Cowen Park Historic Bridge 2

1 of 8

Funding Application

Competition Regional TAP Application Type Historic Resource Status submitted Submitted: September 20th, 2017 11:35 AM

Project Information

1. Project Title Cowen Park Historic Bridge 2. Transportation 2040 ID N/A 3. Sponsoring Agency Seattle 4. Cosponsors N/A 5. Does the sponsoring agency have "Certiﬁcation Acceptance" status from WSDOT? Yes 6. If not, which agency will serve as your CA sponsor? N/A

Contact Information

1. Contact name Jim Storment 2. Contact phone 206-684-5013 3. Contact email [email protected]

Project Description

1. Project Scope The City of Seattle will retrofit the historic Cowen Park Bridge to meet current seismic standards. Based on preliminary design work, these upgrades are expected to include jacketing columns, bolstering crossbeams, and adding transverse restrainers at expansion piers. 2. Project Justification, Need, or Purpose The Cowen Park Bridge is a concrete arch bridge, built in 1936 and identified in the 1980s as a historically significant structure. It is locally designated as a city landmark, and also nationally recognized as a significant historical asset by the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP). The bridge’s architectural style is an "open spandrel" arch bridge designed to be an integral part of its wooded environment. It features a single, expansive concrete arch spanning most of its 358-foot length, as well as artistically sculpted concrete pillars under the bridge deck. Art deco-style light standards, cast in iron and mounted on fluted concrete posts, line the top of the deck. The bridge is placed in a very attractive, forested setting, spanning a steep ravine within a public park. This setting greatly enhances its public visibility and attractiveness, both for enthusiasts of historic structures and for a wide variety of casual viewers. for enthusiasts of historic structures and for a wide variety of casual viewers. 2 of 8 Cowen Park Bridge is also one of the few historic bridges that still has a significant workload in modern times. The bridge supports 15th Ave NE, a minor arterial roadway carrying approximately 12,000 vehicles per day. 15th Ave NE is one of the primary connections between the locally-designated Roosevelt Urban Village and the regionally-designated University Community Regional Growth Center. The Cowen Park Bridge is 1 of 2 bridges across the Ravenna Park ravine. Its “twin bridge,” along 20th Avenue NE, was built in 1913 and is no longer open to vehicular traffic. Retrofitting the Cowen Park Bridge now is expected to preserve the structure for many decades. In its current condition, the bridge does not meet design standards for a “100-year earthquake” – the most severe quake that geologists would normally expect every 100 years. After seismic retrofit, the bridge would be rated to withstand not only a 100-year quake, but also a 1,000-year quake. The City of Seattle has a bridge inventory of approximately 150 bridges, many of them built in the early 1900s when the city itself was young. Structural engineers recognize that dozens of these bridges must be either replaced or closed within the next several decades. No revenue stream has been put in place to keep up with this backlog. The first bridges to be replaced or closed will be those that create a life safety hazard. When Cowen Park Bridge reaches this condition, due to its seismic vulnerability, it is not a realistic candidate for closure due to its significance in the transportation network. It would need to be replaced, regardless of its historical significance and its value to the community. Of course, if a seismic event occurs soon, the City could anticipate an immediate and necessary closure. However, with seismic retrofit, the only limitation on the life of the bridge would be its load- bearing capacity. Experience with similar structures indicate that the bridge could have an extensive lifespan still ahead. It could easily continue to add functional and historic value to the community for at least 40 to 60 more years.

Project Location

1. Project Location 15th Ave NE 2. Please identify the county(ies) in which the project is located. King 3. Crossroad/landmark nearest the beginning of the project Ravenna Blvd NE 4. Crossroad/landmark nearest the end of the project NE 65th St 5. Map and project graphics CowenBridge.pdf

