Seattle Press on Line - The ETC has a bridge (or two) to sell

There From Here

The ETC has a bridge (or two) to sell

By Tara Peattie

Dec 20, 2001 -- Like a few others of the monorail-faithful, I don't like to bring up Sound Transit's trolley in the same breath as I may mention the monorail. I'm superstitious and consider it bad luck, and maybe even bad taste. But I must do so at this time for cautionary reasons.

Technically, it was the contractor's cost estimate for the tunnel under Portage Bay that derailed Sound Transit's figures, although we know that there were other intentional or unintentional flaws in the agency's estimates dating back much further. And certainly, other factors besides cost made the public lose trust in Sound Transit. But tunneling is expensive; likewise a bridge is expensive, and the Seattle monorail has not one waterway to hurdle, but two.
To some extent, monorail routes will be determined by what is feasible in crossing the Duwamish and the Ship Canal, and the decision of how to cross will also be a major determinant of cost. So it's a big game, with many players, including (at least for the Ship Canal) Ballard, Fremont, Queen Anne, Magnolia, the Coast Guard, the State, the City, the Port, the EPA and the threatened Chinook that dawdle and dart along the Canal, and finally, Seattle voters who will decide whether to buy monorail next November.

A new bridge, just to the west of the Ballard Bridge, is one option. The Ballard Bridge needs to be replaced, so building a new, multi-modal bridge here could kill two birds with one stone. This is largely a Department of Transportation decision, but it will not plan the Ballard Bridge replacement for at least two years. However, this could change if the monorail plan passes next year.

The advantage of the monorail-only bridge is that it creates a very straight shot from the Seattle Center (a critical destination spot) to Elliott Avenue and straight up along 15th. It avoids Sound Transit light rail's problem of a "snaking" route. A disadvantage is a long crossing: In addition to the waterway being wider, Interbay is largely landfill, with poor soil conditions. The bridge would need to span a portion of landfill, and so would be more obtrusive.

Another main option is on the east side of Queen Anne to Dexter and across Aurora Avenue Bridge, with a hard-left turn under the bridge into Fremont. The soil is "competent" (as states my friend Maurice, the soil engineer) and the hills on either side lessen the length of the approaches. The bridge would not be obtrusive because it would blend in with Aurora. But this would create a slightly longer route and would not serve Interbay.

Nickerson on the west side by Seattle Pacific University with a crossover to Leary and 36th by Hale's Ale is another option. While Nickerson neighbors have indicated that they are opposed to this route, Fremont largely supports it; and Suzie Burke, who with her sons owns much of the land on the Fremont side, would welcome a crossing at this site.

Another consideration is whether to build a drawbridge. A 70-foot height above water level allows for the vast majority of ships to pass. A drawbridge could open during the wee hours, 2 - 5 a.m., for the very few taller ships' passing. To allow for all ship passings with no draw, the bridge will have to be a bit over 100 feet.

Finally, what type of bridge should we build--concrete box or cable-stay? A concrete box bridge is clunky, yet less costly, and is lower profile for less view impact. In the cable-stay type, the cables do some of the work supporting the bridge. An example of cable-stay is Tacoma's SR 509 Bridge. It's more elegant, higher profile, more costly, suitable for longer spans.

Daniel LaVassar of Ballard states, "We need to sell this project to the overall city... A cable-stayed span at 15th is the most reasonable choice. Paint it red and light it up at night, and it will enhance views rather than detract from them." I agree with him, that is, if it is realistic to coordinate replacement of the existing Ballard Bridge--a big if.

Personally, I don't care where it crosses, as long as it's a bridge and not a tunnel. Special thanks to Peter Sherwin, Will Affleck-Asch and the other knowledgeable folk on one of my favorite e-groups, Rise Above It All's e-group for the Seattle monorail project: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seattlemonorail/.

In other monorail news:
Ballard District Council is making its support of the monorail up 15th NW contingent on provision of adequate "feeder" transit--Metro bus service, van circulators, etc., to ensure that the line is connected to Ballard's central business district and that the station stop doesn't turn into a giant park and ride. This is a broader issue. Metro must not reduce bus service in-city if we vote for monorail. Neighborhoods that are not getting monorail should get better bus service. A commitment from Metro on this will help the vote on monorail to pass.

The ETC is working on getting such a commitment. Bill Bryant of Metro says that, based on current policy, there would be no decrease in Seattle and North King County bus service. This does not go far enough, specifically for Seattle.

Tara Peattie can be reached at peattie@drizzle.com.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!