520 Bridge Alt Kills UW rock - Comment due Oct 31

[ziggy]

The 520 bridge preferred alternative - with 6 lanes + a new Pacific St Interchange, would place a huge entrance ramp right over the UW climbing rock. It is highly likely they would have to remove the UW rock, and there is NO MENTION OF THE ROCKS EXISTANCE IN THE DEIS impact statement.

 

http://www.sr520deiscomments.com/

(they don't make it easy!)

 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/805...ive_options.pdf

 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520Bridge

 

Climbers need to comment requesting protection of the UW as a community asset and historic climbing structure at a minimum. The EIS must include the UW rock as worth saving.

 

Climbers should comment that the Pacific Street alternative is not acceptable (even if the rock is not totally destroyed). Ideally, the cheapest 4 lane alternative is the least impacting to the environment. And climbing under the ramps and fumes and noise is not my idea of the good ol' days at the rock....

 

A 6 lane alternative with NO PACIFIC ST INTERCHANGE would impact the UW arboretum less than the 6 lanes without the new UW interchange, as well as preserve the UW Rock.

 

your interest in the UW is already known to us- tell the WA state DOT what's up!

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/294794/Main/293574

[marylou]

I'll be interested to see if more people get riled up about this versus going to the NCNP scoping meeting tomorrow. The scoping meeting may not amount to much of a hill of beans, but with potential for development in the Park, it could potentially mean a hell of a lot more than whether a manmade concrete climbing rock is saved or a freeway is expanded.

 

No one seems to know much about what they are after in this scoping meeting, but the potential impact could be large if they are looking at developing the west shore of Ross Lake, for example.

[JayB]

Wow. I didn't realize that things were so far along.

 

Hey Ziggy:

 

I'm thinking that a posting a notice about this on the message board at REI, FF, and the local climbing gyms would be a great way to get the word out. I'd do it but I'm 3,000 miles away at the moment. Even though the UW rock might theoretically be "competition" for the gyms, I can't imagine that they'd really object, and if they do you can mention the fact that quite a few folks that start out by clambering around on the rock in tennis shoes turn into dues-paying gym members.

 

Gary - has the UW climbing club taken a position one way or another on this one? If I recall the history of the rock correctly, a major part of the impetus for building the rock came when UW students/faculty died in a climbing accident, and people made the argument that building a convenient training ground would help save lives. The argument may be a stretch, but it should be pretty easy to make a case for the historic significance of the rock to UW and at the very least get climbers who work or study at UW involved in some fashion.

[counterfeitfake]

I don't know exactly where the rock is on those maps, in relation to the "UW Open Space". Can someone point it out in this pdf?

[counterfeitfake]

I looked it up on google maps, you can see it pretty plainly due south of the southeast corner of Husky Stadium.

 

Looking at this map it's not perfectly clear whether the rock will be in the way. Does anyone know the facts here?

 

If the rock IS in the way, I'd urge anyone to consider the whole proposal before knee-jerking your protest. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made to improve things for the majority. Look at the traffic improvements, look at the park space that will be allocated as part of the plan, don't go off half-cocked. Blind NIMBYism is what keeps anything from ever getting done in the Seattle area.

[Adventurewagen]

It doesn't matter if the UW Rock is in the way or not. Look at the freaking picture!!! It is obvious that the UW Rock will be negatively impacted if the ramp is put in. As Ziggy mentioned how fun will it be to sit at the UW Rock under or next to an overpass listening to the traffic, breathing the fumes. Ahh yeah so much fun.

 

I logged in and made my comment to WSDOT. Have you???

[tradclimbguy]

Adventurewagen is right. I began my climbing career right there on that rock. Many of us have. Its a historic monument, the first in the nation!

 

Don't let the WSDOT push through another useless plan. Does I-5 or I-90 get any less conjested just because it has more lane? The WSDOT at a minimum needs to include more UW provisions and information in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this issue. What they truly need is a better plan to solve the problem instead of making another stop gap solution. 6 lanes will just mean you'll be sitting next to 5 cars in stop and go traffic each day. We need a real solution like mass transit instead of more lanes.

[AaronB]

According to what I read on the statement. The ramp is necessary as their will be a bike lane on the new bridge that gets off right there. 1,700 estimated cyclist will use that route everday! That number seems to be a pretty significant.

[counterfeitfake]

You logged in and commented already! That's amazing! I'm still reading the proposal. You must be one of them speed readers.

[gapertimmy]

is wsdot going to put in a number of non-used ramps to nowhere like the ones in the arb right now? where is the old post of the person's house underneath the ramp complete with climbing holds up to the front door?