Plan Consistency

1. Is the project specifically identified in a local comprehensive plan? No 2. If yes, please indicate the (1) plan name, (2) relevant section(s), and (3) page number where it can be found. N/A 3. If no, please describe how the project is consistent with the applicable local comprehensive plan, including specific local policies and provisions the project supports. Seattle's Comprehensive Plan identifies maintenance and preservation as a core responsibility of the City and a top priority for its Department of Transportation. Transportation assets that serve identified centers are prioritized as having special significance. The Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan begins with a preservation-related goal: Goal T 1.1 states that the City will "provide safe and reliable transportation facilities and services to promote and accommodate the growth this Plan anticipates in urban centers, urban villages, and manufacturing/industrial centers." The Comprehensive Plan later dedicates a full section to the topic of "Operating and Maintaining the Transportation System," with the following introduction: "Thoughtful operation and maintenance of the transportation system promotes safety, efficiency, infrastructure preservation, and a high-quality environment. Spending money on maintaining and preserving the system today can prevent spending more dollars on replacing parts of the system later. This is particularly true for the more expensive and vital transportation assets, such as This is particularly true for the more expensive and vital transportation assets, such as 3 of 8 pavement, sidewalks, parking pay stations, intelligent transportation system devices, traffic- signal infrastructure, and bridges." Within this dedicated section of the Comprehensive Plan, several goals and sub-goals speak directly to the importance of preserving and managing assets: - TG 8 Maintain and renew existing transportation assets to ensure the long-term viability of investments, reduce ongoing costs, and promote safe conditions. - T 8.1 Maintain the transportation system to keep it operating and to maximize its useful life. - T 8.4 Repair transportation facilities before replacement is necessary; replace failed facilities when replacement is more cost-effective than continuing to repair.

Federal Functional Classiﬁcation

1. Functional class name 16 Urban Minor Arterial

Support for Centers

1. Describe the relationship of the project to the center(s) it is intended to support. For example, is it located within a designated regional, countywide or local center, or is it located along a corridor connecting to one of these areas? The Cowen Park Bridge is located on the border of a locally designated growth center. Its northern footings are within the Roosevelt Urban Village, while the bridge span and southern footings are on the perimeter of the designated center. The bridge spans a ravine within a park, and the edge of the ravine is also the boundary of the urban growth center.

The roadway on the bridge deck - 15th Ave NE - passes through the Roosevelt Urban Village and provides direct access to a series of locally and regionally designated growth centers. It extends approximately 9 miles through north Seattle and Shoreline. In addition to the adjacent Roosevelt Center, other centers along the corridor include the University Community Regional Growth Center (0.7 miles south) and the Northgate Regional Growth Center (2.5 miles north). Each of these growing and thriving centers depends on 15th Ave NE to provide access to homes, jobs, and schools within the centers.

Roosevelt Urban Village: The Roosevelt Urban Village is one of Seattle’s historic residential neighborhoods, with a large stock of older craftsman-style homes – but the neighborhood is experiencing very rapid growth with the introduction of light rail. The neighborhood’s growth rate since 2015 has been over 20%, making it one of the City's fastest-growing urban villages. Only the South Lake Union Regional Growth Center, home of Amazon.com, has grown at a faster rate in recent years (over 29%).

