Mercer Fix: The Issues

City Councilmember Nick Licata presented his case against the Mercer Fix at last night's Cascade Neighborhood Council meeting to mixed reactions: some supportive, some befuddled.

To be fair, Licata is not against fixing the Mercer Mess entirely—he's against the two-way Mercer as proposed and doing it at other project's expense. Unfortunately, this would likely mean nothing would be done (think Viaduct, 520, etc.).

Let's move on to the issues. But first, let me preface the rundown by explaining that most of Licata's arguments revert to an alternative plan formulated in 1999. Said plan would leave Mercer as is and instead widen Valley, with a possible pedestrian bridge across Valley Street for access to Lake Union Park. For the sake of brevity, we'll refer to this as the '99 plan.

Traffic

Let's start off with traffic. After all, it's certainly at the front of the mind for residents of Queen Anne, Magnolia and Fremont. Fair enough, it is a transportation project.

The two key routes are westbound (I-5 to Seattle Center) and eastbound (Seattle Center to I-5).

At the morning's peak traffic hour, travel times both ways would either stay the same or improve by up to 4 minutes (westbound) versus doing nothing.

At the evening's peak traffic hour, travel times get worse. Depending on whether two-way Mercer ends up being seven lanes or six lanes there's a big swing. Seven lanes gets up to 3 minutes longer (eastbound) than Mercer as is. Six lanes, however, would be up to 11 minutes longer going east.

This is Licata's main argument. The Mercer Fix Nickels et al are proposing has six lanes, but seven lanes could be achieved by lopping off a row of parking (which has some impact on pedestrians since they are that much closer to the traffic).

Cost and Funding

The Mercer Fix costs $200M and has a large ($170M) funding gap. According to Licata, his '99 plan would cost just $47M (80% less).

There's one problem here in Licata's argument. A large portion of the cost of either project is going to be in acquiring the land the widening thoroughfares would encroach upon. The city once owned the land necessary to move forward with the '99 plan. When the plan fell through, they sold it to Allen for $20M. The value of that land now, thanks to Lake Union Park and South Lake Union redevelopment in general, is upward of $60M. Licata's plan suddenly becomes more expensive.

As for the funding gap, Nickels is proposing to use internal funds from the Bridging the Gap levy, a fund for transportation maintenance and improvements, as well as the employee head tax and commercial parking tax. In addition, the project would use proceeds from utilities, any state or federal money, and 'other' (see section on economic development for likely source)

The real key to the funding plan is a windfall the city has seen in the commercial parking tax. That money can either go toward this project, or, as Licata would have it, shotgun sprayed across the city.

Viaduct Synergies

Nickels says its critical Mercer goes both ways to alleviate traffic during the Viaduct's destruction and rebuild whatever form that may take. Licata says his guys tell him it would make no difference. Not sure who to believe on this one.

Reconnecting the Grid

Along with the proposed Mercer Fix, we'd be connected to our friends in Lower Queen Anne / Uptown. Under Licata's '99 plan, Aurora would continue to keep us apart :(

There are some misconceptions that reconnecting the two long lost neighborhoods would require a lowered Aurora which would cost another $200M. This is not the case. The plan is moving forward under a surface-level intersection option on some of the smaller east-west arterials. This would require anywhere from 8 to 18 lights on Aurora, which has the truckers up in arms.

Economic Development

Licata admitted the two-way Mercer along with the more narrow Valley would yield more economic benefits to the area than any other alternative. The area that would benefit most is the three-block area between Valley and Mercer, and Fairview and Westlake.

The obvious question & answer followed—Q: Who owns that property? A: Paul Allen.

What's currently on those three blocks? A couple marine stores, a couple gas stations, a junkyard and some dilapidated office buildings. Sounds like it's in need of economic development. What's the difference if Allen makes some more coin.

Pedestrian -Safety and -Friendliness

Licata says crossing the two-way, six lane Mercer would make for some 'critical crossings'. Nevermind the design proposal clearly demarcating crosswalks by paving them in brick, or that there will be a tree-lined island.

Measuring pedestrian impact based on the number of lanes someone walking to Lake Union Park would have to cross going north, Licata says the Mercer Fix and the '99 plan is a wash.

The hole in this argument is that Mercer stays as is, and Valley becomes even wider. This seems much more vehicle-friendly than pedestrian-friendly.

The '99 plan had a pedestrian bridge over a widened Valley Street to Lake Union Park. A pedestrian bridge doesn't really inspire a walkable neighborhood type of feel. I've never heard of people funneling through a bridge over a bunch of speeding cars to get to their favorite sidewalk cafe.

In contrast, the Mercer Fix would narrow Valley Street and add wide sidewalks to Valley and Mercer.

Other things the Mercer Fix has going for it in this area are the proposed bike lanes running both ways on Mercer and Valley. Connecting the grid (see section above) also benefits pedestrians/cyclists tremendously, even Licata admitted this was so.

The End! Almost.

The Mercer Fix already passed through the City Council 8-1 (guess who the dissenter was) with a yellow light. Nickels wants to breakground in Q2 2009. Once construction starts, the debate virtually ends. Up until that point, Licata is hellbent on stopping the project. In the next few weeks he will join efforts with the commuter community groups to present to the city their proposed use of the funds in other parts of the city.

I'll leave you with a thought Licata passed on to those attending the CNC meeting:

When talking to the consultant the city hired to design the Mercer Fix, the consultant told Licata the purpose of the design was to let people know they've entered the city once they get off I-5 – that South Lake Union is more than just peripheral scenery flashing by on their way to and from work.

That is the key distinction between Licata's '99 plan and the proposed two-way Mercer. One is a concession to the single occupant commuter, the other is a benefit to the city.