Conversation

At the PLUZ committee now, councilmembers Pacheco and O'Brien are having an intense back and forth over Pacheco's resolution in favor of an additional Montlake bridge for buses/biking/walking.
2
4
Mike O'Brien: "I'm adamantly opposed to this resolution", saying he agrees with public commenters who laid out the reasons that an additional bridge is not needed, including a need to improve the current bridge over building a new one.
1
2
CM Pacheco accuses O'Brien of not supporting the climate strikers on Friday by opposing this resolution, questioning his commitment to climate change and increased transportation options.
4
2
Mike O'Brien replies saying that he's offended that his commitment to the climate is being questioned, and presses Pacheco to back up the resolution with actual data saying that an additional bridge is needed, and notes that SDOT is not at the table to present any data.
2
6
An amendment submitted by the mayor's office to change language slightly fails along with the entire resolution for lack of a second by Mike O'Brien.
2
3
There was abundant evidence that a new bridge provide little improved conditions for buses, pedestrians, and bikes over doing nothing or that rechannelization of existing facilities couldn’t fix. But it would increase overall car volumes and carbon emissions.
1
The 2015 resolution states that “the City continues to support the position that improvements made by a second Montlake bascule bridge are unlikely to yield the benefits that justify the cost and environmental impact of a bridge.” Instead, it suggests a small bike/ped bridge.
Image
1
Specific improvements for transit, pedestrians, and bike are also laid out in the resolution, strongly suggesting that WSDOT should rechannelize Montlake Blvd as it is today to accommodate buses as well as bikes and pedestrians.
Image
Image
1
3