US 2 Trestle PEL Study Alternatives Evaluation

English |  한국어 |  Русский |  Español |  Tagalog |  Tiếng Việt

Welcome

Traffic and back-ups have increased on and near the US 2 trestle as more people move to east Snohomish County and Everett grows as an employment center. We see the worst back-ups westbound in the morning and eastbound in the afternoon. There are no carpool or transit lanes to help. On top of that, the existing westbound and eastbound trestle structures are aging and need to be replaced. Some big problems.

A graphic showing the projected difference in employment and population between 2018 and 2050.

In 2022, the Washington State Legislature authorized funding for the US 2 Trestle Capacity Improvements and Westbound Trestle Replacement study. They directed WSDOT to study how to improve multimodal mobility across the trestle. Multimodal mobility means the movement of people who drive cars and freight trucks, take buses, bike and walk. The study must also look at how the trestle connects to the wider regional highway network, including I-5 and the future Everett light rail station. Finally, the study must consider tolling as a potential option for future funding.

In partnership with the Federal Highway Administration, WSDOT is completing a federal Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study. A PEL study requires the following steps:

• Develop a Purpose & Need
• Evaluate and screen alternatives (we are here)
• Identify high-level environmental impacts and potential mitigation

This online open house focuses on the evaluation and elimination, or screening, of alternatives. Alternatives are packages of potential improvements to the US 2 trestle and the trestle connections on the west end (to I-5 and Everett) and on the east end (to SR 204, US 2 and Lake Stevens).

This PEL Study will identify a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in more detail under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 168.

How to participate

The goals of this online open house are to:

• Update the community on the evaluation of US 2 trestle system alternatives.
• Provide an opportunity for you to share your thoughts on the alternatives and the evaluation process so far.

Review the information below. Then share your thoughts through July 7.

Study area

The US 2 trestle in Snohomish County is the only direct route across the Snohomish River between eastern Snohomish County and the I-5 corridor and Everett. What we call the US 2 trestle is a series of bridges and structures that connect communities across the Snohomish River and Ebey Island, traveling east and west. On the east side, you'll find Lake Stevens and Snohomish, with connections to State Route (SR) 9 and SR 204 and local roads. On the west side, you'll find Everett and Marysville, with connections to I-5 and local roads.

A map of the US 2 Trestle Capacity Improvements and Westbound Trestle Replacement study area.

Now let's zoom in on the trestle system of structures and roadways across the Snohomish River and Ebey Island:

• Westbound trestle – consists of three bridge structures, with two travel lanes for all types of vehicles and limited shoulder space.
• Eastbound trestle – consists of five bridge structures, with two travel lanes for all types of vehicles and one right-side shoulder that is open to vehicles during peak travel times.
• Westside connections – I-5 ramps and interchanges to California and Walnut Streets and Hewitt Avenue in Everett.
• Eastside connections – SR 204 to the north, 20th Street Southeast to the east and US 2 to the south.

A graphic of US 2 trestle structures and roadways.

There are some additional structures and roadways within the trestle system. For example, 20th Street Southeast, which is also called the "lower roadway," is split into two roadways, one eastbound and westbound, and is located beneath the current eastbound and westbound trestles. On the east end of Ebey Island, just before 20th Street Southeast crosses the Ebey Slough Bridge, it becomes one-way eastbound and intersects with SR 204.

Study purpose

The NEPA Purpose and Need statement approved by FHWA last summer includes three major needs: multimodal mobility (efficient movement of cars, freight trucks, buses, bikes and pedestrians), safety, and state of good repair (keeping the roadways and structures maintained and functioning, especially in the event of an emergency).

We heard community support for the Purpose and Need statement during our previous online open house. Comments about the US 2 trestle system included:

• Concerns about bottlenecks at the I-5 interchange in the west and the SR 204 interchange in the east.
• Desire to advance solutions sooner, rather than later.
• Strong belief that investing in improvements (including full-time shoulders) to the trestle is necessary in case of an emergency or natural disaster.
• Concerns about lack of transit/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes approaching and across the trestle and how to enforce these lanes.
• Challenges with access to existing active transportation (bike, walk, roll) facilities across Ebey Island (between US 2/SR 204 and I-5).
• Concerns about potential for tolling and economic hardships, especially for people who live on the east side of the trestle.

Evaluating alternatives

With community input and our Purpose and Need statement guiding the way, we developed a variety of proposed improvements to the US 2 trestle and its east and west connections. The best-performing concepts were then grouped into alternatives, or packages of improvements. We are now moving through a multi-step process to evaluate alternatives. We compare each alternative to a “No Build Alternative.” This is an imaginary future in which the trestle remains exactly as it is today. Evaluating alternatives against a No Build Alternative is required in this kind of study. When evaluation is complete, we move a reasonable range of alternatives to the NEPA environmental review.  

The PEL Study process includes a multi-step screening and evaluation process for US 2 trestle alternatives.

Prescreening and Level 1 evaluations

Early in the PEL Study process, WSDOT worked with the Technical Working Group (TWG) to come up with more than 40 ideas to improve the trestle and the connecting roads on both the east and west sides. We did an early review called “pre-screening” to see if each idea could meet the study needs. This was a simple pass-or-fail test. Two ideas didn’t pass and were dropped: improving the existing structure and building a new east-west corridor on SR 526. Neither concept would address the issues with the aging westbound trestle.

The rest of the ideas moved to the next review, called “Level 1 screening.” We shared these results with our PEL Study committees and the public in fall 2025.

