Summary of Documents in Packet

This packet of information on walking and biking issues on the Seattle side of the SR 520 corridor contains three folders. The first folder, named The Problem and the Vision, is a collection of summaries and analyses of the current design from a Seattle Neighborhood Greenways and Cascade Bicycle Club perspective. The second folder, named Overwhelming Support for Improvements, holds a number of the community letters of support for improved pedestrian and bicycle connections in the design. The third folder, named Supporting Documents, provides additional useful documents that are referenced by many different parties.

Folder Name: The Problem and the Vision

File Name: A) One Page Summary http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/1A-summary.pdf Contents: Summarizes Seattle Neighborhood Greenways primary asks of City Council and WSDOT and includes a conceptual flow map on the second page. Reason for Inclusion: Quickly summarizes the problems with and potential solutions to WSDOTs current proposal. File Name: B) Montlake Hub's Missing Connections http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/1B-missing-connections.pdf Contents: A general map demonstrating existing and proposed high quality pedestrian and bicycle improvements in WSDOTs plan. Reason for Inclusion: Easy to understand map that visually demonstrates the gaps in the current proposal. File Name: C) Toward a Connected Montlake Lid http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/1C-montlake-lid.pdf Contents: Using drawings from WSDOTs 2012 Community Design Process, this document highlights failures and opportunities to make critical walking and biking connections on the Montlake Lid with neighborhoods, parks, light rail and the UW. Reason for Inclusion: Easy to understand visuals that highlight the problems with the current proposal and some potential solutions. File Name: D) Specific Areas of Concern http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/1D-community-needs.pdf Contents: A detailed list of the current problems Seattle Neighborhood Greenways sees with the 520 design.

Reason for Inclusion: Requested by a Councilmember, the document discusses specific concerns with the current design.

File Name: E) Wendy the Willing-but-Wary Cyclist http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/1E-willing-but-wary.pdf Contents: Describes the concept of the willing but wary cyclist persona. Reason for Inclusion: Underlines the importance of creating walking and bicycling infrastructure that work for everyone, not just the most adventurous of us. File Name: F) Cascade Bicycle Club Comments http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/1F-cascade-520-comments.pdf Contents: Cascade Bicycle Clubs comments to WSDOT on how to improve the 520 design. Reason for Inclusion: Provides suggestions on how to make it safe and convenient for everyone, from an 8-year old child to his 80-year old grandmother, to ride to and through the project area.

Folder Name: Overwhelming Support for Improvements

File Name: A) Montlake Community Club Statement http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2A-montlake-community-club-statement.pdf Contents: A statement from the Montlake Community Club on the need to continue to improve the design to ensure that everyone is able to get around Montlake. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates the Montlake Community Clubs desire for improving the 520 design for people who walk and bike. File Name: A2) October Montlake Community Club Minutes http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2A2-montlake-community-club-minutes.pdf Contents: These are the minutes from the September 19 Community Club Meeting. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates that the Montlake Community Club supports a bicycle trail on the Portage Bay Bridge. File Name: B) Capitol Hill Community Council Resolution http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2B-capitol-hill-community-council-resolution.pdf Contents: Resolution passed by the CHCC 27-0 on October 25. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates the CHCC supports a process to improve the 520 walking and biking connections and a trail on the Portage Bay Bridge. File Name: C) Montlake Small Business letter http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2C-montlake-small-business-letter.pdf Contents: A letter from Montlake small business owners concerning the current 520 design. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates small business owners in Montlake need a better 520 design to thrive economically.

