Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
It's like the preservationist, anti-freeway battles of the 60s and 70s were never fought. Will they be flattening Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square next?
Let's give a "Silver Medal" to elected officials who really, really like transit, and will build it, as soon as they're done building roads!
We have a lot of faux-transit support in Seattle and Olympia. At least Clibborn is honest in her disdain for anything other than roads. But, for those officials who claim to love transit and transit-oriented development, and yet, can never quite find the fortitude to actually support good projects, we need to recognize their valiant efforts.
Moderation is the enemy of progress.
Just think, we CAN have our cake and eat it too.
Typical Seattle block heads will build the thing halfway across the Lake and then terminate, realizing the futility of it all.
There's just not that much daylight between what each Seattle side in these dueling press conferences wants, especially when our new shadow mayor Tim Burgess writes things like: “I personally believe that the two additional lanes—lanes five and six—should be limited to transit only from the start.”
And can't everybody in Seattle agree that the key transit stop in the Montlake area for 520 has to be within a reasonable walking distance of the Husky Stadium light rail station? We all know that, if an east-west light rail line eventually does get built over 520, it's not going to be able to feed into Central Link. But people will still need to transfer. And whether it's light rail or express buses or BRT, it would be remarkably shortsighted to make it a pain in the ass for people to transfer to Central Link.
This just seems like the kind of thing that McGinn, council, Gregoire, Chopp, Murray, WSDOT, and even (as much as I despise her) Judy Clibborn should be able to work out without throwing a monkey wrench into the works. And it doesn't behoove any of these parties to stall this project.
Jesus Christ Eastsiders, I know some of you don't get further down Montlake than Husky Stadium, but where the fuck are two Montlake bridges worth of cars supposed to go, exactly?
If the viaduct replacement project can be divided up into three or four major sub-projects operating on their own timelines, why not this one? Doesn't it serve the people who are fighting for a better westside 520 solution to make it clear that they're not holding up the entire project?
Even if it's been part of large projects since ... before WW II.
All this because they're peeved their precious Billionaires Tunnel doesn't have popular support from the actual voters in Seattle ... so they take it out on the 520 bridge.
My fear is that Burgess is playing this game; saying one thing but specifically meaning another. So, while I agree that what he said looks like it's in line with McGinn, Murray, Pedersen and Chopp, he chose to stand with Clibborn et al rather than with the Seattle coalition.
It's troubling.
For example, how many of you understand that the new bridge will no longer float on the water, but will be elevated 30 feet above the Water? That's a dramatic change in the water skyline.
Just imagine how boneheaded it would be to spend $4.65 billion on a bridge, dedicate one-third of the lanes on that bridge to transit (whether mixed with cars or not), and then not bother making it easy to get to the nearest light rail station. I suppose some people are so determined to cripple transit in this region that they don't mind crippling this region's economic viability--and wasting taxpayer money--in the process.
Changing the number of lanes causes problems with the Eastside alignment; changing pontoon height would require minor changes to the highrise design.
My two cents: McGinn & Council need to pull their head out of asses on pontoon height and undesigned LR alignments. Focus on integration with LR at Husky Stadium, lack of direct transit access to HOV lanes eastbound from Montlake, and unfuck the Arboretum design. Jeebus...
You only remove the old bridge after the new one is in service.
Just imagine how boneheaded it would be to spend $4.65 billion on a bridge, dedicate one-third of the lanes on that bridge to transit (whether mixed with cars or not), and then not bother making it easy to get to the nearest light rail station. I suppose some people are so determined to cripple transit in this region that they don't mind crippling this region's economic viability--and wasting taxpayer money--in the process.
One civil engineer in our office thinks that as gasoline becomes prohibitive for SOV drivers we will see the highways all shrink a little, with the current HOV lanes becoming Rail operative, and an HOV2/3+ lane eating one of the regular lanes, and so on.
Most of us take ST 550 via i-90 over to our office across from the new El Gaucho (which is alright! by the way), its a good bus, runs on the busway, stops once on Mercer Island, right intot he transit center here. Then it runs HOV lane returning to Seattle,, rarely a delay..but when there are delays everyone screams about how great this run will be once there are dedicated train/bus east LINK lanes. whizzing by everyone in their cars (who possibly paid a toll) will be fantastic.
The notion to construct a new 520 bridge without building rail lines on it is ridiculous--only more than building a 6+ car (mix of HOV and SOV). the impact on the initial hoods surrounding the west portal to seattle will be devasting--and there will suddenly be a helluva lot more people getting off on the Harvard exit and trucking down 10th to broadway, making CH more of a clusterfuck than it already is--not to mention the slo moving SLUT that is going to be built there. Really everyone living in CH should be fired up about this, it will heavily impact all the way down to First Hill.
As a central district resident I see constant reminders of the highway that was intended to be built on MLK aside from those ghostly ramps in Montlake. IF the MLK highway had been built, the Central District would be a lot worse off now as it trudges through its decades-long neglect, or usage as a Containment Zone by the city and policymakers of the region.
