Unless transit is a part of the original design, there is no real effort to make it feasible in the future.
The problem we're seeing in Seattle now is trying to 'shoehorn' transit onto streets where cars have the right of way. When that right of way is 'taken away' there is a lot of commotion from drivers because they view transit as an attack on their current ease of access.
The only way the Dept. of Transportation can be viewed as taking the concerns of people who don't drive seriously is if Light Rail is included in the original design.
As it is now, I see billions of dollars going for more roads which will increase congestion, greenhouse gasses, and more avoidance of real area mobility.

Enigma is correct.

However, it is true that it is feasible, with the changes that were made, to add light rail to the bridge. The main barriers were the lane widths on the bridge and sufficient width past the bridge for a reasonable gradient change to get the light rail out of the traffic corridor envelope, and they did make those changes.

But, yeah, we're still massively subsidizing cars over everything else. We don't even have carbon tariffs on highway usage like any decent first world nation does.

If its feasible, sure, whatever, just as long as the light rail goes to Kirkland or Juanita. Already have a light rail going to Bellevue, why do we need another one?

NOTE: The company I work for is right in the middle of the light rail line, were going to have to move in a few years. Sucks, but as long as we dont move to Bothell, I should be fine (I dont own a car).

@3 it's called a loop. Most transit systems start with a loop and then spur out. This allows the train sets to run on routes (or "lines"). They also integrate well with car users that way.

If it can't take light rail, they shouldn't build it. It's as simple as that. It would be more appropriate to ask whether it should have car lanes on it or not.

That vast green thing with the squiggly "bike and pedestrian lanes" scares the crap out of me. Because it's so huge. And because bikes and pedestrians are just dying to toodle around aimlessly in a heap of landscaping surrounded on all sides by multilane freeways.

Thing's a neighborhood-killer. I think it's hilarious that people are so focused on the viaduct but have allowed this monstrosity to go forward. Look at the size of the hole in the city that thing leaves.

We'll guard our wallets bickering til it sinks in a storm to trigger FEMA dollars. An earthquake could take out the Portage Bay highrise bit, plus the viaduct, for a FEMA twofer.

Oh, yeah, a "park". How charming. Look at the freeway. There's already a huge park just to the right there, why do they need more?

The question isn't "what's there now", It's about the opportunity lost.

Most of the land is currently the MOHAI building, which is actually pretty gorgeous, and attracts people. This lid is going to attract nada. It's going to be another Rose Kennedy Greenway: http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/ar…

Enjoy the tolls. They're starting very soon.

Oh, and the utility taxes for the Billionaires' Tunnel? You're paying them, suburbanites.

Ciao, Bella.

The eastside will fight light rail, just like wealthy folks in San Mateo fought BART. To them, mass transit means "poor people." They want to keep those types out of their neighborhood.

Will in Seattle, as usual, is a complete idiot on the subject. We're building light rail over I-90. No bridge over Lake Washington is going to last more than 50 years, given the harsh conditions. There's no way we're going to fund another light-rail crossing over Lake Washington within 50 years (it will be a miracle, given our sales tax base, if we get the I-90 bridge built). So relax. Light rail can wait for the next incarnation of the 520 bridge.

I'm a big transit fan--love buses and cycling--hate driving--but fellow transit dorks, is there ANY other community in the world that funds mass transit as generously as Seattle (0.9% sales tax to Metro, another 0.9% to Sound Transit, plus car tab taxes--nearly 2% of every dollar spent in the region, plus the fares charged)?

Yeah, it's nice in theory to build a bridge that "could" accommodate light rail... but we simply don't need the 520 bridge to do so.

We're not planning for any connections in that corridor right now. (In fact, a connection there could be infeasible with our current planned system.)

Looking out to the future, we need to build to Northgate and Federal Way and Bellevue first; and we need to PLAN for the west side of Seattle and Lynnwood. So we won't even get to planning a possible second lake crossing for at least 30+ years, much less building one in the next couple of decades.