For the denizens of Seattle and surrounding environs, if you are in support

[gateley]

of Mayor McGinn's attempt to include light rail in the plans for the 'new' 520 bridge, please call his office and contact the Governor, City Council and your State Rep.

I just read an article in the Times, they've been working on a plan for thirteen years! It astounds me that consistently our city refuses to acknowledge that we're not the Seattle of days gone by, as though millions haven't moved here and added to the traffic volume over the past several years. Whenever a study is done to address traffic problems, I always say 'their solution will be to add another HOV lane' -- and that's not too far from the truth.

If we don't convince the powers that be to make provisions for light rail in the design they're currently planning on implementing, it will be impossible to add it at a later time. McGinn wants to at least have the new design be capable of accommodating light rail in the future.

I'm so proud of this city in so many ways -- a leader in recycling, for example, but in others I'm downright embarrassed and angry at how the Council is living in the past and lacks vision.

Here's the Times article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011536785_520bridge07m.html

McGin's office: [phone] (I just spoke with them and they are keeping track of the calls of support)

Gregoire: 360-902-4111

Seattle City Council: http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/councilcontact.htm (9 members, this has their phone #'s and links to their e-mails)

ALSO: The City Council is having a public comment hearing:
Public Comment
Thursday, April 8, 5:30 p.m.
Seattle City Council’s SR 520 Draft Consultant Report
This meeting will held in the Seattle City Council Chambers on the 2nd floor of the Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue.

And finally, your Rep.

Thanks!! :hi:

[pnwmom]

1. Thanks for posting, gateley! Will do! Recommended. n/t

[gateley]

3. Thanks! I just spoke w/Gregoire's office and I got the impression that this

isn't even on her radar, but that could just be my impression. The woman I spoke with was non-committal and said she'd be "happy to pass the message along" and invited me to e-mail the Gov. (which I already had).

I'm thinking that the City Council members are the ones who really need to hear this, since they're the ones involved and making the decisions. I've e-mailed them and have begun calling, and this is actually going to get me off my butt and down to the hearing. I just can't believe after 13 years of planning, and with how much traffic volume has grown during that time, they're actually not even considering light rail!

Anyway, thanks again! :pals:

[MrCoffee]

2. I'm all for light rail on 520, but it will never happen

The Eastside (and Microsoft) will make sure of that.

[gateley]

4. Why would the Eastside/Microsoft be opposed? I've personally inched along

next to Bill Gates on a morning commute to Redmond years ago. I also think real estate would benefit - people might be more willing to buy property over there if they knew the commute into Seattle wasn't a nightmare twice a day.

But those are just my opinions -- how come you think they're not shared by Microsoft, et al?

[MrCoffee]

5. They don't want to expand the eastside footprint to accommodate light rail

and the redesign of the westside approach (which is horrible to begin with) would necessitate further waiting.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/02/04/city-council-caves-to-suburban-pressure-on-520

The Eastside is happy with the "A+" option (the current design). Microsoft is pushing hard to move ahead with the status quo.

http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2010/03/10/important-progress-for-the-520-bridge.aspx

[pnwmom]

7. I'm on the Eastside and I know lots of people who'd like rail on the bridge. n/t

[gateley]

11. Oh, Man! SEE?

" The two new lanes would hold carpools and buses. This is called Option A+. "

When are they going to realize nobody carpools? And on 520 you only need two people to qualify!! :banghead: It would be ideal if we did carpool and take transit, but the majority of people don't, and I don't think that's going to change. It hasn't after all these years, anyway.

Montlake DOES suck but so does trying to get across from the East side into Seattle. When I worked in Redmond, my evening commute was always far worse. I'd end up driving into Kirkland via surface streets and catching 520 from there.

I don't like the idea of expanding the footprint on either side, and I hate to see more of the Arboretum compromised, but we have to be pragmatic. What we want is not necessarily what we need or what will ultimately serve us better.

I'm 57 and I want my city to be as it was when I was younger. I always feel sad when there are big changes. (I even hate to see the Viaduct go!) But it's 2010, time marches on and we need to keep pace.

Those were interesting articles -- thanks! :hi:

[MrCoffee]

13. McGinn is trying to clean up more of Nickels' mess

I think Nickels ignored 520 in favor of his Viaduct tar-baby, which is why light-rail is coming in so late in the game.

I appreciate what McGinn is trying to do, he's just going to have a serious uphill fight the whole way, and it looks like it's too late to stay Olympia's hand.

[brooklynite]

8. Sound Transit is already planning light rail via 520 into Redmond

http://projects.soundtransit.org/Projects-Home/East-Link-Project.xml

[MrCoffee]

9. By crossing the lake at I-90 and making the University station less relevant.

Sound Transit's plan is for downtown commuters, not UW/northside traffic.

[gateley]

10. That's I-90 -- the other bridge (the first floating bridge!). I was pleased to see

this, but I think that if I had to pick between the two, I'd go with 520. I-90 has already been rebuilt and more lanes added after it sunk during a storm. 520 hasn't had any upgrades or expansion to speak of since it was built (in the 60's).

In the article you linked to, it mentions a route along 520, but I think that picks up on 520 on the East side of the lake -- not the bridge spanning it.

[stevedeshazer]

6. Good luck, I hope Seattle goes for light rail.

The longer it is put off, the more expensive and difficult it becomes.

We've had it in Portland starting with the MAX Blue line since 1986, gradually expanding to four lines that all intersect at or near the downtown core with at least one more line planned. It's a huge success (unless you talk to a right-winger who would never get out of his Hummer anyway) and I have used it a lot.

I've never understood why Seattle didn't adopt a similar project instead adding to the freeway system and putting Band-Aids on the Alaska Way viaduct. Such acts just perpetuate the use of cars, not to mention parking problems.

Most Portlanders are happy with the Max system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_Light_Rail

[gateley]

12. Thanks -- and I agree. We've been putting it off for years. Every time a traffic

issue comes up light rail is proposed, and ultimately discounted. I don't understand it, either -- it's made me so angry and frustrated.

I think people view Seattle as more leading-edge, hipper, whatever, than Portland (which always seems to be described as retaining that small town feeling), yet you're light years ahead of us in many areas.

That's wonderful that Max has met with great success. 1986! Kudos to those who were able to plan realistically and take seriously the concern of traffic congestion and pollution. Set another plate at your table -- I'm on my way! I want to live in a SMART city! :hi: