equipment that WSDOT will use to build the work bridges (as evidenced by their recent test piles) stirs up massive amounts of bottom silts. It is better to remove this material so equipment can operate with reduced sediment disturbance.
We believe that the decision to not allow contractor evaluation of costs savings from marine based construction is based on an interpretation of the facts that is only valid from the very narrow point of view of our state highway agency. Their mission is to build highways. The mission of the legislature and Governor is to assure that our agencies are pursuing courses of action that maximize benefits to society. It is this broader view we believe should prevail and that we request you consider and act on.
Our estimates indicate that the work bridge approach costs 200 million dollars more than building with marine construction and has far higher impacts on the human environment. The human impacts arise from driving 1,000 piles for the work bridges in close proximity to over 200 homes on soft soils. The work bridges block barge traffic from the worksite forcing transport onto neighborhood streets.
Impacts to the natural environment arise from the work bridge shading of the bottom for six years which will likely kill all bottom dwelling plants and animals and severely impact fisheries. Also, from sediment disturbance associated with construction and demolition. It is true this is a temporary impact but six years is a long time, arguably most of the remaining lifespan of the many retirees who live nearby.
It is time to revisit the 12-year-old work bridge decision made by WSDOT. It may have made sense at the time but should be reviewed in light of current conditions and information gathered over the past decade.
Since posting on your site on December 15, the number of signatures has risen from 100 to over 295 and we are scheduled to present to the Medina City Council at their next meeting in early January.
The time to act is now to save 200 million tax dollars, speed up construction by 2 years, reduce traffic, noise, vibration, air and water quality impacts and enhance the aquatic environment.
We are again asking for your support to allow contractors to present costs for a water-based alternative for constructing SR 520 over Portage Bay. Our group is available to present details to you at your convenience.
Respectfully, Sr 520 Working Group