Mayor wants chance for light-rail lanes

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn is not giving up on his quest to add light rail to the 520 floating bridge, even as the state is poised to announce its preferred option for replacing the aging span without it.

McGinn called on elected officials on Tuesday to come together to redesign the bridge to accommodate light rail, even if that takes more time and money.

His comments followed the release of his own consultant's report that found the proposed design would make it difficult if not impossible to add light rail at some future date.

"We only have one chance to get this right," McGinn said. "If we continue on with the state's current plan, then we will miss that chance. And that would be too bad ... We can design 520 from the outset to include light rail. The question is whether or not the leadership exists to make that vision a reality."

The state plans on building a six-lane replacement: four general-purpose lanes and two transit/carpool lanes. The project is estimated to cost about $4.5 billion.

Even if the state Department of Transportation approves the design, McGinn said, he would hope changes can still be made so as not to preclude light rail — someday.

Asked whether it was too late in the process to push for light rail, McGinn said, "I've been mayor for three months and am working fast," adding that it would have been better if former Mayor Greg Nickels had been more of an advocate for light rail. Nickels was also chairman of Sound Transit.

Seattle City Councilman Tom Rasmussen, who chairs the council's Transportation Committee, said, "It's highly unlikely that the state would build it the way the mayor would like it to be built. He has a lot of people to convince."

Rasmussen said he doesn't know how McGinn could persuade the state to stop the project and redesign it for light rail after 13 years of planning. "He's shown that light rail can't be put on the bridge as currently designed. It is too late unless the state agrees to stop and redesign it, but the governor has made it clear if the City Council and mayor want changes, it will have to be within the budget of the project."

McGinn presented his light-rail plan to about 60 people who gathered at City Hall Tuesday evening. Most support rail on the bridge.

Paige Miller, representing the Arboretum Foundation, said the Arboretum has been worried about the design of the bridge. "We don't want a bridge built now that won't accommodate light rail," she said. She worries that the state might try to add light rail later, and convert the six-lane bridge to eight lanes. "How much more of the Arboretum will we lose?" she said.

The state DOT plans to release its preference for the Highway 520 bridge replacement this month, and gave the city until April 15 to submit its comments. McGinn said he hadn't talked to Gov. Chris Gregoire about his plan, although a member of her staff was at his briefing Tuesday.

Lawmakers have said the bridge they favor could be retrofitted to take rail — a generation or two in the future, for hundreds of millions of dollars — by expanding the deck and adding more pontoons.

But McGinn in February hired consulting team Nelson\Nygaard to examine how tracks could be added to lanes in the proposed design, as well as how to reduce the size of a future Montlake interchange. McGinn wanted to see if future light-rail plans could be made now.

That $250,000 report, released Tuesday, said the design would need three major changes to accommodate light rail: a gap between east and west approaches from Foster Island to Montlake Boulevard to accommodate the tracks, additional or larger pontoons to carry the heavier load of rail, and 10 more feet of width.

McGinn couldn't say how much it would cost to add light rail to the project, but he said the planning for rail would take at least five years, meaning there is no way rail would be on the bridge if it opens in 2014 as planned.

Adding rail also would require a new environmental-impact statement, said Tim Payne of Nelson\Nygaard.

Even before the report, City Council members were skeptical, worrying that adding light rail to the design could delay the bridge replacement, increase the cost and widen the Highway 520 footprint. Rail under McGinn's plan would remove HOV lanes on the bridge, since the trains would run in the two lanes now designated for carpools and buses.

Council President Richard Conlin said the council's priority is to get the bridge replaced as soon as possible so it will accommodate high-occupancy vehicles.

He acknowledged that putting light rail on the bridge is not an option with the current configuration, but said the state should look at McGinn's proposal.

"We never made a decision that light rail would be implemented on 520," Conlin said. "I'm not sure if [light rail] couldn't be done later." He said the legislative mandate for replacing the bridge calls for high-capacity transit, which could be light rail.

Jonathan Dubman, the Montlake community representative for the pro-rail Coalition for a Sustainable 520, said he's encouraged by McGinn's insistence on light rail.

"The state has decided to anoint our worst nightmare. We're angry, activated and determined to make a better plan," said Dubman.

He said he is frustrated that with all the talk about bridge replacement, the plan chosen by lawmakers doesn't work with rail. "We have an existing mandate to exclude light rail and we need to resolve that," said Dubman, added that part of his group's mission is raising money for a possible lawsuit.

The 520 bridge, built in 1963, is at risk of sinking in an earthquake or severe windstorm. Design talks for a replacement have been ongoing since 1997.

In February, when McGinn officially proposed his light-rail plan, he predicted the state would face more years of delay fighting Montlake neighbors about the current design than if the state Department of Transportation changed course to embrace light rail. He noted that the state still doesn't have all the funding for the Highway 520 replacement.

Light rail is already planned for the Interstate 90 bridge.

Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com