[tradclimbguy]

Instead of arguing over this estimated number or pointing out the RAMP IS NOT NECESSARY, why don't you log into WSDOT and voice you're concern over the off ramp and the 6-Lane alternative anyway. Did you look at the 4-Lane alternative? It too has a bike lane, so those "1700" bikers can use that option as well.

 

The difference being the 4-Lane would have less impact on the environment, wouldn't hurt the UW and the UW ROCK WOULDN'T BE DESTROYED.

 

Just think, if instead of slapping in more lanes so all the SUV's had more lanes to sit in at 5mph each day, they put in a light rail going from near the UW into Bellevue. Its not an option but it should be. Not only would the 1700 bikers benefit from something like that but probably many more people could benefit. You can only fit so many cars on the freeway and Seattle is only going to continue to grow. We need to tell the WSDOT that more lanes is not an option. We need more bike lanes and other mass transit options and its up to us to tell them that.

 

Just think if we had something like the BART going from Bellevue to Down town. More people could live in Bellevue and commute easily to the UW or Seattle. Instead if you don't drive you take a long bus ride, but where, right inline with all the other people stuck in rush hour traffic. Gee, what would I want to do. Sit on the bus for 45 minutes or drive my own car and get there in 25? Why do you think its so conjested. We need other options and destroying the UW Rock and cutting down the trees and slamming in another off ramp and more lanes isn't the solution.

[JayB]

I'm less attached to the location than I am to the rock itself, so a compromise solution that would provide for moving the rock to a new location nearby would be fine with me. On a project of this size and scale, the cost associated with dismantling the structure and moving it somewhere else would be pretty trivial. Even if they could only save the poured slabs, and subsequently re-arranged them in something close to the original layout that would be infinitely better than losing the structure entirely.

[jon]

People need to focus their arguement on getting the rock moved and not to trying to keep them from building the offramp... because they will build it and they don't care about the rock.

[counterfeitfake]

Again, I would encourage anyone who THINKS they have an opinion on this to actually READ the proposal. To me it looks well thought-out. They are trying hard to reduce noise levels in surrounding neighborhoods, and have minimal or positive impacts on the surrounding parks. If you have read it and come to an educated stance on the topic, I may disagree with you but I would respect that you know what you're talking about.

 

I see NO EVIDENCE that the UW ROCK WOULD BE DESTROYED OMG (gotta love caps). The Pacific Interchange would require the acquisition of 0.1 acre from the UW Open Space and 0.18 acre from the Waterfront Activity Center. It is also explicitly states that no structures will be torn down in this area and that the canoe house will still be standing, although underneath a ramp which could definitely be seen as a negative impact.

[Raindawg]

Its a historic monument, the first in the nation!

 

First what? First artificial outdoor climbing rock?

Schurman Rock in West Seattle got it beat by several decades.

 

First fake rock utilizing poured concrete slabs with embedded stones? Maybe.

 

Fake Climbing Rocks in Puget Sound

[JayB]

Again, I would encourage anyone who THINKS they have an opinion on this to actually READ the proposal. To me it looks well thought-out. They are trying hard to reduce noise levels in surrounding neighborhoods, and have minimal or positive impacts on the surrounding parks. If you have read it and come to an educated stance on the topic, I may disagree with you but I would respect that you know what you're talking about.

 

I see NO EVIDENCE that the UW ROCK WOULD BE DESTROYED OMG (gotta love caps). The Pacific Interchange would require the acquisition of 0.1 acre from the UW Open Space and 0.18 acre from the Waterfront Activity Center. It is also explicitly states that no structures will be torn down in this area and that the canoe house will still be standing, although underneath a ramp which could definitely be seen as a negative impact.

 

I think that you and Jon are both right. I think they'll pay more attention to what we have to say if it's clear that we actually know what we are talking about, and if it's does look like the ramps would hose the rock, the best course of action would be to persuade them to move the structure, rather than trying to get them to radically alter a project of this size, scale, and importance that they've already sunk quite a bit of time and money into planning. I'm in the middle of what's going to be a long and busy day. Maybe someone with a day-off or otherwise endowed with some free time could try to get a definitive answer to the first question and we can take it from there.

Edited October 26, 2006 by JayB

[tradclimbguy]

Jon - I agree getting the rock moved is a good plan of action, but should be an alternative. Its also why me and others have commented to the WSDOT that the UW Rock needs to be included in the EIS whether a road gets built on top of it or not. It still doesn't mean you can't voice your opinion on the Pacific St Interchange and say you don't like the idea.

 

counterfeitfake - YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF YOU DON'T THINK THE OFF RAMP WOULDN'T IMPACT THE ROCK. (Is that enough CAPS for ya?) Read the full EIS, there is no mention of the UW Rock Structure, but there should be. If you don't use the UW Rock or don't give a shit then go waste your time in the spray forums or at the gyms or on your hang board. I for one enjoy the rock and would hate to see it dissapear, which is why I'm posting. I hope more people get involved, you are acting as a TROLL and doing nothing but be counter productive. Why not try to help out the climbing community? Or would that take MORE CAPS.