University Community Regional Growth Center: The “U District” contains approximately 24,000 residents and 33,000 jobs, making it one of the largest and densest urban centers in the region. Jobs are focused within the University of Washington campus, with relatively affordable housing surrounding the campus. Transportation demand is very high in this center, with approximately 50,000 students from around the region attending classes at the UW campus (in addition to the usual trip generators, homes and jobs within the center). Football games and other special events on campus can draw over 70,000 visitors at punctuated periods. Traffic congestion and delays are consistently high in this center. Northgate Regional Growth Center: This growth center contains approximately 8,000 residents and 12,000 jobs, and it is anticipating rapid growth with the expansion of light rail. The center’s major attractions include the Northgate Mall and Northwest Hospital, one of the city’s few hospital complexes outside of central Seattle. Single-family residential neighborhoods surround the commercial core. It has historically been one of Seattle’s more affordable neighborhoods, and the jobs within the center are very heavily oriented toward retail and services (approximately 90% of all jobs). North Seattle College is just outside the center’s boundary. The combination of a local college, relatively lower wage jobs, and a stock of affordable housing make Northgate a primary area of emphasis for lower-income communities and other populations protected by the President’s Order for Environmental Justice. These same land uses – major colleges, shopping centers, and medical centers – also ensure that the center is a major draw for visitors from throughout the region. Like the UW center, congestion and traffic delays are consistently high throughout this center. 2. Describe how the project supports existing and/or planned population/employment activity in the center. Rapid growth is likely to continue within the Roosevelt local center as the Seattle City Council and the Roosevelt community consider upzoning. The roadway network will be increasingly strained by traffic demand and congestion. Estimated housing growth from 2015 to 2035 is expected to reach 800 units - a 50% increase to the existing housing supply. Job growth targets are not set for this center since it is identified as a residential center, but recent targets are not set for this center since it is identified as a residential center, but recent 4 of 8 history shows substantial job growth that mirrors the city as a whole: 28% from 1995 to 2015. The 2 RGCs along the corridor have similar growth targets: 3,500 housing units and 5,000 jobs in University Community, 3,000 housing units and 6,000 jobs in Northgate. These targets would lead to population growth of approximately 7,000 to 8,700 residents in University Community and 6,000 to 7,500 residents in Northgate. Preserving the Cowen Park Bridge, and other critical roadways in northeast Seattle, is necessary to keep up with rapid development within these 3 designated growth centers. 3. Describe how the project helps the center develop in a manner consistent with the adopted policies and plans for the center. The Roosevelt community and the U District recognize their dual needs to address growing transportation demands and to also preserve their history and community character. Their planning goals clearly demonstrate their efforts to balance these competing interests, and their goals for their neighborhood reflect the same priorities as the bridge preservation project. They seek to grow thoughtfully and graciously, proactively meeting their transportation demands while also preserving their historic assets and community character. Within the Roosevelt section of the Comprehensive Plan, a variety of Land Use and Transportation goals speak to these interests: - R-LUP2 Support the infill development of commercial-zoned properties that are vacant or underutilized. - R-LUP3 Promote the development of new multifamily dwellings, in properly zoned areas, that will buffer single-family areas from the commercial core, freeway, and commercial corridors. - R-TG1 Accommodate anticipated increases in transit, truck, and automobile traffic on arterials. - R-TG2 Balance the use of arterials for the movement of people and goods with parking needs. - R-TG3 Minimize cut-through traffic on non-arterial streets. - R-TG4 Respect the Olmsted legacy of Ravenna Boulevard as an element of the city’s transportation and open space systems. - R-TG5 Ensure that Roosevelt continues to be well integrated into the regional transportation infrastructure.

The Comprehensive Plan's goals for the University Community center echo these priorities, but they also go further to speciﬁcally identify the area's unique historic assets and their value: - UC-G6 A community that builds a unique physical identity on its historical and architectural resources, attractive streets, university campus, and special features. - UC-G7 An urban center that is home to the University of Washington, the region’s foremost educational institution, which is expanding to meet new challenges while enhancing the surrounding community. - UC-G12 A community where the historic resources, natural elements, and other elements that add to the community’s sense of history and unique character are conserved.