A graphic showing the number of concepts evaluated and carried forward during Level 1 screening.

The best ideas in the Level 1 screening were combined into seven system alternatives in the Level 2 screening.

Alternative 1: Includes three general purpose (GP) lanes and no HOV/transit lanes in each direction across the trestle structure.

A graphic showing the features of Alternative 1.

Alternative 2/2a and Alternative 4: Includes two GP lanes and one HOV/transit lane in each direction across the trestle structure, with different interchange configurations on the east and west ends.

A graphic showing the features of Alternatives 2/2a and 4.

Alternative 3: Includes three GP lanes and one shoulder that serves as a HOV/transit lane across the westbound trestle during the peak period, and two GP lanes and one shoulder that serves as an HOV/transit lane across the eastbound trestle during the peak period (similar to the existing eastbound trestle).

A graphic showing features of Alternative 3.

Alternative 5/5a: Includes three GP lanes and one shoulder that serves as a HOV/transit lane across the trestle structure during the peak period in each direction. A variation of this alternative added an auxiliary lane on southbound I-5 between US 2 and the 41st Street interchange.

A graphic showing the features of Alternative 5 and 5a.

Two-step Level 2 evaluation

We collaborated with the TWG to develop Level 2 evaluation criteria. Then we tested each alternative through technical modeling software and other measures, using that criteria to see how each system alternative performed.

After reviewing that data, we decided to split the Level 2 screening into two steps: “Level 2A screening” and “Level 2B screening.” Level 2A, which is now complete, focused mostly on the trestle. How many lanes does the trestle need, and what kind of lane arrangement would best meet the Purpose and Need? Level 2B, which is coming up next, focuses on the west and east ends of the trestle.

Level 2A results

Level 2A screening showed us that all alternatives performed better than No Build; that’s the option where we do nothing. How? During the typical morning and afternoon commutes, all system alternatives:

• Moved 10% to 30% more vehicles westbound on US 2 to Everett, with a 10% decrease in travel time in the morning.
• Decreased travel times on westbound US 2 to southbound I-5 at SR 526 in the morning by up to 13 minutes on average.
• Decreased travel times by at least 10 minutes during the afternoon commute.
• Increased the number of vehicles using northbound I-5 and eastbound US 2 by over 20% in the afternoon; reducing diversion onto Everett city streets.
• Improved access, experience, and safety for those who bike, walk and roll across the trestle.

Our main takeaway from the Level 2A screening was how to arrange the trestle to best meet the Purpose and Need: two general purpose lanes, one HOV/transit lane, and full-time shoulders. All alternatives include a continuous shared-use path on the north side of the westbound trestle.

A graphic showing how general purpose lanes, one HOV/transit lane and full shoulders can be arranged on the trestle.

Why? The transit agencies need access to full-time bus/HOV lanes to provide all-day reliable transit service. Full-time shoulders provide for the best emergency response when there is a crash on the trestle or logjams in the water. We eliminated Alternatives 1, 3 and 5 because they did not provide full-time HOV/transit lanes and/or shoulders, and traffic modeling indicated two general purpose lanes with a HOV lane was able to accommodate the traffic on the trestle.

In March 2026, WSDOT presented the two-step Level 2 screening approach to TWG partners at Snohomish County, the cities of Everett, Lake Stevens, Marysville and Snohomish, and Community Transit. From those briefings, we observed support for evaluation process and the decision on the trestle lane arrangement.

Evaluating remaining alternatives (Level 2B screening)

For the Level 2B screening, our goal is to better understand the differences among the remaining alternatives: Alternative 2, Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. Alternative 6 is the refined design of Alternative 2a from the Level 2A screening. Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 each have one design option. All remaining alternatives could be tolled.

Click the links to view conceptual designs of the Level 2B alternatives (Alternative 2, Alternative 4, Alternative 6).

What are the common features of Level 2B alternatives?

GP = general purpose; HOV = high-occupancy vehicle; SR = State Route

How are the Level 2B alternatives different?

GP = general purpose; HOV = high-occupancy vehicle

Through Level 2B we will identify the highest-performing west and east interchange improvements. We'll use traffic modeling and other methods to understand the following:

• Vehicle, freight, transit, and active transportation user experience at the east and west ends of the trestle.
• Safety analysis reviewing the number of lane changes needed for an origin to reach a destination.
• Interchange configurations requiring agreements with agencies outside of WSDOT.
• Transportation system and operational resiliency.
• Complexity of maintenance needs.

Other considerations: Environmental risks, potential construction impacts, and costs.

Level 2B will help us finalize a range of alternatives to advance to the NEPA environmental review. We will share the evaluation results in the draft PEL Study report. Thinking beyond the environmental review, we expect this will be a large, costly program of projects that will require phased construction. We anticipate starting with the most critical needs on the westbound trestle.

Environmental effects and benefits

We are also currently completing a high-level look at the potential environmental effects and benefits of the alternatives, including topics such as wetlands, parks, hazardous materials, and cultural resources. At this stage, we are seeing minimal differences among the alternatives, but we have identified sensitive areas where we will need to take a closer look at how to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. We will complete a more detailed environmental analysis of the range of alternatives in the future NEPA process.

Share your thoughts!

Share your thoughts on a reasonable range of alternatives to improve the US 2 trestle system.

• Call and leave a voicemail: (206) 539-0086
• Sign up to receive study email updates: Subscribe here