 

Raindawg - I should have said one of the first, but does it matter if its the first or not? Why not make a difference and read about the project and voice an opinion instead of arguing over it. This thread is mean to do good for the climbing community. Just think if next up somebody decides to rebuild the train tracks by "Exit 39" and they decide the cliffs should be cut back another 100 ft? Wouldn't you want some help and support for your cause? Thats all Ziggy is asking.

 

I also agree that if they want to do the 6-Lane they will, its the American way. Bigger is better, more SUV's, More lanes, more traffic. More more more. I wouldn't be suprised if the 8-lane option was tossed in.

[mountainmatt]

I agree with tradclimbguy, we really need to look into alternative designs. But all honesty, do you really think that we can move it?

 

Expecting to see the 10-lane option soon.

[tvashtarkatena]

I read the particulars and commented. Didn't take that long. The six lane alternative would be visually hideous...18 foot high concrete sound walls. Lynnwood, anyone?

[tradclimbguy]

Again, I would encourage anyone who THINKS they have an opinion on this to actually READ the proposal. To me it looks well thought-out. They are trying hard to reduce noise levels in surrounding neighborhoods, and have minimal or positive impacts on the surrounding parks. If you have read it and come to an educated stance on the topic, I may disagree with you but I would respect that you know what you're talking about.

 

I see NO EVIDENCE that the UW ROCK WOULD BE DESTROYED OMG (gotta love caps). The Pacific Interchange would require the acquisition of 0.1 acre from the UW Open Space and 0.18 acre from the Waterfront Activity Center. It is also explicitly states that no structures will be torn down in this area and that the canoe house will still be standing, although underneath a ramp which could definitely be seen as a negative impact.

 

I think that you and Jon are both right. I think they'll pay more attention to what we have to say if it's clear that we actually know what we are talking about, and if it's does look like the ramps would hose the rock, the best course of action would be to persuade them to move the structure, rather than trying to get them to radically alter a project of this size, scale, and importance that they've already sunk quite a bit of time and money into planning. I'm in the middle of what's going to be a long and busy day. Maybe someone with a day-off or otherwise endowed with some free time could try to get a definitive answer to the first question and we can take it from there.

 

Yes, read it. Thats what I'm trying to say. Links are posted.

 

Note there are multiple Alternatives to the plan. We don't need to know whether or not the 6-Lane in fact will dozer the rock to voice an opinion and most likely won't before the comment session ends Oct 31. My personal vote would be for the 4-lane option which has the least environmental impact and won't affect the Rock since no off ramp will be built.

 

When building something like this special consideration must be taken regarding local environmental as well as business impact. The 6 lane alternative will result in some pretty severe impact to the UW and Arboretum areas during and after the construction. It looks as if some pretty significat areas within the university of washington area will be displaced or destroyed as a result of this alternative (whether the UW Rock is in it or not).

 

The 4-lane will still have considerable impact on the environment and outlying areas but is shown to do less harm.

 

I feel the option that impacts local businesses, residents, and the environment the least should be used in conjunction with programs that will help get drivers off the road using either mass transit or carpooling alternatives for the morning and afternoon commutes. The 6-Lane option does not promote this.

 

Promoting an increase in the amount of people on freeways and local roads will only result in increased traffic, increased collisions, and increased frustration on part of the local and greater seattle community.

 

Read a bit further and they state in the document that it will lead to more traffic on local roads because of the increased capacity at the interchange. The interchange itself will move faster, but local roads will probably move a little slower which isn't god for the locals who live on those streets.

[counterfeitfake]

tradclimbguy, I am not trolling, I'm fighting against what I see as a short-sighted knee-jerk response. The climbing community is part of the larger community. I do use the UW rock and would like to do so in the future. I also travel to and from Seattle frequently and would like it if this became easier.

 

There are two arguments happening here, one about the UW rock and one about the wisdom of this bridge/highway construction plan overall. From what you said a bit ago I thought you wanted to discuss both of them. Honestly, the more I read the proposal the more I'm convinced you haven't.

 

To the first point, the future of the UW rock:

 

If you look at chapter 3, page 25 of the proposal you can see VERY CLEARLY the UW rock in the map. It is well clear of the new interchange and there's a sound wall between the traffic and the rock.

 

I just don't think there's an issue here.

 

 

 

To the second point, the project as a whole:

- The existing bridge is old and could fail due to a storm.

- The 6-lane alternative consists of 2 general-purpose lanes in both directions (what we have now) and an HOV lane for carpools and transit.

- Both 4- and 6- lane alternatives include extensive pedestrian and bicycle paths, which don't exist currently.