Criteria: Historic Resources Projects

1. Describe the current or former transportation use of the facility. The Cowen Park Bridge carries 15th Ave NE over a steep, wooded ravine. The roadway, a Minor Arterial, carries approximately 12,000 vehicles per day. It is also classified as a T-3 freight route, a critical corridor for the movement of goods as well as people. The ravine, home to Cowen Park and Ravenna Park, extends approximately three-quarters of a mile east and west - forming a large barrier between several regional and local centers. 15th Ave NE is the only north-south route for motorized traffic across the ravine. In addition to its daily traffic load, 15th Ave NE can act as an important alternate route for I-5 during periods of peak congestion on the freeway. I-5 runs approximately one-half mile west of 15th Ave NE. 2. Describe the historic significance of the facility. The Cowen Park Bridge has been a critical element in Seattle’s transportation network since its construction in 1936, and it was included in the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. The criteria for including a bridge in the NRHP mirrors the criteria for TAP funding: historically significant structures that also serve a valid transportation purpose. NHRP reviewers designated the bridge as a historic asset within their Transportation category, recognizing its historic significance within 3 distinct sub-categories: “Event,” “Architecture/Engineering,” and “Engineering-Transportation.” It is a rare site where a truly historic asset is also a highly-functioning element of a busy, modern transportation network. Cowen Park Bridge's historic status is not coincidental. When its designers initially saw the beautiful, natural setting, they intentionally created a structure that would complement its surroundings, become a visual asset to the community, and appear reminiscent of classic bridge designs. The NHRP report describes the design, and its deliberate intent, in this way: "Iron lamps provided by the Novelty Ornamental Iron and Wire Works rest on fluted concrete posts. The vertical Art Deco motifs accentuate the attenuated lines of the arch... In contrast to its predecessor, the organic arch form was an integral part of its wooded environment, to its predecessor, the organic arch form was an integral part of its wooded environment, 5 of 8 conforming to the shapes and patterns that surround it. The 358 foot structure consists of six concrete slab approach spans and a 160 foot two ribbed arch that rises to a height of 60 feet above its springing points. The arch ribs are braced by lateral reinforced concrete struts. Light, fluted vertical posts rest on the arches, and support a 42-foot wide concrete roadway and seven-foot wide sidewalks." 3. Describe the planned use of the facility and the project's relationship to the transportation system. Without a forced closure of Cowen Park Bridge, 15th Ave will continue to serve its existing transportation function: a busy arterial roadway connecting a series of regional and local centers throughout northeast Seattle. However, with a failure of the bridge in an earthquake (or a required closure due to seismic risk), the structure would need to be replaced. The bridge's historic value would be entirely lost. Its transportation function also could be lost for many years if an earthquake takes the bridge out of service. The canyon would likely remain impassible to motor vehicles while a replacement bridge could be designed, funded, and built. 4. Describe how the project is part of a larger historic preservation plan. Seattle is committed to a larger historic preservation plan for its bridges, evidenced by its own commitment of funds and resources. The Transportation Levy to Move Seattle, drafted by SDOT and approved by voters in 2015, dedicates approximately $69 million to bridge seismic retrofits throughout the city. The seismic retrofit program expects to improve approximately 16 bridges during the 9-year levy period, and the City has strategically prioritized bridges of historic value or significance. Approximately 4 of the 16 bridges have attained, or may be candidates for, historic preservation status. However, the budget of the seismic retrofit program is far from whole without grants and other external contributions. The program requires an estimated $37 million in funding partnerships to keep projects on schedule – largely grants from Washington State’s Bridge Replacement Advisory Board (BRAC), but also including grants from the TAP program and a variety of other sources. 5. Describe the level of public access to the project, including access for those groups identified in the President's Order for Environmental Justice, seniors, people with disabilities, those located in highly impacted communities and/or areas experiencing high levels of unemployment or chronic underemployment. Public access to the bridge, and the general public’s ability to appreciate the historic asset, is very high. Not only is the roadway used by approximately 12,000 vehicles per day, but the bridge’s distinctive arches and beams are highly visible from the park below. A network of popular walking and biking trails run through the park, and it also contains grassy play and picnic areas, a softball field, picnic tables and barbecue pits, and a children’s play area with swings and climbing bars. The adjacent neighborhoods contain a wide variety of communities, generally typical of the overall Puget Sound population. However, the 2 nearby Regional Growth Centers both serve unusually large minority and low-income populations as well as people with limited English proficiency. For example, in Northgate, 20% of the population is Asian and a total of 44% is non-white. The community is well on the way to becoming a “majority minority” community. In the University Community center, 27% is Asian and a total of 39% is non-white. 6. Discuss whether the resource is threatened, and if there will be a loss of opportunity if this project is not funded. Due to the unpredictability of Puget Sound earthquakes, and the very high risk associated with these quakes, the potential loss of opportunity is a significant element of this funding request. With each year of delay, the odds increase that this historic structure could be lost entirely. In addition to the complete loss of this historic asset, Seattle recognizes the risk that the roadway would become impassible for many years while a new bridge could be designed, funded, and eventually constructed at this site. In addition to these issues, the City recognizes that timely maintenance of its bridge structures is a critical consideration for the responsible stewardship of public money. Bridge rehabilitation projects, after years of deferral, cost exponentially more. Every time a tax dollar is invested in bridge maintenance at the optimal time, the same investment would cost approximately $3 to $7 later (as the structure begins reaching critical condition). This effort to spend tax dollars wisely, at the right time, is driven by the potential loss of future tax revenues and the associated opportunities to fund other high-priority investments. 7. Describe the long-term preservation and/or maintenance plans for the facility. Bridges in general are some of most meticulously maintained assets in our transportation system, due to the life safety issues associated with these structures. WSDOT is responsible for ensuring the safety and physical condition of all bridges in the state. Their routine inspections ensure that bridge maintenance concerns are consistently and promptly identified, prioritized, and addressed by the bridge's owner. WSDOT describes the rigor of their bridge inspection program: "The safety of bridge structures in Washington State is ensured through a meticulous inspection system, incorporating state and local agency inspection contributions. The condition of all bridge decks, superstructures and substructures are rated based on these inspections. There are roughly 7,000 bridges on the state, city and county road systems and most are inspected roughly 7,000 bridges on the state, city and county road systems and most are inspected 6 of 8 every two years." SDOT is also taking this commitment seriously. The City's current Capital Improvement Program provides $249 million for bridge-related projects over the next 6 years, including replacements, maintenance, seismic retrofit, and planning/engineering for future needs. 8. Maintenance plans N/A