It's time to have the council members come from specific districts and be accountable to those people and those people only. Under the current scheme, they are beholden to any neighborhood with economic clout, no matter how small - or whatever group is causing a stir. And, it is a mess. There should be some level of "populism." but it should be because all geographical interests, and the specific needs that each one has ('cause they are different on this side of the lake), are taken into account on a decision. The days of decisions without consequence are over. [Seriously, what neighborhood/district would elect Jean Godden to represent it? 'nuff said.]
And, if Bellevue wants to invest in car-favorable-only "transit" options, that is its prerogative. And, it's prerogative stops at the water (or somewhere within it). Wanna stick with roads? Then, widen 405 because that is Your Road, Eastside, and it can get you north, south, and west (eventually). Otherwise, you might want to look into a water taxi for when that bridge ends in the middle of the lake.
For those of you who want Seattle to be like Bellevue, (flat, wide, bland), there is already a city and infrastructure waiting for you on the other side, don't let the water hit you on the ass on the way out.
With all the turnover and stress on the 7th floor -- i bet you can finally get that job you wanted with McGinn that you didn't get from the Ambassadors. I do know they appreciate their press releases printed verbatim by the Stranger. Doing a heck of job Bushnell.
Fuck them.
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/qu…;
And it doesn't matter what the people in City Hall think of the Mayor, we voted for him, not City Hall. He's not an appointed position, he's elected. Of course, your "in" with City Hall amounts to reporting you scrape from Pubicola, whereas most in City Hall are professional enough to understand what a new mayor's burn-in period is like unless they're under the gun for a future pink slip.
You know who else is elected? City Councilmembers. You know who is going to take heat for all this by standing front and center? City Councilmembers.
Oh, poo.
That's one part of the EIS at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Br…. It was produced more than 3 years ago. But I think it's still valid, and in any case I couldn't find any newer docs that showed a 30 feet profile.
Twenty-five feet is bad enough. Apparently, between the greater width, the goal of supporting eventual rail connections, and the requirement to build to more exacting standards, the pontoons have to be higher.
I'm beginning to come around to the "don't build it at all" point of view. I was already upset enough that it was taking a bigger footprint in a neighborhood that can't handle the capacity.
Anyone know how tall I-90 is?
This crowd is trying to hijack better transit for everyone by making the 520 all about them. How is it that people don't get this. The group of Montlake interests who had a news conference on Monday with the Mayor have zero interest in the environment or transit. They are real newcomers to the topic. Their sole focus has been on their neighborhood and their yacht clubs.
Until Monday, they had been promoting an alternative that cost $2 billion more than the one selected and was far worse for transit and far worse for the Lake Washington ecosystem than any other. And they wanted everyone else to pay for it.
Someone writing these articles has not been paying attention or has been smoking way too much weed.
Montlake is not the only neighborhood in Seattle. A small part of the 43rd district along the waterfront is not Seattle. The Seattle Council has not caved to anyone. It has stood up to rich special interests who had previously hamstrung anything happening.
Deep pockets.
VERY deep pockets.
Guess the pro-roads anti-transit suburbanites bit off a bit more than they can chew with this one.
Should have backed down ...
Today's Seattle Times says that "Downtown" is imploding.
Pretty soon Seattle will be evacuated and I-90 will have 50 percent more capacity than is needed.
No one wants to live in high density. They want to have a garage and drive to the mall.
The urb is dead.
If you want to get to the east side from the north end on the bus, you're screwed.
And the arboretum ramps? Oh yeah, that's another great development.
PDF Document can be found here.
On page 19 of the PDF (page 11 according to document pagination), it says:
The existing bridge is 10 feet above water. This claims the new span would be 22 feet taller than that, for a grand total of 32 feet taller.
So BetterTransitNow, you've pretty much accused these folks of mounting a disinformation campaign. But your post could just as well be its own little disinformation campaign--because nowhere do you address the facts involved. All you do is (A) question their motives and (B) play the elitist special interest card.
As far as I'm concerned (and as far as you claim to be concerned), the issue at hand is what kind of effect these plans would have on transit riders. So let me ask you, with the A+ option, what kind of experience would transit riders on 520 face to try to connect to the Husky Stadium light rail station?
Point two: We should keep the Montlake flyer stop. That said, if we have to lose it, the midday and nighttime service that people currently use there needs to be replaced. We need UW-Redmond, UW-Kirkland, and UW-Bellevue service to keep us from screwing UW students, faculty, and staff – not to mention patients and game-fans. That means Sound Transit’s new route 542 would need to run from 5am to 11pm seven days a week. The 540 would have to run on weekends and late at night. If the legislature is choosing to remove the flyer stop, they need to mitigate the loss with dedicated transit funding.
I think the other debates about transit on the bridge are distracting us from these two immediate issues.
http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/02/02…
I'm trying to visualize, but isn't it a bit of a hike from the Montlake flyer stop to the Husky Stadium station? So that stop is not going to help much in terms of connectivity for transit riders.
For me, the question comes down to this. For those bus routes running on 520 for which it makes sense, how easy is it going to be for them to get to that light rail station? Imagine a situation where the moment the bus gets off the HOV lane, it's stuck in the traffic jam in Montlake with everyone else.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/sr520le…
Erin O'Connor