- Both 4- and 6- lane bridges are designed for the addition of high-capacity transit in the future (I think this is very important, because I don't believe we're ready to build high-capacity transit here yet, but we will be in the future).

- The 6-lane alternative includes multiple "lids" over the freeway which will "reconnect communities separated when SR520 was built" and "provide new landscaped open spaces".

- Both the 4- and 6- lane alternatives include sound walls along most or all of their length.

- To me, personally, it sounds like a good idea. That is the opinion I have come to after trying to educate myself. I will still gladly listen to other's arguments.

 

 

Finally, thanks for the unwarranted name-calling, you seem very reasonable now and I hope lots of people listen to you.

[tvashtarkatena]

When I lived Portland, the DOT was planning to close half of the lanes on the Columbia River Bridge, which is a notorious traffic bottleneck. Everyone was freaking out.

 

When the dreaded time came, you could zip across the one remaining open lane at 65 mpg during rush hour. Everyone had found an alternative.

 

Increasing lanes increases traffic and pushes it somewhere else. It also assumes that single occupancy traffic will continue to increase, despite alternative transportation, increasing gas prices, and an increased awareness of greenhouse gas emissions. It also removes the primary incentive to take cars off the road: long commute times.

Personally, I don't buy it. Practically, I think the public will go for the four lane plan, but in any case we should argue strongly against the six lane alternative; a monstrosity by any measure.

[Adventurewagen]

Very passionate response TradClimbGuy, you must really love the rock. I do to. Many good points on this topic. Positive ones are what we need.

 

I do agree with Jon and JayB though that it seems as if the WSDOT is leaning toward the 6-Lane option and if they want to build the off ramp they will so we should see about moving it if we can as an option. Because if we dont at that point when they put in the off ramp the rock won't even be a blip on their radar, heck they'd probably level it to make temporary parking for the dozers while they did the off ramp whether it was in the way or not. We need to tell the WSDOT that we value the community, the environment and the UW (which I view as something for the community).

 

Negative comments don't help. Opinions are good but if its too hard to simply help the climbing community out maybe you are on the wrong forum.

 

MountainMatt hit the nail on the head with "Expecting to see the 10-lane option soon." If we don't tell them what we think of this stuff now, 10, 12, 20 lane projects will work their way into our city in the future.

 

I get just a really bad image of this whole thing like tvashtarkatena said. Lynwood Yuck.

 

Taking no action isn't a solution either. We just need to try to help nudge the WSDOT into making the better decisions and looking into even more alternatives.

[counterfeitfake]

I wrote a lot and maybe nobody wants to read paragraphs of my yapping, so just in case:

 

If you look at chapter 3, page 25 of the proposal you can see VERY CLEARLY the UW rock in the map. It is well clear of the new interchange and there's a sound wall between the traffic and the rock.

[tradclimbguy]

counterfeitfake - Sorry for the name calling, I'm just a bit worked up and frustrated by this. I am glad however that it looks like you've really put some thought and done some reading on this. I think this is why Ziggy posted this, we need more people to take a part with our community.

 

I also agree there are two issues, one may or may not affect the UW Rock, however you look at it, the other is the overall construction plan and its options.

 

I disagree with you that there isn't a problem with the plan having a negative impact on the Rock. I never stated the plan will destroy the rock but even you found the section showing the huge sound wall by it. I guess I see having a big onramp and sound wall in place next to the rock as being negative and a problem, you don't, thats cool we have our own opinions.

 

I do also worry though that the EIS doesn't specifically mention the UW Rock. It talks about building structures not being affected but I guess I just don't trust the WSDOT enough. What if they consider the UW Rock as nothing more than a curb??? I'm just saying, whether you like the 6-Lane plan or not that we shouldn't assume they'll leave the rock unharmed. Wouldn't it be nice to have a know what the plan for it is in writing? Heck, maybe they'd even move it back further from the off ramp into the "UW Open Space" section listed on the alternative and add some trees by it.

 

As for the main issue, the plan itself. I prefer the 4-lane not just for the possible UW Rock impact but it appears from the plan to have less impact on the surrounding community. I worry that increasing traffic flow on the local streets will degrade those communities and the 4-lane give the same good benefits of HOV and bike lanes but will possibly affect the local streets less as it tries to increas traffic flow more on the highway and not by diverting more traffic through local streets to get there. Whether any of it works or not is another question. I think if we were more progressive we could get mass transit into place, but look at how its gone so far. The super "monorail" idea hasn't left anything but a bad taste in everyones mouth especially since we are paying off a debt from them doing what amounted to nothing!

 

Please, read the issue. Make your voice heard. We are but one micro-community that should be heard. With each additional concern we voice (ie. The UW rock) the better.