PSRC Funding Request

1. Has this project received PSRC funds previously? No 2. If yes, please provide the project's PSRC TIP ID N/A

Phase Year Alternate Year Amount PE 2018 2019 $0.00 construction 2019 2020 $2,500,000.00

Total Request: $2,500,000.00

Total Estimated Project Cost and Schedule

Funding Source Secured/Unsecured Amount Local Secured $700,000.00 $700,000.00 Expected year of completion for this phase: 2018

Construction

Funding Source Secured/Unsecured Amount Local Secured $2,500,000.00 TAP(UL) Unsecured $2,500,000.00 $5,000,000.00 Expected year of completion for this phase: 2019

Summary

1. Estimated project completion date 2019 2. Total project cost $5,700,000.00

Funding Documentation

1. Documents SDOT_Bridge_Seismic_Budget.pdf 2. 2. Please describe the secure or reasonably expected funds identiﬁed in the supporting documentation. For funds that are reasonably expected, an explanation of procedural steps with milestone dates for completion which will be taken to secure the funds for the project or program should also be included. The City of Seattle will fund design with local funds from the Levy to Move Seattle. For the construction phase, the City is seeking $2,500,000 in TAP funding. Remaining construction costs would also be covered by the Levy to Move Seattle.

Project Readiness: PE 7 of 8

1. Are you requesting funds for ONLY a planning study or preliminary engineering? No 2. Is preliminary engineering complete? No 3. What was the date of completion (month and year)? N/A 4. Have preliminary plans been submitted to WSDOT for approval? No 5. Are there any other PE/Design milestones associated with the project? Please identify and provide dates of completion. You may also use this space to explain any dates above. N/A 6. When are preliminary plans expected to be complete and approved by WSDOT (month and year)? December 2018

Project Readiness: NEPA

1. What is the current or anticipated level of environmental documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for this project? Categorical Exclusion (CE) 2. Has the NEPA documentation been approved? No 3. Please provide the date of NEPA approval, or the anticipated date of completion (month and year). December 2018

Project Readiness: Right of Way

1. Will Right of Way be required for this project? No 2. How many parcels do you need? N/A 3. What is the zoning in the project area? N/A 4. Discuss the extent to which your schedule reﬂects the possibility of condemnation and the actions needed to pursue this. N/A 5. Does your agency have experience in conducting right of way acquisitions of similar size and complexity? N/A 6. If not, when do you expect a consultant to be selected, under contract, and ready to start (month and year)? N/A 7. In the box below, please identify all relevant right of way milestones, including the current status and estimated completion date of each. N/A

