Gregoire Vetoes 20-Foot Height Limit on 520 Bridge and Planning for Carpool Lanes With Light Rail

Comments

It might be worth your while to check what current Coast Guard regs say, rather than assuming that they must be alright because the current bridge is only 12 feet high. Things might have changed since it was constructed.

Matt from Denver on March 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Dominic, please stay on this line of the story.

Our City Council continues, time and again, to fight for the interests of Seattle in deference to making nice with the State; I suppose the goal of making nice with the State is to get what we need every now and then.

But, when every now and then doesn't include the major projects like the Viaduct and now 520, when is it going to happen?

Conlin's responses here are extremely disappointing. And, the Governor continues to show that she thinks Seattle will never choose to vote for anyone other than the Dem Governor.

Timothy on March 30, 2010 at 4:56 PM

I really hope Gregoire doesn't run in 2012 so that we can replace her with someone better.

Cascadian on March 30, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Sadly, Cascadian may be right.

Will in Seattle on March 30, 2010 at 5:04 PM

If you watch what Conlin actually does as opposed to the progressive-sounding sweet nothings that emit from his head you wouldn't be so surprised. He seems an expert at concern trolling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_tro…

gregSea on March 30, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Oops…there was a typo in my post @2:

Should say:

Our City Council fails, time and again, to fight for the interests of Seattle in deference to making nice with the State; I suppose the goal of making nice with the State is to get what we need every now and then.

Timothy on March 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I agree with her thought process, though...

Get involved BEFORE zero hour, or shut the fuck up.

TheMisanthrope on March 30, 2010 at 5:34 PM

@3 that's right, like Rob McKenna.

This bill was a win for our regional transportation system. On this, I agree with the Gov.

on March 30, 2010 at 5:39 PM

This bridge is going to be completed in 2080, and it's going to have one section that's 24 lanes wide, three sections with two lanes, a 2,000 car parking garage in the middle, a Chihuly museum, and it's not quite going to meet in the middle.

Fnarf on March 30, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Nah, we all agree on the pontoons, it's just the offramps to/from the landing and at the exits that are in discussion.

It will be done, but Seattle needs to man up and fight dirty. Sadly, Council seems to be beholden to the "stakeholders" that don't vote here, instead of the citizens who do.

Will in Seattle on March 30, 2010 at 5:48 PM

So what is Conlin getting from the governor? There's got to be another part of this; he couldn't be enraging his constituents and giving away the city's negotiating leverage for nothing...could he?

coise on March 30, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Conlin is a fraud. Always has been. Always will be. He talks the green talk but walks the asphalt walk.

on March 30, 2010 at 7:36 PM

@3: Haha. As if.

@12: I'm with you. We need to get real on these priorities, if they are priorities.

But let's be clear: it's more our fault than theirs. They have little to fear by screwing over progressive reform. We have to make it hurt politically for ignoring the reasonable route of approaching these problems and deciding instead to keep on keepin' on with politics-as-usual.

In other words, organize.

doesurmindglow on March 30, 2010 at 8:00 PM

@13 maybe if you had chimed in ages ago...

TheMisanthrope on March 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM

@8

Rob McKenna wanted 8 general purpose lanes on 520 when he was on the King County Council.

Spicy McHaggis on March 30, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Thank god the Governor has sense. There is no reason to cater to hipster-mass transit riding- cars suck-types. I can hear the air being sucked out of McMayor and his no cars on bridges compatriots right now. Sounds good....

mrbombit on March 30, 2010 at 9:00 PM

@16 oh go back to driving your coal-fired 15 mpg tractor

Will in Seattle on March 30, 2010 at 9:11 PM

As to the height, I kind of like beautiful, soaring, well designed bridges! And how about the future trains on the pontoons below? Seems the big issues are NOISE (which reflects off lake, (and increases with SPEED)), and UGLYNESS. Why not rethink that flat span or highway out there, and get some gorgeous arches and curves, where car noise stays 'up there' more of its length?

on March 30, 2010 at 9:22 PM

When reporting gets a little thin, Seattle Transit Blog's really helpful.

gloomy gus on March 30, 2010 at 9:39 PM

@16

If Seattle sucks so much, why the fuck do you want to build a massive new bridge so you can come here?

I swear to god, if Seattle wanted to get rid of everyone else in the state, all we'd have to do would be to push really hard for a state statute saying that nobody outside of Seattle is allowed to pour gasoline on themselves and set themselves on fire. Every one of you morons would go up like a roman candle just to spite the faux-this urban-that.

Judah on March 30, 2010 at 10:56 PM

This is going to affect the view from my property, so I really should favor a lower bridge, but damn I love seeeing the wind taken out of the sails of Seattle's eco-social engineers.

P.S. Fnarf @ 9 for the win.

David Wright on March 30, 2010 at 10:58 PM

P.S. Fnarf @ 9 for the win.

i don't necessarily agree, but you got my vote for the laugh out loud quote of the day. nice work.

on March 30, 2010 at 11:32 PM

All this will be moot when the Seattle Fault comes alive. There won't be anything left to connect to 520.

sarah68 on March 31, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Nice spin, Dom. But if you read the rest of Grygiel's story you get the truth, which is that they are already planning to lower the height to 20 feet in almost all sections, but may need to exceed it a bit in a few areas. It is unnecessary to legislate this. As for light rail on 520, there is no serious proposal for funding this and buses can do a better job for the next 20 years while we build a rail network. We just need to make sure the design can accommodate rail in the future. Which they are working on.

westside on March 31, 2010 at 12:21 AM

@20: Get your head out of your ass. If 520 exists only for the purpose of getting all those damn suburbanites into Seattle, why does this show stop-and-go traffic on the eastbound lanes every morning?

Greg on March 31, 2010 at 8:25 AM

The current 520 is also a DRAWBRIDGE to comply with coast guard regulations. I'm curious how that is included in the new plans; haven't read about that anywhere.

sammielu on March 31, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Just so we're clear:

Intervening at the last minute is ok in the case of doing the sr99 deep bore tunnel. Intervening to protect or improve mass transit on 520 is horrible obstructionism.

wlodekb on March 31, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Gregoire Vetoes 20-Foot Height Limit on 520 Bridge and Planning for Carpool Lanes With Light Rail

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

The Urban Archipelago

A Water Goddess at the International Arrivals Facility

The Madam Who Turned to Stone

Meteor Showers and Makeouts: The Stranger Does Day In Day Out

We Probably Do Not Need Cops Directing Traffic at Sports Games

Two Photography Titans Are Coming to Seattle

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!