Up Front: Replacing the 520 Bridge

stuff55 said on February 7, 2010 at 12:20 PM

I feel neither should be built at this time! We are in a financially disaster! I find it amazing during these extremely hard times our Governor is still expecting the tax payers to pay for the 520 and the tunnel!

lynnwood_guy said on February 7, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I witness the light rail train several times a day, and from what I see the cars aren't even 1/4 full most of the time. If this expensive, light rail debacle is to pan out and eventually become a primary means of transportation for many people, it is imperative that it's routes be expanded dramatically, and this includes across lake washington to the eastside communities. It makes no sense to build a new 520 bridge with no provisions for light rail. As sad as it seems, we must throw more good money after bad money, by expanding the light rail system, ultimately making it a viable and worthwhile mode of transportation. Light rail should be included in the new 520 bridge.

commuter said on February 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Instead building a six lane bridge that would be instantly obsolete, we should build the eight lane bridge now. Four GP lanes, 2 HOV lanes and two for light rail. The majority of traffic already comes from the Seattle to the Eastside. That volume wil increase in the future. it's time to do right for the region.

graham said on February 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Let Seattle & King county pay for it

skyjumperdave said on February 7, 2010 at 3:32 PM

The deal with this bridge was decided on some time ago. Any changes have to be made by the state.

barrowpit said on February 8, 2010 at 1:21 AM

Please stop this ridiculous love affair with fixed rail in Seattle! They are expensive, extremely restrictive and they will not solve the transportation problems; unless of course you plan to force everyone on public transportation against the will of the people! It's unbelievable that there are still people out there calling for more fixed rail systems when it's clear that it's a total waste of time and money. Sure, they look fun but no one is riding them! If I were living in my ideal world, those behind this boondoggle would be forced to use the light rail for the rest of their lives..take their cars away! If we absolutely have to have some sort of monorail or light rail, it would make much more sense to use the interstate corridor and park and ride lots as part of the equation. THe monorail plan was flawed in this way and now the light rail is as well. Who would abandon their vehicles and ride the monorail or light rail as they have been planned thus far?

__m96__ said on February 8, 2010 at 1:06 PM

your going to have to do more with less!!

fcast5 said on February 8, 2010 at 4:45 PM

It's amazing to me people are even debating this. It goes to show how far the U.S. has sunk since all this Infrastructure stuff was done 50 plus years ago.We have crumbling bridges, crumbing 60" water mains, Delta's on the brink, sewer dumping into storm, Were converting asphalt roads back to gravel, and we no means to pay for any of this other than taxes? We're headed for disaster. Yet perhaps if enough lives are lost we may find a way to all get along and accomplish something.

dhnelson56 said on February 28, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Why not replace the 520 bridge. As in the past people get up in a roar about encroachment issues along with cost. It would be cheaper in the long run to replace it now than in the future. But as history has shown us that Wahsingtonians tend to procrastanate and put things off until it ends up costing us more in the long run. We do not need to spend more on evaluations or debates, we need to do something about the infrastructure issue and do it now. HN

randysvh said on March 1, 2010 at 12:16 AM

The 520 bridge proposal is way out of line when it comes to updating for the future needs of the transportation system of the 520 highway system. It seems engineers only think in short term needs and not what is not only needed now, but in the near future as the growth continues over the next 5 -10 years. Engineers know that when you go from three lanes to two you are going to have a backup problem during rush hour. Much of the 520 highway is a full 6 lanes, three in each direction. With the bridge at only two in each direction creates a bottle neck. To grow the bridge with anything less than three lanes for all traffic in both directions is a failure in design and potential growth. Agreed, that there should be two additional lanes added for transit and light rail growth. Everything should be done to grow the 520 highway so that it can handle the traffic of now and the near future. Short sided thinking of just adding a lane in each direction is poor use of taxes and planning.