Project Readiness: Construction

1. Are funds being requested for construction? Yes 2. Do you have an engineer's estimate? No 3. Engineers estimate document N/A 4. Identify the environmental permits needed for the project and when they are 4. Identify the environmental permits needed for the project and when they are 8 of 8 scheduled to be acquired. The project does not require additional environmental permits aside from the standard NEPA review for projects receiving federal funds. 5. Are Plans, Speciﬁcations & Estimates (PS&E) approved? No 6. Please provide the date of approval, or the date when PS&E is scheduled to be submitted for approval (month and year). December 2018 7. When is the project scheduled to go to ad (month and year)? March 2019

Other Considerations

1. Describe any additional aspects of your project not requested in the evaluation criteria that could be relevant to the final project recommendation and decision- making process. In addition to the required seismic retrofits, the Cowen Park Bridge may be a candidate for other improvements such as rechannelization, drainage systems, increased load-bearing capacity, etc. These improvements have not been thoroughly assessed or scoped. The bridge sufficiency rating is low, and along with its seismic retrofit, Cowen Park Bridge will need other improvements within its projected lifespan. Depending on the timing of the seismic retrofit project, and the availability of additional local funds, the scope of work may be expanded to include these additional upgrades. 2. Describe the public review process for the project and actions taken to involve stakeholders in the project's development. Seismic upgrades to the Cowen Park Bridge, as well as the City's overall seismic retrofit program, were extensively vetted during the passage of the Levy to Move Seattle. This $930 million transportation levy, the largest in the city's history, received public comments and media attention far beyond a typical capital project or transportation investment. Throughout these public comments, one of the common themes was broad, bipartisan support for maintenance and preservation projects - especially preservation projects that directly impact public safety. 3. Final documents Cowen_Park_Photos.pdf N R

E V

V E A N 85TH ST N

D C N

R O A NE 85TH ST

O R A

F L V I E G S B E

N S A N I N N

L W N Y E

L A A E A Y R W Y W N 80TH ST N W IT A E NE 80T C Y H ST E

N N K E A E E L

T E

5 A T

N S

S T 1 E

G V

R 2 A E 52 NE 75TH ST E SR H

N T L Regional Map AK 0 E DR N 2

T ST NE 71S

E NE 70TH S E E T

E V

A N E

N D A

I N H

N N Y

A E

Y P T 2

A Green E

5 A L V

W 1

1 A Green Lake N N H

E T E E L H

8 T K RoE osevelt V

Urban Village 5 A

L 3

E NE 65TH ST H

N S Lake Urban Village T

E 0 E O 4

R O

G R

T N S

A E E

E N E R 5

2 N A V EN E N A V WB A B V

N NE O RA T VE

A N H ST NA T L 6 E E E N 5 B B N N V

NE 55TH ST

V E

N S

H H

T E T

Y 7 7

N E Y N N

T 1

L N N 50T I H D ST E

E NE 50T K H ST S Y

V A A

O R

A V W

E O

H E

N T

R T I N A N I

I B 1

1 E O

U I P

R D

N NE E 47TH ST N A L M S

N A N N 45TH ST E 45TH ST

K A

C NE 43 University H RD ST

H 7

T Community

Regional Growth E NE 41ST ST

Center D V

N 40TH ST NE 40 UPPER ST E MPUS WB PY K NE CA A NE 40TH ST L

R T B N Y O T I M S T R S E N V E I IC PA F N C I U IF C IC A S P T N

Miles Legend 0 Po0.1 rt0.a2 g0.3e 0.4 Project Location Regional Growth Center Bay Locally Designated Center ©2017, THE CITY OF SEATTLE. Manufacturing Industrial Center All rights reserved. Produced by the Seattle Department of Transportation. No warranties of any sort,including accuracy, fitness or merchantability, accompany this product.

PLOT DATE : 9/18/17 AUTHOR: SDOT GIS Cowen Park Historic Bridge V:/GIS/GIS Projects/Grants/2017 Cowen Park Historic Bridge

Original bridge structure as it would have appeared in the 1930s Grand, sweeping arches visible from below

Columns and architectural details to complement forested setting Designed to mimic classical Roman and early European designs

Art deco pillars along bridge deck Visual and historic appeal from all angles and approaches