File Name: D) Madison Park Community Council letter http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2D-madison-park-community-council-letter.pdf Contents: This document includes the Madison Park Community Councils comments to WSDOT. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates that our concepts have support from the Madison Park Community Council. File Name: E) Laurelhurst Community Club letter http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2E-laurelhusrt-community-club-letter.pdf Contents: Letter from the Laurelhurst Community Club from November 7. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates that communities in NE Seattle see the need for improved walking and biking connections through the 520 project area. File Name: F) August 2012 letter from 350 community members to WSDOT http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2F-community-to-WSDOT.pdf Contents: Letter to WSDOT concerning their proposal circa August 2012 (the issues have since evolved). Signatures and comments from around 350 community members (quickly collected via a few community blog posts). Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates genuine grassroots community support for family-friendly pedestrian and bicycle connections. File Name: G) Sustainable Capitol Hill letter http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2G-sustainable-capitol-hill-letter.pdf Contents: Letter from local sustainability group about 520. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates grassroots community environmental groups see the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. File Name: H) Seattle Design Commission 520 Recommendations http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2H-SDC-520-recommendations.pdf Contents: This September 20 letter describes the Design Commissions recommendations to the City of Seattle for the project. Reason for Inclusion: The commission recommends the City and WSDOT work to improve the quality and safety of the experience for all modes of travel including a Shared-Use Path on Portage Bay Bridge. It calls for further work to be done on the design. File Name: H2) Seattle Design Commission Memorandum http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2H2-SDC-520-memorandum.pdf Contents: A memo from the SDC from September 2012. Reason for Inclusion: In this memo the SDC calls for interdepartmental collaboration and leadership to improve the 520 design. File Name: I) SBAB SR520 Replacement Project Recommendations http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2I-SBAB-replacement-project-recommendations.pdf Contents: This document is the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Boards September 13 letter to WSDOT about important bicycle connections in the project.

Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates the importance of getting this project right for the City. The letter is very supportive of the proposed Portage Bay Bridge Trail.

File Name: J) Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board letter http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/2J-SPAB-letter.pdf Contents: A September letter from SPAB on 520. Reason for Inclusion: Describes how further improvements are needed to remove barriers to interconnecting project-area neighborhoods and requests the construction of a Portage Bay Bridge Trail.

Folder Name: Supporting Documents

File Name: A) SR520HealthImpactAssessment http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/3A-health-impact-assessment.pdf Contents: This WSDOT commissioned study looks at ways to improve health outcomes for the community. Interconnected walking and bicycling infrastructure is a key theme in the report. One of the key recommendations is to install connected walking and bicycling facilities throughout the corridor (pdf page 14, document page 24). Reason for Inclusion: This document demonstrates that creating connected walking and bicycling facilities in the 520 project is key to healthy communities. File Name: B) PSRC's Regional Bicycle Network http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/3B-PSRC-regional-bicycle-network.pdf Contents: A map that displays the priority network locations and a mile buffer where these facilities could be located. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates that the Montlake Hub and the Portage Bay Bridge Trail are of regional significance. File Name: C) Bicycle Counts Map BMP 2012 http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/3C-bicycle-counts-map-BMP-2012.pdf Contents: Draft map from the new SDOT Bicycle Master Plan showing the bicycle counts across the city. Reason for Inclusion: Displays that SDOT has found that the Montlake hub area is one of the heaviest used bicycle corridors in the city. File Name: D) Bicycle Gaps Map BMP 2012 http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/3D-bicycle-gaps-map-BMP-2012.pdf Contents: Draft map from the new SDOT Bicycle Master Plan showing key gaps in the current system. Reason for Inclusion: Displays that SDOT considers the Portage Bay Bridge and Montlake hub as a network gap. File Name: E) Bike Master Plan http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/3E-seattle-bike-master-plan-2007.pdf

Contents: This is the active (2007) Bicycle Master Plan. The Montlake area and the 520s Portage Bay Bridge are mentioned numerous times in the report as key areas. Reason for Inclusion: Demonstrates that the City of Seattle has recognized the importance of these connections and considers them to be in need of improvement and of high potential use. Of particular note are the Recommended Bicycle Facility Network (pdf page 34, document page 17) and the Conceptual Map of Major Bicycle Destinations and Key Bicycle Corridors (pdf page 31, document page 14).

File Name: F) ExecutiveSummary WSDOT9/14 http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/3F-exec-summary-WSDOT9-14.pdf Contents: This is the executive summary of WSDOTs September 14 report. Reason for Inclusion: Context. File Name: G) NonMotorizedandTransit WSDOT9/14 http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/3G-nonmotorized-and-transit-WSDOT9-14.pdf Contents: This is the nonmotorized section of WSDOTs September 14 report. Reason for Inclusion: Context. File Name: H) NelsonNygaardMontlakeBridgeReport http://cascade.org/advocacy/520/3H-nelson-nygaard-montlake-bridge-report.pdf Contents: Report on whether or not a second bascule bridge is needed over Montlake. Reason for Inclusion: Requested. Also highlights that the N/S corridor to the UW through the Montlake Bridge area will soon be failing on all sides and directions (Table 3-4 section 3-14).